Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	pope_n	prince_n	2,815	5	5.7523	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A68236	The third booke of commentaries vpon the Apostles Creede contayning the blasphemous positions of Iesuites and other later Romanists, concerning the authoritie of their Church: manifestly prouing that whosoeuer yeelds such absolute beleefe vnto it as these men exact, doth beleeue it better then Gods word, his Sonne, his prophets, Euangelists, or Apostles, or rather truly beeleeues no part of their writings or any article in this Creede. Continued by Thomas Iackson B. of Diuinitie and fellow of Corpus Christi College in Oxford.; Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed. Book 3	Jackson, Thomas, 1579-1640.	1614 (1614)	STC 14315; ESTC S107489	337,354	346

without controuersie many and great yet limited both for number and magnitude For suppose King Henry the eight after hee had done what he could against the Pope should still haue professed his good liking of Romish religion opposing only this to all his Popish Cleargie that had challenged him of reuolt Am not I defender of the faith The Pope whom I trow you take for no false Prophet hath giuen me this prerogatiue amongst Christian Princes as expresly as euer Saint Peter bequeathed him his supremacy aboue other Bishops It is as impossible for me to defend as for his Holinesse to teach any other besides the true Catholique faith Let the proudest amongst my Prelates examine my expositions of his decrees and by S. George he shall fry a fagot for an heretick Would this or the like pretence though countenanced by royall authority haue been accepted for a iust defence that this boisterous King had not contradicted the Pope but the tatling Monkes or other priuate expositors of his decrees would this haue satisfied the Popes agents vntill the King and his Holinesse had come to personall conference for finall debatement of the case yet for Christs seruants thus to neglect their masters cause is no sinne in the Romanists iudgement yea an heresie is it not to deale so negligently in it For a sinne of no lower ranke they make it not to submit our hearts minds and affections vnto the Popes negatiue decrees though against that sence of scripture which conscience and experience giue vs. Vnto all the doubts feares or scruples these can minister it must suffice That the Pope sayth he expounds scripture no otherwise then Christ would were hee in earth but onely controls all priuate glosses or expositors of them But can any Christian heart content it selfe with such delusions and defer all examinations of doctrine vntill that dreadfull day come vpon him wherein the great Shepheard shal plead his owne cause face to face with this pretended Vicar and his associates Do we beleeue that Christ hath giuen vs a written law that he shall come to be our Iudge and call vs to a strict accompt wherein we haue transgressed or kept it yet may we not try by examination whether these Romish guides lead vs aright or awry Whether some better or clearer exposition may not be hoped for then the Pope or Councell for the present tenders to vs What if the Pope should prohibite all disputations about this point in hand whether obeying him against the true sence of scripture as we are perswaded wee yeeld greater obedience vnto him then vnto Scriptures may we not examine the equity of this decree or his exposition of that Scripture which happely he would pretend for this authority his amplius fili mi ne requiras No by their generall tenent and Valentians expresse assertion it were extreame impiety to trauerse this sence or exposition vnder pretence of obscurity c. By the same reason for ought I can see it would follow that if the question were whether obeying the Pope more then God we did obey man more then God we might not examine at least not determine whether the Pope were man or God or a middle nature betwixt both which came not within the compasse of that comparison CHAP. IX In what sence the Iesuites may truly deny they beleeue the words of man better then the words of God In what sence againe our writers truly charge them with this blasphemy 1. IF we reuiew the former discourse we may find that equiuocation which Bellarmine sought as a knot in a bulrush in our writers obiections to be directly contained in their Churches deniall of what was obiected Whilest they deny that they exalt the Churches authority aboue scriptures or mans word aboue Gods this deniall may haue a double sence They may deny a plaine and open profession or challenge of greater authority in their Church then in Scriptures Or they may denie that in effect and substance they ouerthrow all authority of Scripture saue onely so farre as it makes for their purpose 2. That the Pope should openly professe himselfe competitor with God or in expresse tearmes challenge greater authority then Scriptures haue was neuer obiected by any of our writers For all of vs know the man of sinne must be no open or outward enemy to the Church but Iudas like a disciple by profession his doctrine indeed must bee a doctrine of diuels yet counterfeiting the voice of Angels as he himselfe though by internall disposition of minde a slaue to all manner of filthinesse and impurity must bee enstiled sanctissimus Dominus the