Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A67430
|
The advocate of conscience liberty, or, An apology for toleration rightly stated shewing the obligatory injunctions and precepts for Christian peace and charity.
|
Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.
|
1673
(1673)
|
Wing W627; ESTC R17873
|
108,039
|
320
|
it This argument I urge no further than to evince in their justification that their unwillingness to swear is no evidence to prove their want of allegiance or any backwardness to lay down their lives and fortunes in his Majesties service For the practical part of the Subjects allegiance is that which only concerns the security of a Prince which all Catholicks will gladly swear unto Therefore I hope a true and real tenderness of Conscience which can have no ill consequence with it in relation to his Majesties safety will give no offence to them that are over them nor be a motive to hold a rigorous hand upon them Especially seeing these threescores years since the Oath was first established it hath been refused by Catholicks to be taken upon the score of Conscience though universally taken by others of any dignity conferred upon them in Church or State Yet no Catholick in England of any note or quality that all this time did act contrary to their allegiance sworn unto in the Oath On the other side I could wish it were as difficult to name those amongst the takers of the Oath who have so fatally broken them half the Kingdome being in rebellion contrary to what they had sworn to the ruine of the best King and the best man which perhaps this Nation had ever cause to glory in As for the Oath of Supremacy Luther Calvin Knox Gilby all pretended Reformers disliked it Calvin in his Commentary on Osee saith who advanced Hen. 8. to such a height did not well for they no less than blasphemed when they called him Supream Head under Christ Chemnitius a learned Lutheran in his Epist ad eloc. Briard of Queen Eliz. Supremacy saith quod foeminae a saeculis inaudito fastu se papissam caput Ecclesiae facit So Gilby in Admonit ad Angl. Our Cartwright also teacheth against Supremacy So do Presbyterians generally here and beyond Sea Henry the eighth once acknowledged the Supremacy more than ever any King did as appeared by Cardinal Campeius and Wolsey Legates he being called before them After his will being not executed made the Oath against Supremacy This Oath of Supremacy as it is worded and according to the sense of the first Lawgiver cannot lawfully be taken by any Christian or assembly without contradicting his belief understanding it Grammatically according to the proper and natural sense of the words at least ambiguous if not formally contradictory or the cause or reason of framing this Oath by Hen. 8. and what power was exercised by virtue of it and of the Parliament enjoining it appears to be a jurisdiction purely spiritual was communicated to him and assumed by him It s evident also by the many practises it was only a spiritual by-title of Supremacy he sought for to deprive the Pope for he stood in need of such a power to justifie his divorce and dispense with his intention of taking Ecclesiastical livings of Abbies Monasteries into his hands The Protection in King Edward the sixth continued the Oath to make new Church-Laws Institutions and commit new Sacriledges changes ubique arti contrary to which King Heâ— 8. published and declared Queen Mary renounces this jurisdiction and restores it to the Church Queen Elizabeth re-assumes it having a greater necessity for it then her Brother because her marriage was declared null by the Pope This Oath consists of two parts the affirmative as that the King is only Supream Head as well in Temporal as Spiritual c. Secondly the Negative that no Prince Prelate c. hath any jurisdiction or spiritual Power c. This Negative part of the Oath is contrary to a point of their Faith wherein not only all spiritual authority of the Pope but of a general Council or Western Church is disclaimed Is all jurisdiction purely spiritual only in the Kings right are Princes Pastors of Souls hath not a Heathen King the same spiritual right How could King James then call the Pope Patriarch of the West or how can a free general Council oblige Christians and to which learned Protestants profess to submit to as the chiefest authority under God And although in Queen Elizabeths time the Oaths were explicated that only civil and Kingly authority in causes Ecclesiastical was intended yet this negative clause cannot be by such expositions eluded Secondly An Oath to Catholicks and tender Consciences is so dreadful that they dare not call God to witness they sincerely swear the Pope ought not to have any Superiority in spiritual causes unless it might be permitted them at the same time and the same breath to signifie that it is intended of civil and Kingly authority in causes Ecclesiastical They tremble to swear at words ambiguous but formally contradictory Thirdly In the thirty nine Artticles of the Church of England it is defined that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Kingdome and these Articles are confirmed by Act of Parliament Whereby it appears their intention is to require a renuntiation of a Catholick point of Faith and the Popes being Head of the Western Church This Act being made since the said exposition The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance if the former were so expressed as to require an acknowledgement of a civil Supremacy in his Majesty and Ecclesiastical to the Church-Governours and if the unfortunate word Heretical and speculative points were left out of the other no Catholick would refuse either And more then this no Protestant Presbyterian c. that freely take them can intend by them an Oath being in it self a religious affirmation with Gods Seal Whosoever takes these Oaths absolutely must swear to take Almighty God to witness as he shall answer at the dreadful day of Judgment that he believes the Pope hath no Power c. now this word believe being in a matter of Religion and Profession of the same can signifie nothing but a Christian belief or Faith and imports thus much I N. N. do swear in the presence of Almighty God that the Pope hath no Power c. As I believe there is a God in Heaven or any other Article of Faith all this is virtually and really comprehended in the word believe Now what man of Conscience of what Opinion soever that feareth an Oath to use the Preachers words Eccles 9. 2. will venture his Soul so far as to swear all this are we all of us so certain that no forraign jurisdiction c. or that its Heretical c. as we are certain there is a God Heaven Hell c. and so make it a part of and Article of our Belief when it is not expresly nor plainly revealed in Scripture or declared by the Church and so not fundamental to our Belief or absolutely necessary to our Salvation If you say it may be obscurely delivered in Scripture then at least the unlearned cannot be able to discover it How then shall such dare to swear as in effect they do when they take the Oaths that
