Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	day_n	good_a	great_a	2,831	5	2.5730	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66402	An impartial consideration of those speeches, which pass under the name of the five Jesuits lately executed viz. [brace] Mr. Whitebread, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Gawen, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Fenwick : in which it is proved, that according to their principles, they not only might, but also ought, to die after that manner, with solemn protestation of their innocency.	Williams, John, 1636?-1709.	1679 (1679)	Wing W2710; ESTC R211881	18,885	29

him and to cry out of the rashness of one man as Mr. Gawen doth when as it 's the prevailing Opinion amongst them and it is disingenuously done of them to do by him as the Deer by one that is wounded clear themselves of his Company when he is of the same Herd with them Indeed after all that Mr. Gawen hath said towards the Vindication of himself and his Order he hath said but what Mariana did before him for Mariana held as I have before shewed That it 's not lawful for a private person to kill a King and therefore saith That John Duke of Burgundy was condemned by the Council of Constance because he caused Lewis Duke of Orleance to be killed Non expectata Sententia Superioris without attending the Sentence of a Superior as the Pope i. e. he did it upon his own head and out of private Revenge And if this be the meaning of Mr. Gawen which is the received Sence of those of his Order we are much beholden to him For then our Prince is left to the Mercy of the Pope's Bull or that of the People for as soon as he is by them declared against or is an Heretick or grows intolerable or is deposed then any private Man is the Minister of Justice and doth right to God and his Church or the People if he kill him If Mr. Gawen had meant honestly he should have told us that it was not his Opinion that a King may be Deposed or that upon Deposition he is no King and that tho thus deposed it was unlawful for any Person whatsoever to attempt his life But as long as he useth the current phrase among them we must take their Interpretation of it also and then he must say any private Person may kill a King in the Circumstances before spoken of so that a King is only secur'd against private Revenge or the present rage of his Subjects but if they have Warrant for so doing from the Pope or People then Lord have mercy on him for he is like to find none from them So that after all his renouncing of Equivocation c. he in his last dying words is found basely to Equivocate whilst he neither tells us what the King is whom a private person ought not to kill nor what that private person is that ought not to kill him And when if he means according to the stile of his Order it is no more but that whilst a lawful King is not Excommunicate an Heretick or deposed no one may kill him and when he is either of those no one of a private revenge or malice may be allowed so to do But if the publick good be concerned in it or there be Authority or Commission from Superiors that is Pope or People in Parliament then the private person is no private person and there is no bar to secure a Prince's life from the Assaults even of such And if there be such a notorious Equivocation in this so set a performance of his and that he acted so conformably to his own Principles of obeying his Superiors in whatever they commanded in denying whatever may be to the prejudice of their Cause or Party in using mental reservations even whilst he renounced them for these and the other ends before spoken of what hinders but we are to think that all the rest wrote after the same Copy with him as when they say that they are as innocent as the Child unborn of treasonable crimes is not this reconcileable to the principles of Dispensation and Absolution which last they might and it 's probable did give one to another Is it not reconcileable to the Excommunication and Deposition of his present Majesty and to the Title which the Pope challengeth to these Kingdoms by the ancient claim of Surrender When they speak of the King might they not apply it either to the Pope or a Successor doing therein much as a certain Priest did that when asked who was Supream in all Causes in the Church of England presently answered the King meaning thereby the King of Heaven as he afterward Expounded it When they do declare against a Plot for the Alteration of Government is not that easily applied to the kind or form or some main parts of it When they renounce Equivocations c. Did not Garnet and Coome do the same and yet in the mean while did Equivocate or Lye Did they do all