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	time_n	year_n	3,367	5	4.7277	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35128	Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.	Carwell, Thomas, 1600-1664.	1658 (1658)	Wing C721; ESTC R20902	499,353	446

that in Recognition thereof it decreed that all Constitutions of Councils and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vigour But what sayes his Reserve his Master-Allegation the Fourth Council of Toledo just as much as the rest It added sayes the Bishop some things to the Creed which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds So they might well do for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before and in opposition to Heresies already condemn'd by the whole Church Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church or of the Sea Apostolique which is the question in hand and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church provided it were done with due Subordination to the Sea Apostolique For that thus a National Synod may proceed the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth sufficiently declare which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church Thus does he prove that Provincial and Particular Councils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Doctrine without yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you when in all the instances he brings there is not the least glance or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority but express mention of it and of due regard towards it He urges again that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter or peradventure he perswaded himself the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them 9. Yet after so many lost proofs with a confidence as great as if they had been all Demonstrations he asks us the question And if this was practis'd so often and in so many places why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like Truly I know no reason why it may not provided it be a True National Council and a True Church of England as those recited were true Churches and Councils and provided also that it do no more But seeing as his following words declare by the Church of England he menas the present Protestant Church there and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition and tell him the Church of England in that sense signifies no true Church neither is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod duly representative of the true English Church For is it not notorious that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers Is it not manifest that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England or lawfully to represent the English Church who never had any lawful that is Canonical and Just Vocation Mission or Jurisdiction given them to and over the English Nation But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did that they acted directly contrary to them Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them as this Synod of London did Not one of them contradicted the doctrine of the Roman Church as this did None of them convened against the express will of the Bishop of Rome as this Conventicle did None of them deny'd the Popes Authority or attempted to deprive him of it as these did so far as 't was in their power What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods or Councils of Rome Gangres Carthage Aquileia c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562. What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did is known and confess'd not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign who was the learnedst Prelat then in England but even by Protestant Authors to have been extorted from them rather by threats force then otherwise and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops as we may call them for distinction seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England I mean that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons Prescription and other title of humane Right and gave it to the King yet they never renounc'd or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at was to get the Power into his hands and to have those Authorities Prerogatives Immunities annexed to his Crown which the Pope enjoyed and had exercised here in England time out minde in Ecclesiastical Causes that is in the Goverment and Discipline of the English Church and to this the Bishops yielded but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catholique Church for ought appears clearly to the contrary both the Bishops and the King too left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph onely I observe that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition which yet he is ready to excuse telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation But we ask What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformation Was it for any thing else that they sack't and demolisht so many Monasteries and Religious Houses alienating their Lands and Revenues but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person or to live a Monastical life Was it for

upon Scripture that is 't is true if themselves may be competent judges in their own cause But his Lordship not liking that Qualification of his speech professeth for himself and his party that they are willing to be judged by the joynt consent and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first Four or Five hundred years after Christ when the Church was as he sayes at the best and by the Councils held within those times and that they will submit to them in all those points of Doctrine This offer is very fair and we do for our selves as Solemnly promise the same and will make it good upon all occasions 9. But to shew the Bishop cannot perform what he hath undertaken Mr. Fisher endeavours to confute him in the point of Infant-Baptisme which saith he is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it words not vainly and cunningly as the Relatour pretends but soberly and discreetly spoken For a point may be exprest and yet not evidently exprest Otherwise there could never be any doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now the Baptisme of Infants must not