most holy Lord. If the poison of his iniquity were not wrapt vp in the titles of diuine mysteries it would forth-with be disliked by many silly superstitious soules which daily suck their bane from it because perswaded that the scriptures which they neuer haue examined whose true sence they neuer tasted but from some reliques of heathenish zeale idolatrously worship in grosse do fully warrant it When our Writers therefore obiect that the Papists exalt the Popes lawes aboue Gods had not these holy Catholicks an especiall grace to grow deafe as often as wee charge their mother with such notorious and knowne whoredomes as they see might euidently be proued vnto the world if they should stand to contest with vs their meaning is plaine that the Pope in deed and issue makes the Scriptures which in shew he seemes to reuerence of no authority but onely with reference to his owne That he and his followers should in words much magnifie Gods word written or vnwritten we do not maruell because the higher esteeme men make of it the higher still hee may exalt his throne being absolutely enabled by this deuise to make all that belongs to God his Word his Lawes his Sacraments the pretious Body and Bloud of his Sonne blessed for euer meere foot-stooles to his ambition For if the authority of Scriptures or such traditions as he pretends be established as diuine and he admitted sole absolute infallible Iudge of their meaning it would argue either Antichristian blindnesse not to see or impudency of no meaner stocke not to acknowledge that the Pope by this meane might appropriate vnto himselfe the honour due vnto God and play vpon his Creator in such sort as if a corrupt Lawyer hauing euidences committed to his trust should by vertue of them take vp rents and let leases to the Landlords dammage and Tennants ouerthrow And what is most villanous vnto whatsoeuer prerogatiues though most preiudiciall to the diuine maiesty his Parasiticall Canonists shall blasphemously entitle this most holy Father the sonne of God and his faithfullest seruants Apostles or Prophets must be brought forth to abette the forgery as if euidence giuen in Court by infamous Knights of the Post should in the finall day of hearing bee produced vnder the hands and seales of free Barons or other chiefe Peeres of the Land for as was intimated

to doe according to all that they informe thee According to the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou doe thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee neither to the right hand nor to the left And that man that will doe presumptuously not hearkning vnto the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there or vnto the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away euill from Israel so all the people shall heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously 2 This precept admits of many restrictions any one of which doth take away all the force of our aduersaries obiections First it may without preiudice to our cause bee granted although it cannot out of these words bee necessarily inferred that God here prescribes obedience in the abstract such as was to bee performed vnto those Priests and Iudges that liued according to that patterne which hee had set them Thus may this precept of obedience for the extent be vniuersall and concern all causes whatsoeuer spirituall or temporall doubts of conscience or matters of this life in all which such gouernours wereto bee obeyed but conditionally if they were such as God in his law required they should be vnto such as you heard before hee gaue illuminations extraordinary such as the parties that were to obey might haue perfect notice of But how great soeuer the extent of this precept be not one fyllable in it makes more for absolute obedience vnto spirituall then vnto ciuill gouernors for it is said indefinitely thou shalt doe according to that thing which they eyther spirituall or temporall of that place which the Lord hath chosen shall shew thee And againe the words are dis●unctiue That man that will doe presumptuously not hearkening vnto the Priest or vnto the Iudge that man shall die whether the Priest were to be supreme Iudge or no it is not said at the least the High Priest was not the chiefe man alwayes in the Councell for hee was not alwayes admitted into the supreme Consistory or Sanhedrim which is established in this place yet Bellarmine will haue the b definitiue sentence belong vnto the Priest and the execution of it to the ciuill magistrate so indeed the present Romish Church in spirituall cases would bee iudge and make Christian Princes her hangmen but their practise must not be taken for an infallible exposition of that Law whence they seeke to iustifie their practise quite contrary to the practise of the Iewish Church and Synagogue Nor doth Bellarmine or any other beside the base parasiticall Canonists or the Popes trencher chaplaines deny but that in many ciuill causes the Prince or temporall Magistrate hath a definitiue sentence can hee then gather out of any circumstance of this place that onely spirituall causes are here meant nay hee confesseth that the law is generall concerning all doubtes that might arise out of the law yea it is most probable that it onely concernes ciuill controuersies and Bellarmines reason to proue that