Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	know_v	see_v	4,988	5	3.1452	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03944	An adioynder to the late Catholike new yeares gift, or explication of the oath of allegeance Wherein certaine principall difficulties, obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike, against the sayd New-yeares gift, and explication of the oath, are very clearely explained. Published by E.I. the author of the New-yeares gift.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1620 (1620)	STC 14050; ESTC S100127	50,683	158

admitting Arbiters to end the controuersie in a peaceable manner without making warre for that warre must not be waged when the controuersie may otherwise bee peaceably ended But neither also with this controuersie will I intermeddle 4 Fourthly whereas you say that Kings and Princes who haue no Superiours oftentimes fall to warres and one seeke to dispossesse an other onely vpon a probable title you might for answere hereof haue called to minde what Card. Bellarmine related by Widdrington n In his Apologie for the right of Princes nu 445 answereth to such kind of arguments Aliud est facta Regum referre c. It is one thing to relate the facts of Kings and an other to proue their power authoritie And besides it may verie well be that the Prince who beginneth the warre thinketh his title to be certaine and the others title not to bee probable And moreouer the title for which they make warre may be meerely temporall which belongeth not to our case as you shall see beneath But let vs go on to the rest of your obiections Sect. 11. Obiection ANd if a probable title say you were not sufficient excuse for the dispossessing of the right Obiect which an other houldeth it were as good haue no title at all as a probable title without possession Answere 1 BVt first Answ your consequence is not good For no title is good for nothing but a probable title without possession in subiects is good for this to call the title in question and to haue it examined decided by a lawfull and vndoubted Iudge and in absolute Princes who haue no Superiours in temporals it is good in the opinion of some Diuines to haue the matter put to arbitrement or compromise which if the Prince who is in possession refuse the other Prince may according to the doctrine of these Diuines wherewith I will not meddle make warre against him for the wrong done him in not admitting Arbiters Also a probable title without possession is better then no title for that it is good after the decease of them who haue possession to haue the matter decided by the Kingdome or Common-wealth to whom it belongeth as well obserueth Vasquez to determin doubtfull titles when none is in possession As also according to the doctrine of all Diuines it belongeth to the Church or Spirituall kingdome of Christ which a general Councel doth represent to determine and decide the doubtfull titles of two Popes although both of them be partly in possession 2 Secondly your consequent for as much as concerneth the making of warre vpon a probable title without possession Vasquez would not feare to admit For it is not absurd to graunt that a probable title without possession is as good as no title for the making of warre against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession As also it is no absurditie to grant but rather a most certaine doctrine that aprobable matter of Baptisme is in some case for as much as concerneth practise as good as no matter See Vasques 1.2 disp 63 disp 64 cap. 4. for that it is not lawful in some case to baptize with a probable matter to wit when we may vse a certaine and vndoubted matter And a probable medicine is in some case as good as no medicine for that it is not lawfull to apply to one a probable medicine when an vndoubted medicine may be applyed Sect. 12. Obiection NOw in this contention say you betwixt the pope Obiect the Prince though the Prince haue a probable title after depriuation and also possession it is houlden with wrong to the Church preiudice to Christs flocke whose good is more to bee respected then the priuate good of a temporall Prince And so it seemeth he may be depriued of his right vpon a probable title though absolutely abstracting from such case it may not bee done Answere 1 BVt this hath beene fully answered aboue Answ For it is a most false and seditious doctrine to hould that a Prince in keeping the possession of his Crown to which as you confesse he hath a probable right after depriuation doth any wrong or iniurie to the Church or any vniust preiudice to Christs flocke or that the good of the Church or of Christs flocke is to bee respected or obtained by vniust meanes and with the wrong of any man much lesse of Princes who in vsing defending their probable right being in possession do no man wrong For if it be no wrong as you in Vasquez iudgement falsly and absurdly suppose for the Pope or Prince who hath onely a probable title without possession to inuade and assault an other Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession much more it is no wrong for this Prince so assaulted to defend himselfe And therefore you must not bee so mindfull of the good of the Church or other good ends that you forget that the good of the Church and all good ends must be obtained by good meanes for as you know Bonum est ex integra causa c. Good proceedeth from and entier cause Dionisius Areo pag. 4. cap. de diu nom but euill from euerie defect 2 Secondly I doe not well vnderstand that exception you make in your last words though absolutely abstracting from such case it may not bee done For I do not see but that according to the principles of your doctrine if an hereticall or wicked Prince bee depriued by the Pope his Kingdome must alwaies bee held by him with wrong to the Church and preiudice to Christs flocke c. and so that exception of yours whereby you would seeme to limit your former false assertion is in my conceipt to little purpose And moreouer whether it better for Gods glorie and the good of the Church Leo serm 1. de SS Petro Paulo to haue somtimes persecutions Whereby as S. Leo saith the Church is not diminished but increased c. We cannot so easily know and therefore wee ought rather to leaue it to the iudgement of him who maketh a man that is an hypocrite reigne for the sinnes of the people Iob. 34. then ouer rashly to iudge of the secrets of Gods prouidence Sect. 13. Obiection AGaine though in your conceipt and opinion say you the Pope and Prince haue a Superiour or head to iudge the controuersie betwixt them Obiect to wit a generall Councell yet in the opinion of others who hould that the Pope is aboue the Councell and consequently hath no head it seemeth the Pope may as other Princes may without iniurie goe about to depose a Prince depriued vpon a probable title though in full possession of his right and dominions Answer 1 MY conceit indeed is that it is very probable that a generall Councel excluding the Pope is aboue atrue and vndoubted Pope Answ and that to conceiue the contrarie is altogether improbable and absurd Now to

