Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	council_n	judge_v	1,394	5	7.3227	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19220	The Catholike moderator: or A moderate examination of the doctrine of the Protestants Prouing against the too rigid Catholikes of these times, and against the arguments especially, of that booke called, The answer to the Catholike apologie, that we, who are members of the Catholike, apostolike, & Roman Church, ought not to condeme the Protestants for heretikes, vntill further proofe be made. First written in French by a Catholike gentleman, and now faithfully translated. See the occasion of the name of Huguenots, after the translaters epistle.; Examen pacifique de la doctrine des Huguenots. English	Constable, Henry, 1562-1613.; W. W., fl. 1623.	1623 (1623)	STC 5636.2; ESTC S109401	62,312	88

space the Pope neither once called any general Councell nor sat President in it The first of Nice was called by Constantine the great That of Constantinople by Theodosius Senior That of Ephesus by Theodosius Iunior That of Chalcedon by Marcianus the Emperour The same also may bee affirmed of those that sat President in them In the Councell of Nice was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine President In the Councell of Ephesus Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria And thus much may suffice for so euident a truth Secondly he answers That it is nothing repugnant to the equity of a great Prince to bee both Iudge and Partie In so much as a Soueraigne Prince is perpetually Iudge vntill hee bee lawfully declared to haue forfeited his principality although the suite bee commenced against himselfe But I say that there is still a third which arbitrates betwixt the Prince and his Subiects when there is a suit betweene them And although the Iudge bee the Princes Officer yet may he pronounce sentence against him which himselfe cannot repeal and there is no Prince but a Tyrant that would reuerse that iudgment as the Pope hath done in disanulling the decrees of the Councels of Basil Constance made against himselfe But admit I should confesse that a Prince might bee Iudge in his owne cause yet ought that to be vnderstood in a suit of mean consequence but when the controuersie be whether he be a lawfull King or not we may well assure our selues that he would neuer bee deposed if hee might bee his owne arbitrator and of this nature is the first Article of the processe against the Pope The Huguenots deny him to be head of the church How then I pray shall this Controuersie bee decided if there be no other Iudge besides himselfe Thirdly hee shewes by examples that Pope Marcelline Sixtus the third Symachus Leo Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria Cyril and Leo the first were Iudges in their owne causes As for S. Marcelline saith he when as hee had offered Incense vnto Idols hee went and accused himselfe in the Councell of Sinuessa and yet durst no man denounce Sentence against him but all the Bishops cried out with one consent Father iudge thy selfe with thine own mouth To which I answer That it is easie to discouer this to be but a forged Councell which brings in the Emperor Dioclesian talking with S. Marcelline at Rome and enticing him to Idolatry whereas Dioclesian was at the same time at Nicomedia a City of Bithinia Secondly there is a great deale of difference betweene a plaine case a right in question For S. Marcelline was accused of an act of which he was most apparantly guilty So that the Bishops perceiuing that the Pope denied not the fact and that hee was penitent for it offered to referre themselues to that sentence which hee would giue against himselfe lust as if a man should say to a Theefe that were taken in the manner Thou seest thy selfe openly guilty thou knowest likewise the punishment ordained by the law for such offences What thinkest thou that thou hast deserued Speake a Gods name and bee thine owne Iudge surely this would bee very acceptable to all malefactors to conclude thereupon that they should haue no other Iudges goe vpon them but themselues His second example is of Sixtus the third who being saith hee accused of adultery would haue a Synode called by th' Emperours authority But they would not nor indeed durst they saith hee meddle with his Cause before all the Bishops were met and that they vnderstood the Popes pleasure whether hee were willing to haue them so decide his businesse or not I answer that this was but a singular fauour shewne him by the Emperour Valentinian by reason of his innocency For the Pope himselfe was willing that other men should haue beene Iudges in his businesse But it followes not hereupon that euery Pope in euery cause ought to clayme the same priuiledge but the contrary rather viz. That