it includeth spirituall causes or matters of religion is most idle The occasion of this Law saith hee was for them that did serue other Gods as appeares out of the beginning of the Chapter now the seruice of other Gods is a point of Religion But what though Moses in the former part of this Chapter speake of Idolaters must this law therefore concerne Idolaters In the former part hee speaketh onely of Idolaters but this law is not onely for them by Bellarmines confession Yea the circumstances of the place and the expresse law against Idolaters mentioned before euince that in this Chapter as in the former he first sets downe lawes concerning the true seruice of God and in the latte● part giues precepts for the obseruation of the second Table the maintaining of loue by the finall composition of all controuersies that might arise betwixt neighbours In the former law Idolaters are sentenced to death and Idolatry saith Bellarmine is a point of Religion Was the Priest alone then to giue sentence and the ciuill Magistrate onely to execute it There is not the least pretence for it out of this Text. Any ordinary Magistrate might execute him that was lawfully conuicted of this crime nor was it so hard a matter to iudge who was an Idolater amongst the Iewes as it is to determine what is an heresie amongst the Romanists This was to be proued by witnesses not by Logicall proofe or force of speculatiue reason Had the cunningest Iesuite in the world been taken amongst them kneeling down before an Image and praying to it all the distinctions in the master of sentences or Aquinas or both their Commentators could not haue redeemed him against two honest men that would haue sworne hee would haue done thus much there had beene no appeale from any City in Iudah vnto any higher Court his doome had been read in the gates and without them hee should as Homer speakes haue put on a stony coat 3 That the Kings of Iudah were only to execute the Priests definitiue sentence in all hard controuersies is a positiō wel deseruing execution without appeale at Princes hands And no doubt but it did so amongst the Iewes The former Court as is most probable was to cease when they had a King amongst them And Moses in the former Chapter after he had giuen the other law for ending controuersies giues the law for the election of their king if so bee they would haue one as if the former Court had then ceased to bee the supreme Tribunall seeing all Subiects might appeale vnto the King from it in which this Soueraignty did before reside as being the supreme Tribunall whence there could be no appeale 4 The King in the Law concerning his qualification is commanded to haue the Law of his God written out And it shall bee with him and he shall read therein all the dayes of his life that hee may learne to feare the Lord his God and to keepe all the words of his Law and these Ordinances for to doe them that his heart bee not lifted vp aboue his brethren and that he turne not from the commandement to the right hand or to the left Was hee to take all this pains onely that hee might learne to execute the Priestes definitiue sentence This any heathen might haue done But the Kings of Israel albeit they were not to meddle in the execution of the Priests office were notwithstanding to bee so well skilled in Scriptures as to bee able to iudge whether the Priest did according to that Law which God had set him to follow and to controle his definitiue sentence if it were euidently contrary to Gods word which both were absolutely bound to obey 5 It may perhaps here be obiected that the King had no such assurance of infallibility in iudgement as the Priest had therefore it was requisite he should rely vpon the

peeuishnesse or priuacy of spirit as the false Catholike bestowes on vs likely to befall him if he should vary from the rest The best answere I thinke a Romane Catechisme could afford would be to repeat the conclusion which Bellarmine would haue maintained All the rest besides were Baals Prophets They were indeede in such a sence as Iesuites and all seducers are but not by publike profession or solemne subscription to his rites as may partly appeare by Iehosaphats continuing his resolution to goe vp to battell against Micaiahs counsell which questionlesse hee would rather haue died at home then done had hee knowne Michaiah onely to haue belonged vnto the Lord and all his aduersaries vnto Baal partly by that reuerent conceit which euen the chiefe of these seducers entertained at that time of Elias whose vtter disgrace Baals seruants would by all meanes haue sought for his late designes acted vpon their fellowes Yet as Iosephus records the chiefe argument vsed by Zidkiah to diminish Micaiahs credite with both Kings was an appearance of contradiction betwixt his and Eliahs prediction of Ahabs death the accomplishment of both being apprehended as impossible lesse credit as he vrged was to be giuen to Mica●ah because so impudent as openly to contradict so great a Prophet of the Lord as Elias at whose threatnings Ahab King of Israel trembled humbling himselfe with fasting cloathed in sackcloth And it is likely hee would so shortly after entertaine the professed seruants of Baal for his Councellors yet seeing the euent hath openly condemned them for seducers and none are left to plead their