this at their Death and call God to Witness and pawn their Souls to verifie and confirm what they said Is this more than what was practised by Mr. Tresham and Gurphy and what is frequently done by Villains at their Execution without such Reasons for it from Religion or Interest as these Men had When I read their Speeches I can hardly but believe them When I think of their Accusations their Principles and the Practices usual amongst them I begin to tremble To think that at such a time and in so great a case as this is men should prevaricate and to deceive the World care not what becomes of their own Souls or else that they can be so stupid as to think that the Salvation of their Souls can be consistent with such Impieties I question not but that time will make this as clear as the day and then what they did to strengthen their Cause will be the greatest blow to it that perhaps it ever yet had When it shall be upon record and published before all the World That so good may come of it the good of their Church and Order they care not what Evil they do nor how they Subvert the Laws of God and Nature so they may establish their own FINIS a Ignatii Exercit Spirit p. 141. reg 13. Antw. 1635. b Epist ad Patr. Fratr Societ in Lusit c Epist ad Patres Fratres Aquitaniae p. 63. num 9. d Epist ad Patres prov Societ p. 441. e N. 16. 17. f Cl. Aquavivae Industriae cap. 5 num 6. g Ibid. n. 3. 9. n. 12. h Pars 6. c. 1. i Epist p. 25. n. 18. k Pars 6. c. 1. p. 234. l Aquavivae Industriae c. 5. n. 6. Constitut par 6. c. 1. p. 234. par 4. c. 10. p. 183. c. m Epist n. 3. p. 13. n Pars 6. c. 5. p. 256. Visum est nobis nullas constitutiones declarationes vel ordinem ullum vivendi posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere nisi superior ea in nomine D N. J. Christi vel in virtute obedientiae juberet quod in rebus vel personis illis in quibus judicabitur quod ad particulare uniuscujusque vel ad universale bonum multum conveniet fieri poterit * Sir Everards first Paper printed at the end of the Gunpowder-Treason 1679. ‡ Mitigation c. 13. p. 549. ‖ Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 1. p. 408. * Henr. Henriq sum Theol. moral de Sacr. poenit l. 3. c. 19. praeversie religionis omnium Sacramentorum intentata demolitio * Proceedings against the Traytors p. 190. ‖ Ibid. p. 215. * Navar. Man c. 25. n. 38. Dia. Sum. V. Reus n. 12. c. † Vid. The late printed Relation of it in a Letter to the Earl of Essex ‖ Pag. 24. of his Narrative a Mitigation in Equiv c. 8. part 3. Sect. 2. n. 52. b De Just jure lib. 2. c. 42. dub 9. n. 47. c Mitig. c. 11. Sect. 9. d Com. in 1. 2. Thom. Tom. 2. dist 152. Sect. 8. e In his Philopater p. 194. for he is said to be the Author of it by Watson in his Quodl p. 11 71 284. f Lib. de Cler. c. 30. p. 554 80. g Apher Tit. Clericus Edit Antwerp Colon. h Ibid. c. 28. p. 538. i Mitig. c. 8. Part 3. Sect. 2. n. 52. k Ibid c. 10. Sect. 3. p. 415. n. 11. l Lessius de Instit l. 2. c. 42. Dub. 9. n. 47 48. m Mitigat c. 8. part 3. Sect. 2. n. 52. n Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 4. n. 21. o Ibid. n. 48. p Ibid. Sect. 6. n. 29. q Is Casauboni Epist ad Front Ducaeum p. 118 123. r 1 p. instruct c. 37. as quoted by Raynaudus in his Defence of Lessius against Barns c. 15. n. 9. a Proceedings against the Traytors p. 176 219 220 221. b In some Papers of his quoted by Is Casaub Epist ad Ducaeum p. 122. c Foulis Romish Treasons l. 7. c. 4. p. 442. d As quoted by Barns contra Aequiv Sect. 20. p. 174 and Sect. 22. p. 200. e Mitigat c. 10. Sect 5. p. 426. n. 26. * Proceedings p. 195. Casaub Epist p. 117. ‖ Rob. Abbotti Antilogia c. 2. p. 12. * Imago primi Saec. Societ Jesu p. 650. ‖ Bacon's Henry the 7th 3 General Mr. Gawen's Speech * Lib. 1. cap. 6 7. Edit 2. Typis Wechel p. 59 60. * In Respons ad Amic c. 1. ‖ Dissertatio contra Aequiv Epist Dedio p. ult libri a C. 6. p. 53 54. b C. 6. p. 60. c Ibid. p. 62. d C. 7. p. 64. e P. 66. * Alegambe in Biblioth Scrip. Societ Jesu p. 258. a Continuat Thuani p. 101. Francof 1638. b Ibid. p. 86. c Casauboni Epist ad Ducaeum p. 48. d Eudaem Joh. ad Amic c. 1. e Non expectata sententia aut mandato Judicis Concil Const Sess 15. f Defens Fid. l. 6. c 4. g Continuat Thua p. 101. h Defens Fidei Cath. adv Angl. Sect. i Contin Thuani p. 410. k Tractatus de Haeresi c. l Gram Hist p. 676. Francof 1674. m Jesuits Cat. l. 3. p. 234. Engl. 1602. n For he is said by Alegambe to be the Author of Amphitbeat Honor. o Defens Fid. l. 6. c 4. Sect. 4. 18. p De Instit l. 2. c 9. Dub. 4. Sect. 10 12. * Ibid. a Controv. Ang. p. 115. b Ibid. ut prius c Aphor. Tyrannus d Ibid. e De Instit Tom. 4. Tract 3. Disp 6. Sect. 2. ‖ Cap. 6. fin * Abbot Autilog cap. 2. p. 12. b.

