Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bring_v	good_a	word_n	1,487	5	3.7692	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13210	The falshood of the cheife grounds of the Romish religion Descried and convinced in a briefe answere to certaine motiues sent by a priest to a gentleman to induce him to turne papist. By W.S.; Seminary priest put to a non-plus	Sutton, William, 1561 or 2-1632.; Sutton, William, b. 1607 or 8.	1635 (1635)	STC 23508; ESTC S100149	32,996	132

Faith Religion and Sacraments instituted by Christ In which words let it bee no offence to say that hee deales as boatmen vse to doe when they looke one way row another for whatsoever he talkes of the Catholique Church you shall finde presently that hee meanes the Romish Church a meere particular one though for the credit thereof he would faine yoake it together with the Church Catholique in the same description But see his ill lucke For while he goes about to describe them both in one he failes to describe either of them as he should For if the Catholique Church doth comprehend as hee saith the multitude of all true beleeuers even from righteous Abel as Augustine speaketh to the end of the world how can this agree to the Romish Church On the other side if it comprehend no more then such as are subiect to one visible head how can the name of Catholique in right belong vnto it So this description is like a shooe that will serue neither foote If wee should grant that the Romish faith in these daies were the true faith of Christ yet could not that make their Church to bee the Catholique Church but only a part thereof and that is the most that can bee said of it though it were farre better then it is but the Pope lookes higher then so Rome scornes to be ranckt in the order of particular Churches He must be the vniversall Bishop and she the vniversall Church of the World For if that should be denied what right hath either He or Shee to claime subiection of those who haue their severall dependance vpon other Bishops Therefore to make this good and to bring all fish into St Peters net there were some well-wishers to the Romish cause who not finding how two such disparates in nature as vniversall and particular Catholique and singular might possibly be joyned together in one subiect they found a meanes at last to joyne them both together in one word and hence it comes to passe that instead of Romana fides Romana Ecclesia which was wont to bee the common language among all Christians wee must call it henceforth Romano Catholicam fidem Romana Catholicam Ecclesiam or else they will complaine that wee allow them not their full stile Thus still it falls out that Portenta rerū gignunt portenta verborum And if it were not a new and strange doctrine it never needs to coine such new and strange words And yet as if Romana Ecclesia did not speake home enough to expresse their meaning or as if it were too large a terme and they durst not trust that more then Catholica or Apostolica Bellarmine de effect sacr l. 2. c. 25. to be sure to fit the shooe to the Popes foot restraines it to nunc Romana Ecclesia I know not what the spirit of giddinesse is if this bee not or why wee should not say of these men as it was said of the Arrians Habent annuas menstruas fides Ecclesias If the ancient faith of Rome were the same with the present what meanes nunc Romana if it were not how is the present faith Catholica For that onely is so quae est omnium temporum locorum The Councells of Lateran or Trent will not be guided by the Councells of Basil or Constance And therefore Cusanus speakes plainely and saies that there is fides temporum a faith that alters with the time and that the true sense of the Scripture is that which the present Church giues Non est mirum si praxis Ecclesiae vno tempore interpretetur scripturā vno modo alio tempore alio modo nam intellectus currit cum praxi intellectus enim qui cum praxi concurrit est spiritus vivificans sequuntur ergo Scripturae Ecclesiam non è converso Epist 7. Bohem. The holy christian Catholike Church No absolute Monarchy is a visible Monarchie vnder one visible lawfull head I complained before that the Church of Rome being a meere Particular he made it all one to the Catholique Church of Christ Here I finde cause to complaine on the other side of his wrong done to the Catholique Church when he termes it a visible Monarchie vnder a visible Head which is the placing of a barre in her armes and makes her no better then the Romish or any other particular being of the younger house 1. When hee names the Church a Monarchie if he mean it in respect of Christ sole King and Monarch thereof I will not contend with him about the name or if hee meane it in regard of particular Churches we confesse that in as much as they are subiect to their severall Bishops their governement in that respect is a kinde of Monarchie though not an absolute Monarchie but such a one as is tempered with an Aristocrasie because Bishops either doe not or should not impose lawes vpon the Church but Ex communi Concilio Presbyterorum by the advice and with the consent of their Presbyterie A visible Monarchie Not visible If the Catholique Church were a naturall body and not a mysticall If it were some individuall and singular subiect and not a meere vniversall as the name of a Catholique imports Visibility might well bee an adiunct belonging vnto it Which otherwise I confesse I vnderstand not how it should and I belieue they that speake most of it vnderstand it as little if your friend haue ever seene the Catholique Church with his eye let him say whether it be Diaphanum or adiaphanum luminosum corpus or opacum bid him tell you of what colour and complexion it is And doe not thinke I iest in mouing such questions for in good earnest it must bee qualified thus for in some such sort if it be subiect to the eye of man I grant he hath seene some particular persons that belong vnto the Church and are members thereof and so haue I often but for the Church it selfe whose formality consisteth in a spirituall coniunction with Christ the head of the members themselues one with another this mysticall vnion I am sure he did never see therefore hee did never see the Church no not any particular Church to speake properly much lesse the Catholike church This is an article of faith and not an obiect of sense farre aboue the spheare of all optike learning it is an Article to bee believed not a thing to be descried by a paire of spectacles or any other prospectiue glasse if hee meane Video pro intelligo by the old Grammer rule let him and the rest speake so a Gods name and call it hereafter the intelligible Church that we may vnderstand them for then they shall begin to speake somewhat more like Protestants for otherwise while they call it the vniversall yet visible Church they interfeare at every word and speake pure non-sense The Pope not the head of the Church Vnder one lawfull visible head It had beene plaine dealing