onely be exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently that is undenyably by Scripture alone For if it be there exprest onely probably it may be probably denyed to be expressed and so Disputations can never have an end out of the Scriptures expression alone For the same reason he addes that Infant-Baptisme is not at least demonstratively concluded out of Scripture because if it be prov'd directly yet onely probably as was said it may probably be denyed and so we shall finde no more end here then in the former Dispute Wherefore our Adversaries cannot in reason mislike this addition of evidently exprest and demonstratively concluded because without this we shall never have an end of Disputations This was it made Mr. Fisher adde those words though the Bishop knew full well that there are many things in good Logick concluded directly which are not concluded Demonstratively as he well shewes But he is much out nay contradicts himself in what he urges That whatsoever is by direct consequence proved out of Scripture is Demonstratively and Scientifically proved For first he supposes Scripture to be a prime principle in Christian Religion that is such a principles as has no dependance on any other to declare it such infallibly to Christian people which he knowes all Catholiques deny Secondly though I should grant Scripture and every Text of it to be a principle amongst all Christians whereof no man should desire any further proof yet unless both Propositions the Major and Minor were evidently in Scripture the Conclusion might directly be inferred but not evidently out of Scripture For in case one Proposition onely be evidently express'd and the other inevidently or but probably the Conclusion indeed will follow directly but not demonstratively This is much more clear if but one Proposition be evidently express'd in Scripture and the other neither in Scripture nor evident to natural reason but onely probable For as Logicians speaks Conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem The Conclusion alwayes follows the nature of the weaker Proposition This will appear to be so in Infant-Baptisme For though no man ought to deny but that many things are Demonstrable in Divinity yet all are not For in this respect as Canus here cited affirms Divinity is like other Sciences which prove not all things Demonstratively but many things onely Topically or probably To illustrate this doctrine a little further by instances First that a Thing may be expresly in Scripture and yet not evidently exprest even according to some Protestants Our Saviour sayes Mat. 26. c. This is my Body where he affirms expresly that what he had then in his hands was his Body and yet according to the Zuinglians this is no evident expression to signifie his reall Body for if that were evidently exprest by these words no man that believes Scripture could deny it as those Heretiques do For 't is impossible to deny an evidence Thus again Mark 16. 16. it is exprest Qui crediderit Baptizatus fuerit Salvus erit yet is it not evidently exprest that every one who believes and is Baptized shall be saved because many are Baptized and Believe who are afterward damned Secondly that a thing may be directly deduced from Scripture and yet 〈◊〉 demonstratively I give these instances All Scripture Divinely inspired c. is profitable c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. But St. James his Epistle is Scripture Divinely inspired Ergo it is profitable c. This consequence is directly deduced in perfect forme from Scripture yet is it not evidently deduced from it for if it were the Lutherans could not deny the consequence as they do because the Minor is not evident in Scripture Or thus Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. But children unbaptized are not born again of water and the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This is directly deduced from Scripture yet all Calvinists must say it is not evidently deduced Or lastly thus That which our Saviour Consecrated in his last Supper was the usual Bread of that place and time but no Bread save what was made of Wheat was the usual Bread of that place and time Ergo that which our Saviour Consecrated was no other save that which was made of Wheat The Major is clear in Scripture but the Minor is onely historically certain so that the consequence is deduced directly but not Demonstratively 10. His Lordships first Demonstration therefore of the necessity of Baptisme to the salvation of Infants is much defective if we stick to sole Scripture as now he is to do For a Pelagian Anabaptist will most easily answer that the Text of John 3. Except a man be born again by water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God speaks onely of such as can be born again Now none can be born again save those who were dead in sinne wherefore Infants having no sin at all as Pelagians hold cannot be born again and consequently must not be Baptized insomuch that this Text is so far from proving against such Anabaptists that Infants must be Baptized that it rather proves the contrary His second That Infants ought to be baptized which he sayes is very near an expression in Scripture it self hath nothing in it at all either of an expression or demonstration For to omit that the word children signifies not Infants but filios or liberos children grown up to years and that by promise is not meant the particular promise there mentioned but the promise of the new Law in Christ the very Text it self confutes him For if the promise be made to their Children which

