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	prince_n	see_v	2,897	5	3.5419	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59122	Remarks upon the Reflections of the author of Popery misrepresented, &c. on his answerer, particularly as to the deposing doctrine in a letter to the author of the Reflections, together with some few animadversions on the same author's Vindication of his Reflections.	Seller, Abednego, 1646?-1705.	1686 (1686)	Wing S2461; ESTC R10424	42,896	75

Christ's Vicar and not to a petulant Colledge consisting of a few passionate corrupted persons yet the Pope liked the censure too well to condemn it Besides two or three dissenters in so great a body signifie nothing for had it been in an Assembly of the Clergy or in a General Council the majority would easily have out-weighed so small a number of contrary Votes and if the Syndick Faber's asserting the Right of Princes makes this no Decree of the Sorbon then the Syndick Richer's assertion An. 1611. in his Book de Ecclesiastica politicâ potestate is enough to prove that the Sorbon does not acknowledge the Government of the Church to be Monarchical nor were the Sorbonists wanting to countenance this their assertion ordering Boucher and others to preach up the Authority of the Pope in such cases and the Justice of the King's Deposition and there was a Book written in defence of the Censure the Author of it believed to be our learned Stapleton by others more likely to to be the above named Boucher de justa abdicatione Henrici 3. and to make it appear that the Assistants of the League lookt on it as a quarrel on the behalf of Religion it is remarkable that the Duke of Parma left his own and the publick concerns in Flanders in a very ill posture only that he might re-enforce the League and relieve Paris which was likely to have fallen into the hands of Henry 4. who besieged it And now we are come to the Times that succeeded the Parricide of Henry the Great who tho never so heartily reconciled to the Church of Rome was never forgiven the sin of his first Apostasie as they called it till his death in the minority of whose Son Lewis 13. When the third Estate would have past a Law that the King was deposable for no cause whatever the Clergy violently opposed it and ordered the Cardinal de Perron to make a Speech against it which after they had examin'd and approved of in the Chamber Ecclesiastick they attended him to the convention of the three Estates where he pronounc't it An. 1615. which Speech our King James learnedly answer'd in his declaratio pro jure regio where you may see it proved that the Cardinal took upon him to assert that the Pope or the Church had power to depose Princes and that it was universally owned in France ever since their Schools had been opened and the event made it appear what the design of the Speech was after which the third Estate saw it impossible to go on with their design successfully and so declin'd it and whatever F. * Vb. supr c. ult Maimburge says to the contrary yet his own argument confirms what I assert That when this difference happened between the Clergy and the third Estate the two Chambers as he calls them the Clergy inform'd Pope Paul the 5. in their answer to his Breve of Jan. 31. 1615. Angebamur non mediocriter c. That they were troubled above measure to see Catholicks transported with an undiscreet Zeal meddle with matters of Faith where you may observe that the deposing power is acknowledg'd by them to be a matter of Faith earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent though you deny it to be so which did not belong to the third Estate who were Lay-men and Lawyers but withal they confess that the determination of this point did belong to the Church i. e. to themselves and the Pope omnem hanc authoritatem penes Ecclesiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi praeesse voluerit By which it is plain that that Speech was not one Doctors Opinion only as Monsieur Maimbourge affirms but the Opinion of the whole Chamber Ecclesiastick or their whole Clergy And that the French Church afterward owned the Opinion of that Speech seems plain because the general Assembly of the Clergy An. 1665. gave the Abbot Gentil 6000. Livres to collect the Memoirs of the Gallican Church which were afterward solemnly reviewed by several Bishops and Abbots and then publisht among which this Speech of Cardinal de Perron is printed and approved the whole scope of which Maimbourge himself confesses is inconsistent with the independent right of Princes and their exemption from any deposing power It is true this Speech that so few years since was Printed among the Memoirs with so much applause and approbation is now ordered to be left out of them which is so far from being an argument to incline any man to acquiesce in the judgment of such a Church that it may justly affright him from confiding in such volatile changeable men who in such weighty matters vary their Opinions so often from one extreme to another And the reason is plain the French Bishops following the dictates of that Court so that since the quarrel about the Regale they have sought to stoop the Pope and probably to make his Election depend on the present French King as it did antiently on Charles the Great And of this I could give some likely proofs but that the digression would be too long But against all this it is objected That under the present King Lewis 14. the Sorbon An. 1663. condemn'd even the indirect Power of the Pope over Princes and asserted that the King of France hath no other Superiour but God to which we answer that the same Colledge did in the days of the League maintain the contrary as I have formerly proved and at last the Sorbon is not the Representative of the French Church nor can it be imagined says the * Ch. 5. p. 14. Author of the second Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance That those men who took upon them to vary from the Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome would ever go about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Opinion either as an Article of Faith in it self or as a Rule of Faith to others But the Objection is strengthened That the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris An. 1682. as Representatives of the French Church did decree the same to which we † V. Jurieu ubi supr answer that the Declaration was made but by thirty or forty Prelates within the verge of the Court whereas in a free National Council the contrary might have been determined But put the case that this had been decreed in a full and free National Synod yet neither could this have establisht an indefeasible right for I remember that in the Convocation under Henry 8. the King's Supremacy was decreed and establisht by our Bishops even by Gardiner Bonner c. who in all other things were zealous Catholicks and yet I suppose you will be loath to grant that for that reason the King had a just Right to that Supremacy And this also serves to answer your Objection from the Determinations of the French Vniversities against the Deposing Doctrine because not onely the greatest part of the Vniversities of