cause it is an easie matter for the Iesuite or others to say they were Baals Prophets by profession But were not most Priests and Prophets in Iudah Beniamin vsually such yes and as afterward shall appeare did band as strongly with as ioint consent against Ieremy and Ezechiel as these did against Michaiah The point wherein wee desire resolution is by what rule of Romish Catholique Diuinity truth in those times might haue beene discerned from falshood before Gods iudgements did light vpon the City and Temple Hee is more blind then the blindest Iew that euer breathed who cannot see how such as professed themselues Priests and Prophets of the Lord aswell in Iudah as in Israel did bewitch the people with the selfe same spels the Papists boasts of to this day as the best prop of his Catholike faith Yet such is the hypocrisie of these proud Pharises that they can say in their hearts Oh had wee liued in the dayes of Iezabel we would not haue beene her inquisitors against such Prophets as Elias and Micaiah were When as in truth Iezabels impietie towards them was clemency in respect of Romish cruelty against Gods Saints her witchcrafts but as veniall sins if wee compare them with Iesuiticall sorceries But of this error more directly in the Chapter following of their sorceries and impieties hereafter 3 Vnto our former demand whether the society of Prophets were the Church representatiue whether the people were bound without examination to belieue whatsoeuer was by a maior part or such of that profession as were in highest or most publike place determined What answere a learned Papist would giue I cannot tell Then this following better cannot be imagined on their behalfe That this supreme authority which they contend for was in the true Prophets onely that they albeit inspired with diuine illuminations and endued with such authority as the Iesuite makes the Popes humana diuinitas inspirala did notwithstanding permit their declarations for the hardnesse of this peoples heart to be tried by the euent or examined by the law not that they wanted lawfull power would they haue stood vpon their authority to exact beliefe without delay seeing readinesse to belieue the truth proposed is alwayes commended in the sacred Story And no doubt but the people did well in admitting the true Prophets doctrine before the false at the first proposal the sooner the better But were they therefore to belieue the true Prophets absolutely without examination Why should they then belieue one of that profession before another seeing seducers could propose their conceits with as great speed and peremptorinesse as the best Nor did reason onely disswade but the law of God also expresly forbid that people alwayes and in all causes to trust such as vpon triall had beene found to diuine aright of strange euents Yet grant wee must that hardnesse of heart made this people more backeward then otherwise they would haue beene to belieue truthes proposed that oftimes they required signes from their Prophet when obedience was instantly due from them to him that oftimes they sinned in not assenting immediately without interposition of time for triall or respite to resolue vpon what termes beliefe might be tendered Thus much wee may grant with this limitation if we consider them absolutely or so well disposed as they should and might haue beene not as the Prophets found them For in men inwardly ill affected or vnqualified for true faith credulity comes neere the nature of vice then vertue a disposition of disloyalty a degree of heresie or infidelity rather then a preparation to sincere obedience or any sure foundation of true and liuely faith Assent perchance men so affected may more readily then others would vnto sundry diuine truthes yet not truely not as they are diuine and consonant to the rule of goodnesse but by accident in as much as they in part consort with some one or other of their affections And the more forward men are vpon such grounds to belieue some generalities of Christian dueties the more prone they proue when opportunity tempts them to oppugne others more principall and more specially concerning their saluation For credulity if it spring not out of an honest disposition vniformally inning vnto goodnesse as such but from some vnbrideled humor or predominant naturall affection will alwayes sway more vnto some mischiefe then vnto any thing that is good Many belieued in Iesus saith Saint Iohn when they saw his miracles It pleased them well hee had turned water into wine that hee had giuen other proofes of his power in driuing buyers and sellers out of the Temple did minister hope vnto proud hearts hee might proue such a Messias as they expected as elsewhere vpon the like occasion they said This is of a truth the Prophet that should come into the world The ground of this their aptnesse to belieue thus much as is intimated in the words following was their inordinate desire of hauing an earthly King that might rule the nation with an yron rod. When Iesus therefore perceiued by their forwardnesse to professe the former truth that they would come and take him to make him a King he departed againe into a mountaine himselfe alone for the same cause no doubt which the Euangelist specifies in the former place But Iesus did not commit himself vnto them because he knew them all