Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	king_n	son_n	2,904	5	5.0346	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15308	A cleare, sincere, and modest confutation of the vnsound, fraudulent, and intemperate reply of T.F. who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert now an English Iesuite Wherein also are confuted the chiefest obiections which D. Schulckenius, who is commonly said to be Card. Bellarmine, hath made against Widdrintons [sic] Apologie for the right, or soueraigntie of temporall princes. By Roger Widdrington an English Catholike.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1616 (1616)	STC 25598; ESTC S120047	267,609	417

authoritie And therefore notwithstanding all the exceptions which Card. Bellarmine and Fa. Lessius do take against Ioannes Parisiensis we haue the testimonie of this learned Catholike and famous Schole-Diuine that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes by his sentence which is the only question at this time betweene me and Card. Bellarmine Chap. 4. Wherein the authoritie of M. Doctour Barclay a famous and learned Catholike is breifly examined 1. THe fourth testimony which I broght both in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 28. and also in my Apologieb was of Mr. Doctour Barclay a most learned man and yet no more learned then religious howsoeuer some falsly and vnchristianly do slaunder him in his booke de Regno printed at Paris in the yeare 1600. with priueledge of the most Christian King of France where he affirmeth that Kings who doe omit or are negligent to keepe Gods commandements to worship him religiously and to vse all care and diligence that their subiects do not reuolt from true Religion and fall into Idolatrie Iudaisme or heresie are to be iudged by God alone because only to God they are subiect speaking of temporall iudgement and subiection although the Pope being the supreme Prince and vniuersall Pastour of the Chuch hath power to condemn with spirituall iudgement all kings and Princes offending against Gods law as they are Christians and children of the Church and to deliuer them to inuisible tormentours to be punished with the rod of the inuisible spirit and with the two edged sword of Excommunication 2. But Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay c Per totum little regardeth his authority and now in his Sculckenius he affirmeth d Pag. 110. ad num 28. that Catholikes will make no more account of Barclay then they do of Marsilius de Padua and of my selfe an easie answer to shift off the authoritie of any learned Catholike And againe who doth not maruaile saith D. Schulckenius that seeing Card. Bellarmine hath in this point clearely and soundly after his accustomed manner confuted Barclay Widdrington durst not only aduenture to write against him without sufficient ground but also to oppose the said Barclay as a testimonie of truth against Card. Bellarmine 3. But notwithstanding this glorious brag of D. Schulckenius so highly commending himselfe and his cleare and sound confuting of Barclay after his accustomed manner it cannot be denied but that Doctour Barclay was a very learned man and liued and died like a vertuous Catholike and 〈◊〉 hee was in times past as Posseuine also relateth e In verbo Gulielmus Barclaius a Counseller to the Duke of Lorraine and Master of Requests and in the vniuersity of Mussepont a Professour of the Canon and Ciuill Law and also Deane and that his booke was printed at Paris with a speciall priueledge of the most Christian King of France and is by Posseuine related among other approued bookes and no exception taken by him against it And therefore who doth not maruell that D. Schulckenius durst aduenture so bouldly to affirme f Part. 1. cap. 2. num 2. that Catholikes will make no more account of D. Barclay a famous and learned Catholike then of Marsilius of Padua a known and condemned heretike although not for this point touching the Popes power to depose Princes but for other his assertions which I related in my Appendix against Fa. Suarez Wherefore although perchance some Catholikes doe with Card. Bellarmine make small account of Doctour Barclaies authoritie as also they would make of the authoritie of any other Catholike were he neuer so vertuous or learned that should write against them in this point neuerthelesse other Catholikes doe greatly regard his authoritie for the aforesaid cause and they are also perswaded that they haue as probable reasons to thinke that he did not write partially in fauour of Princes or any other person as that Card. Bellarmine did not write partially in fauour of the Pope and some other of his followers in fauour of him and their Order 4 Neither hath D. Schulckenius in very truth any great cause so greatly to vaunt of his cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay for that both his sonne Mr. Iohn Barclay a learned Catholike hath most clearely shewed the said confutation to be very vnsound to whom as yet no Reply hath been made and yet his booke was printed at Paris by the Kings Printer three yeeres since and also the Bishop of Rochester a learned Protestant hath out of Catholike grounds conuinced D. Schulckenius his brag of the cleare and sound confuting of D. Barclay to be but