Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n henry_n king_n pope_n 2,794 5 6.8846 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A41431 The sum of a conference had between two divines of the Church of England and two Catholic lay-gentlemen at the request and for the satisfaction of three persons of quality, August 8, 1671. Gooden, Peter, d. 1695. 1687 (1687) Wing G1099; ESTC R34918 23,435 41

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

The Sum of a CONFERENCE Had between TWO DIVINES OF THE Church of England And Two CATHOLIC LAY-GENTLEMEN At the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality August 8. 1671. Publisht with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel for him and Matthew Turner 1687. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER SInce Printing of Conferences seems now in Vogue I will venture to be in the new Mode I have so good an Example of it before me that I hope no body will take it ill if I follow it In the Year 1676. there happen'd a Conference about Points of Religion between some Protestant Divines and some Roman-Catholic Gentlemen which after a long silence has been now lately set out the second time in a fine Dress and with a long Preface This gave me the Curiosity to seek further into those Matters and meeting accidentally with a Copy of another Conference held in 1671. wherein some of the same Persons were concern'd I thought good to present you with it By it 's plain Expressions and unstudied Discourse you may easily judge it to be the naked Truth of what was then spoken Peruse it and think seriously of it The Sum of a Conference had between Two Divines of the Church of England and Two Catholic Lay-Gentlemen at the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality Aug. 8. 1671. THE Persons for whom the Conference was intended desir'd the Subject might be Schism Subject agreed Drs. It is fit we presuppose some Principles before we enter into dispute Cath. Content Dr. 1. Schism is a wilful Separation from the Communion of the Church without cause Cath. Tho' we know very well there can be no cause of Schism yet we will admit to come quickly to the Question your notion of Schism with these words without cause in your Definition of it Dr. 2. Another Principle is Men may without Crime separate from a Communion in which they cannot continue without Sin. Cath. Agreed Dr. 3. There are certain Laws antecedent to Communion by which every particular person ought to judge what Communion he ought to be of or forsake Cath. We do admit that there are external Motives antecedent to Communion which do induce and oblige a particular person to choose the Communion of which he ought to be a Member and to which he ought being a Member to submit in Faith and Government of which every particular person may and ought to judge But we do deny that the interior Doctrins or general Practices of a Communion are subject to the Judgment of every particular Man so that every private person judging this or that Doctrin or Practice to be False Heretical or Idolatrous tho' the Communion of which he is a Member judges it Catholic and Orthodox has lawful cause to separate himself from that Communion without being guilty of Criminal Schism for without this Distinction there could be no such thing as Schism in the World. Dr. You must prove us guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. We will. In the year 1517 you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you are Criminal Schismatics Dr. I do deny that the Separation in the year 1517 do's concern us nor do we think our selves oblig'd to defend or justifie it we do only maintain that the Church of England is not guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. The same Argument presses the Church of England as the Lutherans Let it be therefore put thus In King Hen. the 8th Ed. the 6th or Queen Elizabeths Days date the Birth of your Church from what time you please you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you the Church of England are guilty of Criminal Schism Dr. I deny your Antecedent we did not separate without cause Cath. I prove it If you had lawful cause you can assign it but you cannot assign any lawful cause Ergo you did separate without cause Dr. I will assign the cause It was thus In the Year of Henry the 8th the Parliament declared That the Right of Reforming the Church of this Kingdom was in the King upon which the King did reform and upon this Reformation the Pope did Excommunicate the King and Kingdom which Excommunication was confirm'd by another Pope in Queen Elizabeths days so that the Pope by Excommunicating made the Schism and not we by Reforming Cath. The Declaration above mentioned and the Reformation thereupon were antecedent to the Excommunication so that you must prove that the Parliament had just Power and Authority to make that Declaration and to Reform upon it and that they did indeed Reform and not spoil the Doctrin they undertook to mend for if it had not all its Proceedings were unjust and criminal and Excommunication was but the just and proper Punishment for that Crime And then sure it would be reckoned very strange to say That a lawful Authority punishing an Offender is made guilty of the Crime it punishes by inflicting that Punishment Dr. The Parliament did not ascribe any new Power to the King but only declar'd that the same was in him which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all And I can shew from time to time that the Popes Authority has been refus'd and his Legats forbid entrance into the Kingdom several times Cath. I pray shew substantially if you can that the Church of England before the Reformation did never at any time accept or which is positive did at all times refuse the Pope all sort of Authority and Superiority over them else to quarrel sometimes with his Authority or some part of it or stop his Legats might be just For that it is possible for a Power which has lawful Authority to challenge and demand some sort of Authority which is more than what is lawfully his and in such case the Inferiors may at least remonstrate to their Superiors if not oppose them in such unlawful Demands and this might be the case between the Pope and the King of England at some particular time At other times Inferiors might be stubborn and disobedient and for a time deny that to their Superiors which is really due Therefore to say that the Kings of England did for a time oppose the Pope in some things is not enough to prove the Declaration aforesaid which was universal denying him all Authority whatsoever to be no ascribing of new Power but only a Declaration that the same Power was in That King which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all but the contrary to what is now demanded to be prov'd and must be prov'd before that Declaration can excuse the Declarers from the guilt of causeless Separation and consequently Criminal Schism and consequently of deserving justly Excommunication is so evident that I appeal to these present worthy persons who are to judge in this point whether this be not sufficiently