Apostelike for Catholikes not to obey the Popes commandement whensoeuer they haue doubt that it is vniust Sotus de detegendo secreto memb 3 q 2. Vasques and others cited by Wriddringt in the discouetie of Schulcken his slanders §. 15. and in preiudice of a third person who is in possession of his goods good name so that they doe most humbly propound to his Holinesse the reasons of their doubt This assertion is in plaine expresse tearmes set downe by that most learned and religious Dominicus Soto approued by Vasques and many other Diuines grounded vpon manifest reason and sufficiently confirmed by the Canon Law it selfe in Cap. si quando extra de Rescriptis where Pope Alexander the third giueth this aduertisement to the Archbishop of Rauenna that he ought either to obey the said Popes commandement which he enioyned him by his Breues or else by his letters to yeeld a reasonable cause why he ought not to obey it Whereupon obserue saith the Glosse expounding that Canon that the Superiours commandement ought either to be obeyed or a cause to be yeelded why it is not obeyed Seeing therefore that Mr. Widdrington hath by diuerse publike and printed letters signified to his Holinesse in most humble manner the reasons why English Catholikes thinke themselues bound not to obey his Breues forbidding the Oath as conteyning in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation because they are grounded by the bad information of Card. Bellarmine and his adherents vpon two very false suppositions The one that the Popes power to excommunicate is denyed in the Oath which is manifestly false The other that his power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith which is no lesse vntrue neither as yet hath he or other Catholikes receiued from his Holinesse or any other any answere or satisfaction of these their doubts truely they cannot be iustly taxed of any disobedience or irreuerence against his Holinesse for not obeying his Breues in the aforesaid case but contrariwise as in a case not much vnlike very well obserueth and proueth that holy and learned Bishop of Lincolne S. Robert d Apud Matth. Paris pag. 843. in vita Henrici tertij in answere to certain Breues of Pope Innocentius the fourth which he thought vniust it were disobedience irreuerence and rebellion against God and the See Apostolike to obey any such Breues which are grounded vpon false informations and suppositions and tend to so great dishonor and iniurie of his Maiesty and the whole kingdome 7 So that with farre greater reason might be taxed with disobedience and irreuerence against the See Apostolike not only the aforesaid holy Bishop S. Robert for the cause alleaged but also that most learned and religious Dominicus Soto and other famous Diuins for contradicting the Popes Breues concerning their dispensations in actuall but not consummate marriage and for saying that the Popes erred therein following the doctrine and opinion of the Canonists as hauing in it no shew or shadow at all of probabilitie * Sotus in 4. Dist 27. q 31. ar 4. then Mr. Widdrington and other English Catholikes may be iustly taxed of any disobedience or irreuerence against the See Apostolike for contradicting the Popes Breues which forbid the Oath as conteyning in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation and for saying that he erred therein following the bad information and opinion of Card. Bellarmine other Iesuites which hath in it a farre lesse shew and shadow of probabilitie then hath the doctrine of the Canonists concerning the Popes power to dispence in actuall but not consummate Marriage for that all the world now seeth plainly that neither the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the Oath nor the doctrine for his power to depose is an vndoubted point of faith but a great controuersie among learned Catholikes and which therefore ought not to hinder the reunion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church e See Card. Peron aboue num 3. Considering therefore that the aforesaid foure generall positions are now made so plaine and manifest that no man of learning and conscience can with any colour of reason contradict them and that by them all the chiefe arguments which can be obiected either against any particular clause of the Oath or against the Oath in generall in regard of the Popes Breues forbidding the same only in generall tearmes are most clearly answered I beseech and adiure you my deare Catholike brethren by the loue you beare to God by the dutie you owe to your Prince and Countrey and by the care you ought to haue of your eternall saluation that you will not any longer for feare or flatterie seeke to impugne especially by indirect sinister and vncharitable courses so manifest a truth to the great iniurie and dishonour of your Soueraigne to the great scandall of your Religion and to the great danger of your temporal and spirituall ouerthrow For assure your selues that Truth is great and will in the end preuaile f 3. Esdr 4 and rather then it shall be ouercome God almightie the Authour of all Truth yea and Truth it selfe will raise vp Babes Infants to defend it to the confusion of the greatest Rabbins that shall impugne the same and into what danger you cast your soules either by coyning new articles of faith or concurring and consenting to the coyners thereof and by seeking in that respect to make a Schisme and Disunion among your Catholike brethren you may with feare and trembling perceiue by this which the beloued Disciple of Christ S. Iohn threatneth in the end of his Apocalyps If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues written in this booke For vndoubtedly whosoeuer shall add to the holy Scripture that which is not Scripture or to Catholike beliefe that which is not Catholike or shall belieue with Catholike faith that which is not Catholike or shall forge new articles of faith or consent to the forgers thereof especially in things belonging to temporall allegiance and shall separate himselfe in Ecclesiasticall communion from those who contradict such forgeries and cause a Schisme or Disunion in regard of opinions which ought not to hinder the reunion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church * For so Card. Peron expresly saith about num 3 can not in that respect be accounted a loyall subiect a true Catholike or right beleeuer but endangereth himselfe to be blotted out of the booke of life and to be punished in the next world with Traytors Schismatikes and Misbeleeuers and in the meane time he will haue much adoe to cleere himselfe in this world from the guilt penaltie and imputation of manifest Treason Schisme and Misbeliefe of all which crimes besides most manifest forgerie detraction and slandering those violent hot spurres that exclaim so bitterly against the Oath and their Catholike brethren who fauour the same will to