vaine wherefore let Card Bellarmine first make a cleare and sound Reply to the aforesaid Answers and then he may haue some cause to boast that he hath clearely and soundly confuted D. Barclay In the meane time it can not be denyed but that notwithstanding all the clamours of our Aduersaries this doctrine which doth now so vehemently maintaine the Popes power to depose Princes is and hath euer been impugned by vertuous and learned Catholikes Chap. 5. Wherein the authorities of Mr George Blackwell and of many other English Priests are at large debated 1. THe first testimonie which I brought in my Theologicall Disputation a Cap. 3. sec 3. num 9. to which D. Schulckenius doth not answer was of Mr. George Blackwell a vertuous and learned Catholike Priest and once the Archipraesbyter of the English Seminarie Priests who maintayned euen vntill death for not halfe a quarter of an howre before hee dyed he confirmed the same the oath to be lawfull and that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes to which also besides Mr. William Warmington in his moderate defence of the Oath Mr. Iohn Barclay in his booke against Card Bellarmine in defence of his Father printed at Paris by the Kings Printer and Mr. William Barres in his booke de Iure Regio and many other learned Catholikes of this Kingdome both Priests and Lay-men whose names for iust causes I forbare to set downe for that they had not shewed themselues by publike writings I added the testimonie of those thirteene Reuerend and learned English Priests with whom twice thirtie others would haue ioyned if their protestation had not been made so suddenly who to giue assurance of their loyaltie to the late Queene Elizabeth did by a publike instrument written in parchment professe and made it knowne to all the Christian world that Shee being at that time excommunicated by name and depriued by the sentence of Pope Pius the fifth of hir Regall power and authoritie had neuertheles as full authoritie power and Soueraigntie ouer them and ouer all the Subiects of the Realme as any hir Highnesse Predecessours euer had And that notwithstanding any authoritie or any Excommunication whatsoeuer either denounced or to be denounced by the Pope against hir Maiestie or any borne within hir Maiesties Dominions which would not forsake the defence of

free from tributes as those who appertaine to the familie of Christ. Neither doth it therefore from hence follow that Cleargie men are by the law of God free from tributes For first that which S. Austen saith is not in the words of our Sauiour but it is onely gathered by a probable consequence For our Sauiour doth onely speake of the true and naturall children of Kinges as S. Chrysostome doth expound that place Secondly our Sauiour himselfe doth allso properly command nothing in this place that it may be called the law of God but doth onely shew by the vse and custome of men that the children of Kinges are free from tributes Thus Card. Bellarmine answered in his former Editions which answere in his later editions he altogether concealeth but for what cause I remit to the iudgement of the prudent Reader 23 By all which it is apparant that our Sauiour did onely speake of himselfe and of the naturall children of Kings when hee vsed those words therefore sonnes are free and of the seruants or familie either of Kings or of the children of Kinges he saith nothing at all and therefore from an other consequence drawne from the vse and custome of men and not from the words of our Sauiour can it be gathered that those who are seruants or of the familie of the children of Kings are exempted either from subiection to the inferiour magistrates of the kingdome or from the paying of tributs But by no probable consequence it can be deduced that those who are either seruants and of the familie of Kinges children or also seruants and of the familie of the King himselfe are by the custome of any nation either exempted from subiection to inferiour Magistrates and much lesse to the King himselfe or also from paying tributes vnlesse the King vpon some other speciall consideration doth grant to any of them such a priuiledge 24 To those words of our Sauiour But that wee may not scandalize them c. it is easily answered according to the first exposition of that didrachme which Card. Bellarmine thinketh to be most true that it was a tribute due to the temple or tabernacle and not to Caesar For I doe willingly grant that S. Peter who was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe gouernour of his Church and temple was exempted from paying tribute to the temple But although we should admit that the aforesaide didrachme was a tribute due to Caesar and not to the temple yet from those words of our Sauiour no sufficient argument can be drawne to proue that S. Peter and especially the rest of the Apostles were by the law of God exempted from paying tributes and much lesse from temporall subiection to Heathen Princes 25 First for that we may probably answere with Iansenius and Abulensis that Christ did speake to S. Peter in the plurall number but that wee may not scandalize them not for that S. Peter was bound to pay tribute onely by reason of scandall but either because our Sauiour did speake of his owne person vsing the plurall