Pope Sixtus the fift who would not suffer himselfe to bee indged by any other man ought to haue beene so because Sixtus the third who would haue been so was not What necessity is there in censuring him whose innocency is cleare and as it was a token of innocency in the one to submit himselfe vnto censure so to refuse all mens verdicts but his own is an euidence that hee findes himself guilty But I demand now whether that singular priuiledge granted vnto Sixtus must thenceforth be taken for a leading cause or not If he answers no then is this instance nothing to his purpose if yea The Catholikes will oppose it for Bellarmine confesseth that in case of heynous crymes a Councell may be called to sit vpon the Pope But the thinks not peraduenture that Sixtus was accused of any heinous crime which as I thinke is the reason that hee names not his fault because he barely intimates that he was accused of Adultery whereas indeed hee was accused for defiling of a Nunne which wee good Catholikes style not Adultery but Incest by reason of the spirituall consanguinity which is betwixt a Priest and a Nunne His third example is of Symachus whose consent saith hee was required euen for the calling of that Councell wherin himselfe was accused The Huguenots will desire no more at the Popes hands then to doe as Symachus did for albeit his consent went to the calling of the Councell yet when it was called hee tooke not vpon him the part of a Iudge in it but with all humblenesse purged himselfe before the Councel of those crimes which hee was charged withall The fourth example is of Leo the third of which passage the troath is this The Romans bearing a spleene to Leo for that Charlemaigne the Emperour had inforced them to sweare alleageance to him out of meere malice laid many slanders vpon him But Charlemaigne appearing at Rome they for feare of him durst not stand to it to prosecute their proofes against him but at the very first canuasse they all cryed out That the Apostolike Sea could not bee iudged by any man Which clamour testifies nothing else then That is the nature of the vulgar to fall from one extreame to another And therefore they hauing slandered the Pope before out of malice they afterwards thought to curry fauour againe by flattering him for feare But let vs heare what followes Did not Arrius saith hee heretofore dispute the case in a matter of faith with Alexander Notwithstanding was this Alexander iudge in the Councell of Nice Was not Cyril President in the Councell of Ephesus notwithstanding hee was one of the parties And who but Leo sat President at the Counsell of Chalcedon notwithstanding that all the difference then was betwixt him and Dioscorus I answer That the controuersies which then were betwixt Alexander Cyril Leo and the foresaid Heretiques concerned them no more then it did the rest of the Bishops of the Church whereas

but a wrangling about the word as I haue shewed before when I discourst of the number of the Sacraments As for the parts Namely Contrition Confession and Satisfaction if that he blames the Huguenots for not holding them properly parts thereof I answer him That neither doe all Catholikes hold them so For Durandus makes but two parts Confession and Absolution and Scotus saies that there is but one which is Absolution But if the question be whether these three things be requisite or not the Huguenots will also say that they are to wit that it is necessary for a Penitent to haue Contrition and sorrow of heart to confesse and acknowledge our sins vnto God nay and that it is profitable also to confesse them to the Pastors of the Church but not so absolutely necessarie because according to the iudgment of the learned Catholikes this Auricular Confession was neuer instituted by God nor yet of a long time practised in the Church as Beatus Rhenanus who was himselfe a Catholike hath very well obserued Finally as for Satisfaction it is to be considered either in this life or in the life to come in Purgatory That in this life the Huguenots approue of and teach it to bee most necessary to Saluation to giue satisfaction to men whom we haue any way offended and in regard of our sins against God to walke in newnesse of life Moreouer they confesse that God punisheth men in this life by temporall afflictions yea euen those whose sins are pardoned T is true indeed that they deny any satisfaction or punishment to be in Purgatory after death for sinne but herein their error cannot be great first because S. Austen puts it down no otherwise than as a thing probable and not necessary saying no more but It may be that it is true And secondly because that neither can the Catholikes agree vpon it amongst themselues some of them placing Pargatory here vpon earth others vnder it some neither aboue nor