St. Peters person onely but his Faith conjoyned with his person or his person confessing and asserting the Faith and that the Fathers speak in this sense and no other when they say the Church is built upon St. Peters Faith Bellarmin proves by a whole Jury of the most Ancient among them and most of them the same the Bishop here pretends to bring for himself beside the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon consisting of above six hundred Catholique Bishops As to what he asserts that by Hell-gates-prevailing against the Church is not understood principally the Churches not Erring but her not falling away from the Foundation we have already fully prov'd the Contrary both by the Testimony of the Fathers and Solid Reason shewing that if any Errour in Faith could be admitted by the Catholique Church the Gates of Hell might in such case be absolutely said to have prevaild against her contrary to this promise of Christ. And how Bellarmin here cited by the Bishop is to be understood when he sayes there are many things DE FIDE which are not necessary to salvation is already shewn where we also prov'd that every errour in Faith contrary to what is propounded by the Church is Fundamentall But the Relatour as if his own word were a sufficient proof tells us finally that the promise of this stable Edification is made to the whole Church not to a Council Why not to both I pray to a General Council as well as to the Church The truth is it was made neither to Church nor Council directly and immediately but to St. Peter and his Successours as the Fathers above mentioned shew though for the good of the Church viz. her preservation from errour in Faith which morally could not be effected if a General Council lawfully called and confirm'd by St. Peters Successour be not Infallible or exempt from errour in its decisions of Faith To what the Bishop concludes with upon this Text that a Council hath no interest in this promised Edification further then it builds upon Christ that is upon the Doctrine Christ deliver'd the Rules he gave and the Promises he made to his Apostles and their Successours we agree with him but that a General Council confirmed by the Pope does ever reject or go contrary to these we absolutely deny To the fourth place viz. of Christs prayer for St. Peter that his faith should not fail Luke 22. 32. the Relatour will have the native sense of it to be that Christ prayed and obtained for St. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong Temptation which was to winnow him above the rest And you must take it if you please upon his bare word that by Faith is here meant Grace Had the Bishop weighed the pregnancy of Bellarmins Reasons in confutation of this Exposition he could not surely have been so positive in it It should be an unnecessary prolixity to insert them here where 't is sufficient to observe the contradiction involv'd in this pretended Native sense of Christs prayer Christ according to the Bishop obtain'd for St. Peter that he should persevere in Grace But St. Peter did not still persevere in Grace for he lost it when he committed that enormous sin of Denying his Master Therefore Christ obtain'd and did not obtain one and the same thing of his Eternal Father which is a formal contradiction Our Saviour therefore prayed according to his own expression in Scripture that St. Peter might not lose Faith by an Internal act of Disbelief though the Devil should so far prevail by his Temptations as to make him say contrary to his own knowledge I know not the man you have taken prisoner But the Bishop objects thus against this Text to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope or in his Chair or in the Roman Sea or in a General Council though the Pope be President I finde no Antient Father that dare adventure it I answer 't is no wonder that they do not sinde who are unwilling to see Bellarmin cites and that out of Authentique Records whatever the Bishop mutters against them as Counterfeit without the least proof Lucius Felix St. Leo and Petrus Chrysologus the last of which lived above twelve hundred years ago these I say Bellarmin affirms to have adventur'd to prove from this Text what the Bishop denies And though the three first of these were Bishops of Rome yet such was their Sanctity and Learning as might well vindicate them from the least jealousie of challenging either through ignorance or ambition more then of right belong'd to their office Nay the Church of Rome was so confessedly Orthodox in their dayes that even Dr. Heylin a man bitter against Catholiques thought it not fit in his Geography to term the Roman Bishops Popes till almost two hundred years after St. Leo the last of the three And as for Chrysologus his Contemporary and no Pope he adventur'd as it were to ground the Infallibility we plead for upon this Text when he said St. Peter as yet lives and presides in his Sea and affords the true Faith to those that seek it which speech the Bishop will have to be but a flash of Rhetorique an easie way of answering the most unanswerable Authorities Had Chrysologus written or addressed his words to the Pope there might have been some colour for the Evasion but speaking them to an Heretique whom he sought to reduce into the bosome of the Catholique Church who can imagine he intended to complement the Pope Nothing but a weak Cause could drive so learned a person as the Bishop to so poor a shift So the Testimonies of Theophylact and St. Bernard are slighted by him as men of yesterday though they lived the one above five hundred the other near six hundred years ago But whoever charges St. Bernard with corrupt Doctrine either in point of Faith or Manners might as justly charge St. Austin and the Fathers of his time in which time even by the acknowledgement of Calvin when he is sober the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles And for Theophylact he being a Greek Bishop and of the forwardest in siding against the Latin Church and in taxing her of Errour touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost it cannot be rationally imagin'd but what he speaks in favour of the Roman Church is extorted from him by the evidence of Truth and the known consent of all Catholique Christians in that particular As to the Gloss upon the Canon Law I answer it speaks onely of the Pope in his personal capacity as a private Doctour in which quality it is not deny'd but he may possibly erre even in Faith Hence may easily be perceiv'd how unsatisfactorily the Bishop endeavours to elude the force of this Text concerning Christs prayer for St. Peter which I have already prov'd to be extended to his Successours