number for the singular as it is vsuall especially among great persons we are wont saith S. Epiphanius h In the heresie of the Manichies to speake singular thinges plurall and plurall singular For wee say wee haue tould you and we haue seene you and we come to you and yet there be not two who speake but one who is present or else because the scandall which Christ should haue giuen would in some sort haue redounded to S. Peter as being a mediatour in that businesse And therefore as well affirmeth Iansenius i In C●ncord Euang. cap. 69. in Mat. 17. our Sauiour did pay tribute for himselfe onely to auoid scandall for S. Peter to honour him as with a certaine reward for his faith obedience and diligence as a mediatour of this busines and an executor of the Miracle of finding the stater in the fishes mouth or as Barradius the Iesuite and others doe affirme k In cap 17. Mat. ●om 2. Lib. 10. cap. 32. to honour him aboue the rest as the Prince of the Apostles and the head of the Church See Abulensis q. 198. 199. and 200. in cap. 17. Mat. and Barradius vpon this place 26 Secondly although wee should grant that our Sauiour did for some speciall cause exempt S. Peter from paying tribute to Caesar either by a personall priuiledge or else reall and descending to his successors it doth not therefore follow that he did exempt him from all ciuil subiection to temporal Princes as neither doth it follow that because the Children of Kinges for that their goodes and their fathers are common or any of the Kinges seruants are by speciall priuiledge exempted from paying tributes they are therefore exempted from all ciuil subiection and alleagiance to the King 27 Thirdly for that there is no probabilitie in my iudgment that either Christ did by those words intend to exempt the rest of the Apostles seeing that there is no mention at all made of them in that place or also that this priuiledg of exemption is extended to S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in regard onely that they were of the spirituall familie or Church of Christ I say of the spirituall familie for that I will not deny but that as they were of his corporall familie and liued with him here on earth and had no corporall goods but such as belonged to Christ they were exempted from paying tributes but not from ciuill subiection to Heathen Princes because the exemption of seruants with their Maister or of those who are of the familie of Kinges Children with the Kinges Children themselues is not grounded in the law of nature but onely in a certaine congruity and custome of men from which custome this argument to exempt the Apostles for that they were of Christs familie is drawne but there is no such custome among nations that the seruants or familie of Kinges Children or of the King himselfe are exempted from paying tributes although the children of Kinges hauing no other goodes then which are their fathers be exempted as Card. Bellarmine a little aboue affirmed But howsoeuer neither the seruants to Kinges children nor the kinges children themselues are exempted from ciuill subiection or from the directiue or coerciue power of the King 28 And therefore neither Fa. Suarez who handleth this question at large dare affirme that from those words of our Sauiour it can certainely but onely probably be gathered that this exemption was extended to the rest of the Apostles I answere saith hee l In defens fid● Ca●●o 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap. 8. in sine that it is true that Christ did not say plainly that the familie is exempted with the children neither doth it follow by any euident or necessary consequence and therefore the aforesaid opinion for as much as belongeth to this part is neither of faith nor altogether certaine Neuerthelesse it is most likely that this extention to

cap. 14. replieth in this manner That which I sayd that the members of the same body are connected and that one doth depend vpon another I vnderstood of members of a diuerse kinde as is a finger a hand an arme a shoulder and a head and not of members of the same kinde as are two hands two feet two eyes two eares For the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power whereof we speake are of a diuerse kinde as it is manifest and words are to bee vnderstood according to the matter which is treated of otherwise there could not bee any demonstration so certaine against which there could not bee brought some cauill Therefore Kingly power which is principall in his kinde if it compound one body with the Ecclesiasticall power which also in his kinde is principall must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour least that in one bodie there be two heads and seeing that it is manifest enough that the Pope is head of the Church in steede of Christ it doth plainely follow that a King must either bee no member of this body or else hee must bee subiect to the Pope and in the same manner the ciuill power which doth chiefely reside in the King must either bee subiect to the spirituall which doth chiefely reside in the Pope or else it must remaine out of the Church in that manner as a finger cannot be in the body which doth not depend vpon the hand nor a hand which doth not depend vpon the arme nor an arme which doth not depend