and to give him reason to think so This seems to be the ground of the present practice amongst them as when Gurphy after his Absolution denied at his Death with all assurance imaginable That he was guilty of that Burglary which he was in Ireland condemned for though the Rope breaking he lived to confess it And this principle hath so far prevailed at this day that Mr. Prance doth ingenuously acknowledg That if he had been absolved after the Murther of Sir Edmond-Bury Godfry as Hill and his other Accomplices in it were that he should have probably persisted in avowing his Innocence as they did and never or without extream difficulty have been brought to any acknowledgment Agreeable to this is that which is said by Lud. Lopez 1. p. Instruct c. 42. who is quoted as good Authority by Raynaudus the Jesuit ut supra A Woman that hath been false to her Husband doth sin if she without cause doth swear that she is Innocent and doth so swear because she hath done Penance for the same unless her Husband doth unjustly compel her to swear The meaning of which is that if she doth swear it vainly when not put to it and there is no reason for it then she offends but if her Husband threatens and she is in danger for that is often the meaning of unjustly in the sence of these Casuists then she may safely swear that she is Innocent forasmuch as she hath repented and given satisfaction to the Priest and been Absolved by him From whence it appears that if persons be compelled to swear unjustly as in their opinion they all are when made to swear before Hereticks that then they may swear though never so Guilty that they are Innocent and without fault as having been Absolved for it 4. They may plead their own Innocency and justify it with an Oath c. if they stand charged before an incompetent Authority Of this Opinion is Parsons for he saith If a Judg be not lawful or competent the party charged may answer as if he was alone and no Man by for that he hath no necessary reference to him at all c. And much to the same purpose saith Lessius Now an incompetent Judg is one that hath no lawful Jurisdiction over a Person as may be gathered from Parsons And such with them are 1. All Hereticks who are incompetent because they are uncapable of rule as Gab. Vasquez saith and as soon as a Prince is fallen from the Catholick Religion he presently falls from all his Power and Dignity saith Parsons And thus was the case determined with an especial respect to England as you may see in Greg. Martin in lib. resolut cas and Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon on Matt. 10. 16. p. 42. 2. Such again according to Them are all Lay-Magistrates with respect to the Clergy A Priest being exempted from all civil Jurisdiction saith Bellarmine The belief of which led Emanuel Sa so far as to say That Rebellion in a Clergy-Man is no Treason because he is not subject to the Civil Power And Bellarmine saith little less when he maintains that Kings are not the Superiors of the Clergy and therefore such are not bound to obey them but only as to matter of direction This is clearly stated and applied to our purpose by Parsons If a Judge saith he be not lawful or competent as if a Lay-Magistrate in a Catholic Country would enquire of matters not belonging to his Jurisdiction as for example sacred or secret then he may answer as if he were alone and no man by for that he hath no reference to him at all For as he saith afterward Priests both by divine and humane Law according to Catholick Doctrine are exempted from Lay-mens Jurisdiction When therefore Priests are brought before Lay-Magistrates and Catholics before Heretics they have a liberty to say what they please and what may best serve their purpose and convenience they may protest and swear that they are Innocent though never so guilty that they know not what they know and did not what they did And if they may thus stand upon their own Vindication how unjustifiable soever their case be in it self before incompetent Authority then they may as well do it before incompetent Witnesses and Auditors For the Hereticks at Tyburn have no more right to Truth than those at the Old Baily and they may as well protest and vow by all that is sacred that they are innocent when they come to die as when they were upon their Trial since the People there as well as the Judges here were alike incompetent and heretical 5. They may plead Innocency when the Charge is laid wrong This we acknowledg when we say that a Person guilty of the Fact may yet plead not guilty as to matter and form But now the Charge with them shall always be laid wrong when they answer to it by Equivocation or Mental Reservation For then it is not what the Charge is in it self but what they charge themselves with that they direct their answer to As if a Person be charged with a Crime but by an incompetent Authority or illegally he may securely say I did not do it reserving within himself that he did not do it in Prison or that he had no design upon the King thereby meaning a painted King And this is a current Opinion among them If a Judg be not lawful or competent the Defendent may answer as if he were alone and no Man by and may frame to himself any Proposition that is true of it self and in his own sence and meaning though the other that heareth understandeth it in a different sence and be thereby deceived saith Parsons If he be guilty in such Cases he is to turn himself to Almighty God the Judg of all and frame to himself some true reserved sence may say I have not done it I have not seen him I have not killed him understanding thereby that he hath not done it so as the Examination or Punishment of it is subject to that Tribunal or he subject to their Jurisdiction whereby he is bound to utter the same to them as that Author further saith But what if he be put to his Oath Lessius answers That as often as it is lawful to use a doubtful Speech or a secret Reservation it is lawful to use an Oath if necessity or some notable Cause requireth it namely to avoid a great evil c. And accordingly Parsons doth lay it down from Azorius c. If the Judg that exacteth the Oath be not a lawful Judg or proceedeth not lawfully in exacting the same then hath he that sweareth no Obligation to swear to his Intention at all but may swear to his own c. Amongst other Examples of this way we have in Dr. Abbot's Antiologia p. 12. b. of one John Vnderwood that being examined before the Arch bishop of Canterbury 1612.