did not Christ pray for them all it is evident that to touch Peter more deepely and to shew his fault to bee more grievous then any of the rest Christ turned his speech to him in particular in Math. Hom. 83. All this proues no greater Monarchy but rather a greater infirmity in Peter then in any of the rest and greater mercy in Christ towards him whose sinne did deserue à greater iudgement As S. Paul inferres the like of himsele 1. Tim. 1.16 I am sure the Pope will not bee thought to succeed Peter in the sinne of his deniall why then doth hee claime the benefit of Christs prayer Ego pro te oravi which was made purposely for Peter in regard of that sinne For as Peters deniall was his personall fault and is not derived per traducem to his Successors for then not only many Popes should Apostatare as Lyra in Math. 16. saith but all Popes should be Renegates which I beleeue not As therefore it was a personall sinne in Peter to deny Christ so the prayer of Christ for Peter was a personall favour bestowed vpon him and the Pope hath no more right to the one then the other besides let it bee considered that the faith which Saint Peter obtained by Christs prayer was not only fides notitiae such as Divels haue and tremble but it was fides fiduciae vera salvifica sides such a faith as worketh with charity and whosoever hath it shall vndoubtedly be saued and so Chrysostome vnderstands it Oraui proute ne deficeret fides tua hoc est ne in fine pereas Hom. 72. in Ioh. Now it is confessed by all Papists that all Popes are not furnished with this kinde of faith Pope Adrian 6. is said to haue doubted of the salvation of many of his predecessors and Bellarmine if the Seminary Priest bely him not hath passed a peremptory iudgement vpon Pope Sixtus Quintus Quia sine poenitentiâ vixit sine poenitentiâ mortuus est quantum sapio quantum capio descendit ad inferos Watson in his Quodlibets Now if this be true that Popes may bee damned it must needs follow that either Christs prayer did not prevaile with God which were impiety to thinke or that the Pope was never thought vpon by Christ when this prayer was a making Now to his third proofe 3. Our Saviour Christ asking Peter îf he loved him more then these said yea Lord thou knowst J loue thee wherevpon Christ said to him twice feed my Lambes and the third time feed my sheepe Ioh. 21. vers 16.17 Here is some mistaking of the Text againe for Christ did not say twice to Peter feed my Lambs once feede my sheep but twice feed my Sheepe and once feed my Lambs But let this passe for a peccadillo I say farther that in the words there is nothing spoken more to Peter then is elsewhere spoken to all the Apostles When they are commanded to goe and teach all Nations baptizing them Mat. 28.19.20 And if hee thinke that there lies any speciall mystery in these words because there is such distinct mention of lambs and sheepe both committed to Peters charge the like whereof we doe not find in the mission of the other Apostles Let him not be too hasty to say so till hee haue considered the words of their generall commission Mark 16.15 Goe into all the world Saint Peter could not haue a larger Dioces and preach the Gospell to every creature Therefore whether they be Lambes or sheepe they belong to the charge of euery other Apostle as well as to Saint Peters But they will say that Peter is commanded not only Pascere but regere and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more then a Pastorall duty even a kinde of Regall authority to bee given by Christ vnto him Bellarmine stands much vpon the word though there bee little cause Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 15. I know that Kings are sometimes called Shepheards as Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay God himselfe cals Cyrus so Jsa 44.28 But I thinke it were harsh because Kings are sometimes called shepheards to infer that Shepheards therefore are Kings whether wee speake of rustike or Ecclesiastick Shepheards But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bee such a mysticall word and doth imply such a soveraigne authority what meant Saint Paul to vse that word speaking to the ordinary Presbyters of Ephesus whom he willed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Act. 20.28 You haue heard his three texts of Scriptures which if they be so cleere for the supremacy as hee would haue you thinke let him giue you some reason why Pope Zozimus Bonifacius Caelestinus did not alledge any of these Scriptures in the 6. Councell of Carthage when their supremacy lay a bleeding but only made their claime by the Councell of Nice it is not likely that ever such learned and wise Prelates as they would haue sought for humane proofes to iustify their cause if they had knowne how to doe it by divine authority which is to mee an vndoubted argument that these fore-alleadged places Mat. 16.18 Luk. 22.31 Ioh. 21.16 either were not thought on in those daies to imply any such Supremacie in Peter or that Peters supremacy whatsoever it bee was not thought to belong any whit to the Pope Else why did they not stand vpon the Scriptures Why did the Popes Legates vrge the Nicene Canon Or rather why did they forge it to serue their turnes for so it is certaine that they did and the forgery remaines vpon record in the Acts of the Councell And though Cardinall Baron Tom. 5. Annal haue strained his wits hard to salue the matter yet it will not be Haeret lateri lethalis arundo But as I was about to say if these Scriptures make any good proofe for the Popes Supremacy why were not they brought forth in that Councell of Carthage either by the Pope or his Legates rather then the Nicene Canon Saint Augustine was one of the Fathers present in that Carthagenian Councell when this cause was debated and is it likely that either the Pope would haue stood then vpon Canons if he had known any Canonicall scripture for it or that Saint Augustine and the rest would haue denied him any authority that was due to him by Gods word I conclude that either the Church in those daies did not vnderstand these places of Scripture or the Romish doth not vnderstand them now But see whether these proofes that follow doe helpe his cause any better 1. When all the holy Apostles are named S. Peter is the first Mat. 10.2 That is not so for Saint Andrew is named before him Ioh. 1.44 James is named before him Gal. 2.9 Paul and Apollos were both named before him 1. Cor. 3.22 Nay see 1. Cor. 9.5 and Mark 16.7 and you shall finde him named last of them all 2. If it were so that Peter were still first named yet what a weake foundation is that for so great