altogether vnsuspected themselues to be warping in religion he had erroneously and scandalously deliuer'd to the preiudice of Catholique verity As to any matter of abuse in this kinde crept in amongst the ignorant wee haue already shew'n how carefull the Council of Trent was to prouide against and preuent all inconueniences that could reasonably be fore seen or feared And if notwithstanding such diligence on the Churches part there happen something now and then to be amiss eyther through the infirmity of some particular persons or the negligence of others yet neyther is the doctrine or practice of the Church iustly to be blam'd for it nor yet the pious and more discrect deuotion of the rest for this reason to be discountenanced much less prohibited or forbiden Otherwise for the like pretended reason of Abuse and Scandall wee might be thought to stand oblig'd to blott out of the 〈◊〉 those words concerning our Saniour that he sitts at the right hand of God and diuerse Texts out of the Bible it 〈◊〉 Why because that by them ignorant and ill-disposed people haue been formerly and may be still induc'd to thinke that God the Father is of a Bodily Shape and hath a right hand and a left as men haue and likewise to forme to themselues many other false and dangerous conceptions of God Abuses of this nature if any be and whensoeuer they happen must be redressed by better instruction and information but the pious and lawfull custome of the Church must not therefore be abolish'd and quite taken away 11. As for what Llamas a Spanish Authour relates of the people of Asturias Cantabria and Gallicia who were so addicted to their old worm-eaten and ill-fashioned Images that when the Bishops of those Prouinces commanded new ones and bandsomer to be sett vp in their stead they begg'd euen with teares to haue their old ones still J confess there might be some indiscretion in their proceeding but J see noe ground the Bishop hath to taxe them of 〈◊〉 For the people did not cry after the Bishops officers when they remou'd these old Jmages why doe you take away our Gods giue vs our Gods againe or the like as Jdolaters would haue done as well as Laban Genes 31. 30. when he reprehended Iacob for stealing away his Gods Beside what euer was amiss in this kinde as the same Authour testifieth was by a little intruction of their Pastours quickly amended though the Bishop a man it seems of very hard beleefe will not thinke so But why should his Lordship make such difficulty to beleeue what a graue Author reports of his own knowledge As to what he further inferrs from the words of Llamas namely that the Jmages of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Diuinity in them and that wee may 〈◊〉 things of them and put trust in them in that regard my answer is the Bishop always shews himselfe ouer ready to expound our Authors in the worst sense euen many times where there is no rationall pretense This Author sufficiently shews he could haue no such meaning as the Bishop imputes to him what euer his words may seeme to import For in the very place cited by the Bishop he cleerly teacheth that wee ought to worship Jmages according to the Prescript of the Council of 〈◊〉 and how carefull that Council was that all might be duly instructed in this matter and no occasion left euen for the most ignorant and weake to offend by conceiuing or beleeuing any Diuine Power to be in the Jmages or by puting trust in them or crauin any thing of them appeares by the words of the Council already cited and by the Relatours own acknowledgement who stiles the Fathers religiously carefull in that respect Adde hereunto the Prouiso which this Author giues in the same chapter which is that wee ought to aske nothing of the Saynts no not of our B. Lady her selfe otherwise then by desiring them to beg it for vs at Gods hand and that to doe otherwise that is to aske any thing of them as if they were Authors of it or could of themselues alone giue or grant vs the good things wee aske were Jdolatrie Thus therfore wee hope this Author Llamas his intention and true meaning is cleer'd of what the Bishop imputes to him but it will not be amiss to take notice also how weakely the Bishops illation is made out of the sayd Authors words Because Llamas writes that the Images of Christ are not to be 〈◊〉 as if there were Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by art but only as they represent Christ and the Saynts the Relatour inferrs thus So then belike according to the Diuinity of this Casuist a man may worship Images AND ASKE OF THEM AND PVT TRVST IN THEM as they represent Christ and his Saynts But what consequence is this How does it follow that wee may aske of Images and put our trust in them as they represent Christ and his Saynts because wee may worship them as they represent Christ and his Saynts wee many times loue and reuerence a picture for the person it represents and yet noe body is so foolish as to aske any thing of it as it represents that person Wee shew a 〈◊〉 respect to the chaire of state and chamber of Presence for the kings sake yet wee neither make to them any ciuill inuocation nor place confidence in them as they relate to the king Why therfore must it follow that wee may call vpon pictures or Jmages as they represent our Sauiour or the Saints because they may be honour'd or worshiped as they doe represent them Nor is it less ridiculous what the Bishop adds in pursuance of his discourse namely his resoluing this proposition of Llamas The Images of Christ and the Saynts are to be worshiped not as if there were any Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by arte but as they represent Christ and his Saynts into this other The Images of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Deity or Diuinity in them making them both to signifie the same thing For why might he not as well haue resolu'd this proposition The kings picture is to be honour'd not as if there were Souereign Authority in it as it is a materiall thing made by arte but as it represents the king into this other The kings picture as it represents its Exemplar hath Souereign Authority in it The Bishop here surely giues the Reader more cause to suspect his iudgement touching the interpretation of Llamas then vpon his interpretation of him to taxe our Church of Idolatric I conclude it therfore most certain and indubitable that Llamas in the wordes cited by the Relatour intended noe more then to signifie that all worship done to Jmages was Relatiue and not Absolute which is to say that it was exhibited to them not for their own but for their exemplars sake which they represent