vpon the shoulder nor a shoulder which doth not depend vpon the head 5. But that which Barclay saith a little after that the spirituall and ciuill power are as two shoulders in a body whereof neither is subiect to the other but both of them are subiect to one head which is Christ is not onely false because those powers are not of the same kinde that they may be compared to two shoulders but also it appertaines to the heresie of this time For what doe the heretikes of this time more endeauour to perswade the people then that the Pope is not the visible head of the body of the Church vnto whom all Christians if they will be saued must bee subiect But this Barclay of his owne accord doth grant them who neuerthelesse in all his booke doth make himselfe a Catholike Therefore the spirituall and ciuill power are not well compared to two shoulders but they ought either to bee compared to the spirit and flesh as did S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the place often cited compare them or else to the shoulder and head to wit principall members wherof neuerthelesse the one although of it selfe very strong and potent ought to bee directed and gouerned by the other which is superiour 6 But this Reply of Card Bellarmine although at the first sight may seeme especially to the vnlearned to haue in it some shew of probabilitie yet to the iudicious Reader who will be pleased to examine it more exactly it will clearely appeare to be in very deede very vnsound and fallacious to D. Barclay very iniurious to Catholike religion very scandalous and in very truth to haue in it no probabilitie at all d Cap. 14. §. 2o. as Mr. Iohn Barclay in his answer to Card. Bellarmine hath most clearely convinced And first whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that when he said that members of the same body are depending one vpon the other he vnderstood of member● of a diuers kinde as is a finger a hand an arme a shoulder a head and not of members of the same kind as are two hands two feet c. Mr. Barclay replyeth that it is vntrue that members of a diuerse kind are depending one vpon the other as the hand doth not depend vpon the foot the liuer vpon the lights the splene vpon the shoulders c. 7 And as for those examples which Card. Bellarmine doth bring hee vseth therein great deceipt for neither doth the finger for that cause depend vpon the hand nor the hand vpon the arme nor the arme vpon the shoulder for that they are members of one body but for that by order of nature the finger cannot consist or bee of it selfe without the hand nor the hand without the arme nor the arme without the shoulder Neuerthelesse many members of the same body also of a diuerse kinde can well consist one without the other as the eye without the eare the shoulder without the foot the nose without the eie c as likewise these two members whereof we now treate of the Christian common-wealth not onely may but also did actually as Card. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth e Lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 6. in the A-Apostles time consist one without the other And if this proposition of Card. Bellarmine be true that the members of one body if they bee of a diuerse kinde must depend one vpon the other hee must acknowledge that in one kingdome the Musician must depend vpon the Physician or the Physician vpon the Musician the Shooe-maker vpon the Taylor or the Taylor vpon the Shooe-maker the Lord Chamberlaine vpon the Lord Treasurer or the Lord Treasurer vpon the Lord Chamberlaine to omit infinite other such like trades and dignitie● all which are members of the same bodie or Kingdome whereas it is too too manifest that they are not subiect or depend one vpon the other but either immediately vpon the King or vpon those Magistrates whom the King shall appoint 8. Secondly whereas Card. Bellarmine affirmeth that it is manifest enough that the Pope is head of the Church in place of Christ from whence it doth clearely follow that a King must either be no member of this body or else he must be subiect to the Pope Mr. Barclay replyeth that Card. Bellarmine doth cunningly equiuocate in that word Church For the Pope indeed is head of the Church that is of Ecclesiasticall things or of Christians as they are Christians in so much that a King cannot be a member of the Church being taken in this manner but hee must be sub●ect to the Pope But if by the Church hee vnderstand both powers ciuill and Ecclesiasticall which are among Christians both Lay-men and Cleargiemen who are ioyned by one linke of faith he i● altogether deceiued For the Pope is not the head of ciuill things and therfore in vaine doth Card. Bellarmine affirme that Kingly power must of necessitie be either subiect or superiour least that there be two heades in one bodie For taking the Church in that sense as it comprehendeth ciuill and spirituall power the Church hath Christ only for the head and the Pope and Kings for chiefe members who also in an other respect are ministeriall heades vnder Christ the King of ciuill gouernment and the Pope of spirituall Besides Card. Bellarmine doth now change his medium as the Logicians call it His argument which he tooke vpon him to defend was this They are members of one body therefore one