say relating to that Vision As 1. That it is very probably believed by most learned men that SS Perpetua and Faelicitas were Montanists among whom there were many visions which the rest of the World gave no credit to but this I shall not dispute But 2. I averr that it is very disputable both from the vision it self and from the quotations in St. Austin whether Dinocrates were baptiz'd or no. I know your † Chap. 23. p. 84. Adversary says he was baptized and St. Austin would fain have it so but there is no convincing proof that he was so and the silence of the Writer of that Passion seems to imply that he was not so Now then I urge you with this Dilemma either Dinocrates was baptiz'd or not if he were not baptiz'd as it is very probable because his Father was a very violent Heathen and so in all likelihood would not suffer his Son being so young to be baptiz'd then you have nothing to do with him in Purgatory for tho you have allotted an appartment there for the unbaptiz'd Children of Christian Parents yet you allow no place there to the unbaptiz'd Children of Heathen Parents who with their Pagan Progenitors are condemn'd to Hell unless we must reckon this story with those other of St. Thecla's bringing the Soul of Falconilla out of Hell or St. Gregory's praying thence the Emperour Trajan which later story the * 〈◊〉 Munster praef ad Evang. S. Matth. Heb. p. 103 4 Jews who themselves allow of a sort of Purgatory make sport of but if he he were baptiz'd as I profess I cannot believe tho St. Austin says so then it seems very hard that a Child of seven years old when few Children are capable of understanding enough to chuse to be wicked should be sent to Purgatory for sins which he knew not of for if that be true which St. Austin says that his Father probably carryed him to the Heathen Temples as we will suppose it to be this was the Father's sin and not the Child's and so I cannot see why Dinocrates should be punisht And to confirm my conjecture that he was not baptiz'd I am apt to think that in the Vision the Water * Pass s Perp p. 15. Ed. Oxon. which Perpetua saw her Brother endeavouring to drink of but could not come at was an Emblem of the Waters of Baptism which he seem'd to endeavour after and at last Perpetua her self says * Io. p. 5. that she her self was a Catechumen when she was apprehended and that at that time she had two Brethren both Catechumens now if we reckon Dinocrates for one of those two Brethren of hers or allow him to be dead some time before as I rather conjecture I am strongly inclined to believe that while the Father was an obstinate Pagan the Sister and the other Brothers only Catechumens that this younger Son who was but seven years old when he died was not baptiz'd before he went out of the World now if he were not baptiz'd the Fathers tell you there was no hopes of Salvation for him for to omit St. Austin and the African Fathers I will only instance in two remarkable passages the one for the Western Church out of * De Dog Eccl. c. 74. Gennadius Nullum Catechumenum c. That no Catechumen tho he die in a state of good works which is more than St. Austin says of Dinocrates for he accuses him of Idolatry can attain to Eternal life unless he be a Martyr And for the Eastern Church out of St. Chrysostom † To. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. ad Phi. p. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mourn over those who leave the world without Baptism they deserve your sighs and lamentations they are out of the Kingdom of God among the unrighteous and the condemn'd And now if all your former Arguments will not make us Converts you tell us * Refl p. ult that if a man assent to these Articles as you have stated them he shall have admittance into your Church and probably so for we know you deal very gently with your new Converts till you have secured them but who knows how much further he must go when he is under new Oaths of Obedience to that Church who makes her unwritten Traditions which no man knows till she reveals them to be as much the Rule of Faith and Manners as the Holy Scriptures and consequently binds all her followers to an Implicit Faith to believe whatever she shall reveal And I remember that Mr. Cambden * Annal. an 1560. records a report that once there were more easie terms of Reconciliation proposed by the Pope's Nuncio viz. the allowance of the Sacrament in both kinds and the confirmation of the English Lyturgy and probably many other things so the Papal Supremacy were acknowledged but we are very well satisfied that St. Peter had no more Authority than the rest of the Apostles and that every Bishop by Divine Right is a Successor of the Apostles and consequently hath equal power in the Church of Christ that the making more Sacraments than we are sure Christ instituted is an encroachment upon his Right and that the establishment of your five additional Sacraments is such an encroachment that the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament the Jews till our blessed Saviour's time being the only True Church of God with the uncontroverted Books of the New are the only divinely inspired Oracles and a sufficient Rule of Faith and Manners without the help of the Apocrypha or of unwritten Traditions that General Councils are not infallible much less the Pope either singly or with the Colledge of Cardinals that giving the Communion in one kind is robbing the people of what our Saviour gave them a right to and that Prayers in an unknown Tongue are a contradiction to St. Paul with many other such points which it is now needless to mention for which reason the Members of the Church of England think fit to continue where they are where they enjoy all the forementioned blessings with many others which must necessarily be forfeited when they embrace the Romish Communion Thus have I curforily taken notice of your Reflections in whatever material points you have thought fit to speak to except that very weighty and most material point of the power of Deposing Princes the thorow consideration of which was the first cause of my present undertaking Now you encounter your Adversaries Golath-Argument as you seen in scorn to call it as Card. Bellarmine in the Praeface to his Answer to Barclay says that writing in defence of Princes Barclay came out like Goliah to defie all the Armies of Israel with this distinction * Refl p. 9. that in all Councils there are some Articles of Faith which all Catholicks receive and some Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government which are not absolutely obligatory so that I perceive that in some sort