Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	pope_n	prince_n	1,488	5	5.9235	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59898	A vindication of a passage in Dr. Sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable House of Commons, May 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the Church of England, to both Houses of Parliament.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing S3369; ESTC R202693	19,865	30

Pope Martin the Fifth in his Bull for confirmation of this Council speaks very home to the Case That all Hereticks and their followers of both Sexes and those who hold and defend such Heresies or communicate with such Hereticks publickly or secretly in Religious Offices or any other way though they shine in the Dignity of Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops Kings Queens Dukes or any other Ecclesiastical or Secular Title shall be pronounced Excommunicate in the presence of the People every Sunday and Holy-day And that the Archbishops Bishops and Inquisitors shall by our Authority diligently inquire concerning them who hold defend or receive such Heresies and Errours of what Dignity State Preheminence Degree Order or Condition soever they are and if they be found quilty shall by the foresaid Authority proceed against them by punishments of Excommunication Suspension Interdict as also of deprivation of their Dignities Offices and Benefices Ecclesiastical and also of their Secular Dignities and Honours and by any other Penalties Sentences Ecclesiastical Censures which they shall judge fitting even by taking and imprisoning their Persons and executing upon them any corporal Punishments with which Hereticks use to be punished according to the Canonical Sanctions This is the Council which our Author tells us expresly declares that the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes excommunicated for Heresie is damnable and heretical as being contrary to the known Laws of God and Nature and yet for ought I can perceive by this Bull the greatest Emperour in the world if he be a Heretick or a Favourer of Hereticks if the Pope have as much power as authority may be burnt as John Huss and Ierom of Prague were by this Council The account of that Article Quilibet Tyrannus in short is this The Duke of Burgundy had caused Lewis Duke of Orleans to be murdered Johannes Parvus a Divine of Paris to justifie this action defended that Proposition That a Tyrant might be killed by any of his Subjects without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge which Mariana asserts to be certainly true and that the onely difficulty is to know who is a Tyrant So that this is a true Commonwealth-Principle like the seventeenth Article of John Wickleff which was condemned also in this Council Populares possunt ad suum arbitrium dominos delinquentes corrigere The people may correct their Lords or Governours when they do amiss according to their own will and pleasure And this I grant is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which reserves this power wholly to it self though it has been defended by many Jesuits such as Mariana and Suarez from whence our late Rebels learnt their Maxims of Government But these two Questions ought to be carefully distinguished or else we may indeed injure the Church of Rome Whether the People have an inherent right in themselves to Depose or Punish or Murder Tyrannical Princes and whether the Pope have authority to Depose Princes for Heresie or other causes and to Absolve their Subjects from their obedience The first is not the Doctrine of the Church though it be of many Jesuits but is expresly condemned by this Council though Mariana truly observes that the condemnation of this Proposition Quilibet Tyrannus is not confirmed by the Popes Bull as the condemnation of the Articles of Wickleff and Huss expresly is which gives some suspicion that he did not much like it especially considering what Gerson tells us that this Doctrine of Johan Parvus was branched out into nine Articles and he was very zealous to have had them all distinctly condemned but could not obtain it and therefore complains Errorem illum non sufficienter sed valdé diminute damnatum esse That this Errour was not sufficiently but very imperfectly condemned which he attributes to that kindness many of them had for the Duke of Burgundy However I do not find this Doctrine defined in any of their General Councils and it is condemned though Gerson says imperfectly in this and therefore is not to be accounted the Doctrine of the Church of Rome But as for the Popes Deposing power it is not onely asserted by Jesuits but decreed by their Councils and therefore must be accounted the Doctrine of their Church But our Author proceeds That no Catholicks as Catholicks believe that the Pope hath any direct or indirect authority over the Temporal Power and Jurisdiction of Princes so that if the Pope shall pretend to absolve or dispence with his Majesties Subjects from their Allegiance upon account of Heresie and Schism such Dispensation would be vain and null and all Catholick Subjects notwithstanding such Dispensation or Absolution would be still bound in Conscience to defend their King and Country at the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes even against the Pope himself in case he should invade the Nation And yet we see that Popes challenge this Deposing power and their Councils own and decree it and where to find the Roman Catholick Faith but in the Decrees of their Popes and Roman Catholick General Councils I cannot guess And if we may take and leave what we please of their Councils and be good Catholicks still I see no reason why we may not reject the Decrees of their Councils about Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images and continue as good Catholicks as they are who renounce the Authority of their Councils as to the Deposing Doctrine I am sure the Council of Constance would have condemned these men for Hereticks who should presume to reject any Doctrine which this or other General Councils had determined for in the Bull of Martin V. in the Articles of Inquiry after Hereticks they were to ask them this Question among others Whether he believed that what this holy Council of Constance representing the Vniversal Church hath approved and doth approve in favour of the Faith and the salvation of Souls is to be held and approved of all Christian people and what it hath and doth condemn as contrary to Faith and good Manners that is to be held and believed and professed by them to be condemned It were easie to multiply Testimonies to this purpose as the Deposition of the Emperour Frederick II. in the General Council at Lyons by Pope Innocent IV. the Breve of Paul V. to the English Catholicks against taking the Oath of Allegiance but my Author has given no occasion to proceed any farther He appeals to the General Council of Constance and I joyn issue with him here and leave it to every man to judge whether that Council has decreed the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes Excommunicated for Heresie to be damnable and heretical The first of those three Treatises against the Oath of Allegiance which are published by the Title of The Jesuits Loyalty proves at large that the Deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome by several very material Arguments 1. That Popes have taught it as sound