disloyalty from them that have freely taken them and none in Catholicks that have refused For the Oaths by none more readily taken and earnestly imposed on others than by those who began the Wars and promoted the Covenant and on the contrary by none more scrupled and refused than by those who always assisted the King ¶ Thirdly it may be objected as lately by Doctor Denton c. That Papists suffer not for Religion but because they are not obedient to the Laws c. Resp 1. By a Proviso of the Act 25 and 27. of Eliz. if any Priest committed shall submit to the Laws and take the Oaths they shall be freed from the penalty and not adjudged Traytors if they renounce their Religion Resp 2. Suppose that in the Apostles time a Law had been made by any King or Emperour of a contrary Religion to them that if any of the said Apostles or Priests should enter into their Dominions to preach a contrary Doctrine to to the Religion there received and to exercise any of their Apostolical or Priestly Functions it should be treason and under pain of death Would or could the Apostles have obeyed those Laws or did they obey the Governours of the Jews their lawful Superiours when they commanded them to preach no more in the name of Jesus Christ or to disperse Christian Doctrine which they held for Treason or did they fly out of their Dominions lest their sufferings should be imputed to disobedience and not for the name of Christ Is there not another blood to be respected called by the Prophet the blood of the Soul whereof the Pastor shall be guilty if he fly for fear or forsake his flock in time of danger and persecution Have not the English Priests the same Obligation of Conscience to help their Country-men in spiritual necessities as had the Apostles and Apostolick men to strangers for whose help they were content to offer their lives and incur any danger whatsoever ¶ Fourthly It may be demanded why cannot Papists come to our Churches Resp Unity and Vniformity are two things one being internal the other external therefore if they should conform yet they can have no verity faith or truth but as forced by which Religion is never better'd Truth and falshood are like the clay in Nebuchadonosors Image they may cleave but they will never incorporate Christ's Coat had no seam though the Churches vesture was of divers colours whence a learned Father saith in veste varietas sit scissura non sit The true God hath this attribute that he is a jealous God and therefore his worship and religion will endure no mixture or partner ¶ Fifthly To say or object the Popes Supremacy is dangerous This reflects not only upon the honour of Catholicks but the safety of all the Professors of it They acknowledg the Pope as Successor to Saint Peter is head of the Church and hath supream Authority in matters spiritual but how this can be offensive to the Temporalities of Princes is not understood by me nor those great Monarchs that are of his Church and submit to his authority and and yet are zealous and jealous of their own power and temporal Regalities as any Princes can possible be Our graver and more learned Divines distinguish between the inward power of the Keys and the outward jurisdiction by temporal penalties this they assign to the King in all causes and over all persons that they reserve to the Clergy as neither derived from or dependent of the Civil Magistrate And if I rightly understand the Religion of the English Church although they allow the King to be supream Governour of their Church yet they do not confer any Pastoral Office or Jurisdiction upon him and consequently he is one of the Flock and therefore as such he is subject to Pastors Wherefore if this be not looked on by Protestants as derogatory to the Kings authority I hope by the same reason Roman Catholicks will not be found guilty for owning the Popes Supreamacy in matters meerly spiritual There can be no just fear or jealousie that spiritual jurisdiction should supplant secular obedience because the Church-Discipline in it self is so innocent and passive We our selves acknowledg a spiritual authority in the Bishops promise a Canonical obedience to them and not to the King admit Jurisdiction in their spiritual Courts c. nay the Presbyterians in their Consistory and ecclesiastical Courts will allow the King no authority at all more than the meanest Subject and so do other Sects Now if a Subject v. g. the Bishop of Canterbury may be supream in Spirituals without any derogation to the Prince may not the Pope with less danger and inconvenience be truely called as King James did the Patriarch or Superintendent of the West For if that power be purely spiritual being of a different nature as is said before it cannot in the least degree be prejudicial to the Kings civil power but rather oblige those that acknowledg it faithfully to obey the King Therefore it ought to be no obstacle to Toleration otherwise no Christians or Sect whatsoever ought to be tolerated for let them be Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists c. do not they depend upon and own a power distinct from his Majesties Civil Power I mean a Power meerly spiritual or pastoral not subordinate to the King but to which the King himself if he be of your Religion ought to be subject as no Pastor but a Sheep no Teacher but a Hearer no Administer of Sacraments but a Receiver Such a Power all Sects and Religions seem to own no Catholick depends on or can own more The spirituall Primacy of the chief Pastor preserves peace and unity and is a greater defence to them than many Armies in subduing their minds to civil obedience without such a spiritual authority there is no influence on the people all preaching and Laws are but shaking Bulwarks to support Monarchy No Kingdom hath been more happy at home or glorious abroad than when the Pope was their spirituall Father When such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schismes nor poisoned with Heresies the honour and safety of our Dominions were far from being prejudiced or invaded It is denied then the owning Supremacy should worse their condition shall notions convince experience when a demonstration it self often gives way to practice Let 's summon the Kings of Europe of Catholick Profession to decide the contrary unanimously and proclaim their people are not rebellious by reason of any ecclesiastical dependance abroad Roman Catholicks did ever renounce any temporal power or jurisdiction belonging to the Pope over any Subject of his Majesties But since there is a Power purely spiritual as is shewed before from which Princes are not exempted Is it not more for their temporal security that the spiritual power should reside in one single person that usually is both learned and discreet and withal is a thousand