below but in the Aire Some affirme that all the Elect shall goe thither yea the Apostles and Martyrs themselues others thrust in those only who haue not in this life giuen full satisfactiō for their sins And for the fire some would haue it a Materiall fire some fire and water others neither of both Lastly some there be that teach that the soules are there tormented by Deuils others by Angels others by neither of both How then I pray is this questiō likely to be so necessary about which there is so much vncertainty that we neither know as I haue shewed who they be that goe thither nor where it is nor by whom they are to be tormented nor what they are to suffer The difference then betwixt the Catholikes and the Huguenots is but this That the Huguenots beleeue it not at all and the Catholikes know not what they beleeue See here in briefe the Huguenots opinions vpon the points before mentioned by which we may perceiue their errours not to be in the substance of Faith and doe not therefore hinder them from being of the Church and Catholike Religion For euery errour in Theologie doth not separate a man from the Church S. Cyprian was an Anabaptist in the point of Rebaptization and yet was he a Martyr S. Hierome as I said before held those bookes of Scripture for Apocryphall which the Councell of Trent hath since concluded to be Canonicall and yet remaines hee still Canonized for a Saint Tertullian one of the ancient Fathers fell to be a Montanist And Origen alone held as many errours as all the Huguenots together yet was he one of the most famous Doctors of the whole Church And to come neerer to our times In how many questions of Diuinitie did Scotus and Thomas Aquinas differ the two prime pillars of Schoole-Diuinitie Melchior Canus and Bellarmine accuse Caietane of diuers errors who for all that remaines one of the venerable Colledge of Cardinals The Dominicans and Franciscans could neuer yet agree about our Ladies conception yet be both of them held for very good Catholikes So that as I said the Huguenots may very safely be accounted good Catholikes so long as they hold the foundation of Diuinitie although they put some few tyles out of order on the roofe of the house and build with hay and straw vpon condition still that as S. Paul saith it be vpon the same foundation Otherwise we must conclude the Martyrs the Saints the ancient Fathers the Doctors of the Church the prime Schoolemen the Cardinals yea and the Catholikes themselues to be no Catholikes CAP. 2. 〈…〉 Catholikes as well as the Huguenots doe not agree with the ancient Church in matter of Ceremonies and that therefore the Huguenots are not to be condemned AS in men we consider their bodies and their apparell so in the Church likewise we consider the Doctrine and the Ceremonies As for the doctrine or body of Religion I haue showne in the former Chapter that the Huguenots haue the braine the heart and the liuer and all other the vitall parts whole and sound that is that they yet hold all the principall points of faith and that the maine thing that can seeme to be blamed in them is that they haue some certaine warts or spots in their skinne certaine errors I meane in the circumstances and application of that faith Now for the apparell and ceremony of Religion I confesse that the Church of the Huguenots is not so gorgeously or richly set out as the Church of Rome and is for the same cause not so well entertained and more despised in the Courts of great Princes and Monarches of the world which I iudge to be the reason why the Catholike Apology endeuoured to excuse the simple and naked Ceremonies of the Reformed Church without any intent thereby to disparage the gorgeous and gay attire of the Catholike Church but to shew onely That wee should not so meanly esteeme this outward simplicity as to condemne it without hearing Euen as that officer would bee held too rigide and seuere that would hinder a poore man from presenting his Petition to the Prince because hee is not clad like a Courtier The reason for which the Apology doth excuse them is for that the ancient Church did sometimes heretofore content her selfe with the like simplicity Now vpon this occasion the Author of the answer perswades himselfe that he hath gotten a great aduantage vpon the Catholike Apology Because saith he he can proue that diuers of these ceremonies which the Huguenots doe reiect are very ancient To which I answer That I willingly accept as much as hee grants that is that he cannot proue that all the ceremonies of the Church of Rome be most ancient but onely as he saith diuers of them As for those diuers which hee instanceth in that you may see how impertinent they are I will make it appeare in these two things First that he doth not proue against the Huguenots that the Church