Selected quad for the lemma: diversity_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
diversity_n	body_n	member_n	unity_n	542	5	10.1952	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67437	The history & vindication of the loyal formulary, or Irish remonstrance ... received by His Majesty anno 1661 ... in several treatises : with a true account and full discussion of the delusory Irish remonstrance and other papers framed and insisted on by the National Congregation at Dublin, anno 1666, and presented to ... the Duke of Ormond, but rejected by His Grace : to which are added three appendixes, whereof the last contains the Marquess of Ormond ... letter of the second of December, 1650 : in answer to both the declaration and excommunication of the bishops, &c. at Jamestown / the author, Father Peter Walsh ...	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.; Ormonde, James Butler, Duke of, 1610-1688. Articles of peace.; Rothe, David, 1573-1650. Queries concerning the lawfulnesse of the present cessation.	1673 (1673)	Wing W634; ESTC R13539	1,444,938	1,122

would be not to exempt them but in effect to make them to be no members at all As for that reason of diversity which Bellarmine hath given As it is unnecessary that all the Citizens pay tribute or that all bear arms to defend the Republick who sees not also that it argues no diversity no difference at all in the simile For in the natural body it is not necessary that all the members walke that all see that all hear c. But it is sufficient both in the natural body and in the civil that every member so attend perform that duty unto which it is ordained or applyed that all in common do still in the same body and under the same head what they are enjoyned or destined to Let Bellarmine therefore let his disciples abstain hereafter from such absurd Paradoxes What man of found reason hath ever yet in his own soul inwardly perswaded himself that a King may not de jure King it over that is govern by direction and coercion those of whom he is King nor a head the members of its own body But our Cardinal denye here that from the contrary position and practice any perturbations of the common-wealth should arise because that albeit the King may not coerce transgressing Clerks yet the Bishops may and will To this because I have said enough already I onely sa● now that to assent this power of coercion of Clerks to Bishops for lay crimes or those committed in meer temporal or civil matters and deny it to King were nothing els in effect but to rayse Bishops from their Office Ministry Episcopal to the power and Dignity Royal of Kings and then consequently to make but meer Ciphers of the Kings themselves For I demand of Bellarmine or of his Schollars why were Kings instituted or to what end their power if it was not to govern the Republick to provide for the peace and safety of all the people of what condition or profession soever Lay or Ecclesiastick and to provide for the security and tranquility of all by punishing and rewarding indifferently according to the respective merits or demerits of every individual But our Cardinal snatches away from Kings this proper function of Kings and gives it to Bishops whereas it is notwithstanding certain that neither can the common-wealth be quiet if Clerks do violate the laws resign themselves over to sedition and yet may not be de jure therefore punished curbed or any way restrained by Kings For who sees not consequently that neither de jure can the King contain his Provinces in peace nor compel his people to live together within the bounds of honesty equity or justice And who sees not consequently also but that the very politick peace nay the very politick being of the common-wealth must depend of the will of the Bishops to whom onely the light of governing of licencing or restraining Clerks our good Cardinal will have to belong that by the severity of their Episcopal censures or other judgments they may as they will coerce the nocent and thereby and in so much pacifie the troubles of the Republick or as they please too permit all wickedness and all the most enormours horrid crimes of Sedition and Rebellion to extinguish quite the face and being of a Republick How farre more piously Christianly and rationally too had Bellarmine taught and writt that by the favour and priviledg given by Kings the Clergie are not subject to any other Judicatory but to one composed of Ecclesiastical judges yet so that as well those very Judges as the criminal Clerks be subject still to and not exempt from the supream Royal power of the King who gave subordinate power to those very Ecclesiastical Judicatories in temporal things nay and in spiritual too for what belongs to corporal or civil coercion and who as the supream temporal Prince may command prohibit and provide that no person of what condition or profession soever breake the peace of his Kingdom and who also may when there is just cause take cognizance of and judg as well what ever delinquent Clerks as the very Ecclesiastical judges of those Clerks To that of Hermannus the Colen Archbishop I will say that Bellarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that jeer wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a country clown having first admired and said this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and some of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreover he was a Duke and a Prince too the clown replied but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will become of the Bishop Even so doth Bellarmine write as that servant spoke that this Hermannus whom Charles the V. summon'd to appear was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And even so do I say and replye with the country swain when the Emperour judged this Prince of the Empire did he not I pray judge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he judged the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so For neither do I nor other Catholick Opposers of Bellarmine in this matter intend or mean or at least urge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subject to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Citizens and politick parts of the body Politick which kind of authority as Bellarmine confesses Charles the V. both acknowledg'd in and vindicated to the Emperour Of whose piety what Bellarmine adds is to no purpose For it is not denyed that it becomes good Princes to leave that is to commit the causes of Clerks how great and weighty or criminal soever to Ecclesiastical Judges if it stand with the safety or good hic nunc of the Commonwealth that such causes be discussed before such Judges And yet I must tell the Defenders of Bellarmine that if they please to consult the Continuator of Baronius the most reverend and most Catholick Bishop Henricus Spondenus ad an Christi 1545. they will find that upon complaint of the Catholick Clergy and University also of Colen to as well the Emperour Charles the V. as the Pope Pavl the III. against the said Archbishop as by the advice of Bueer introducing Heresie and licenceing the Preachers of it in that City and Diocess and that at their instance petitioning for help redress in that matter against the said Hermannus it was that the said Emperour Charles the V. did in the Diet of Wormes the said year and about the end of Iune by his Letters or Warrant signed and sealed summon the said Archbishop to appear before him within thirty dayes either by himself in his own proper person or by

there was not as much as a coercive power in the politick or civil Head for correcting punishing or any way restraining the Ringleaders of such fatal dances and where the Clergie themselves both Priests and Bishops and Popes too themselves were these Ringleaders But suppose the Popes had never had a hand in such matters yet if Princes could not at home with themselves and without application to the Pope consequently without too too long delayes while the difference twixt them and their own Clergie were debated at Rome if I say in the mean time the Princes these politick Heads of the civil common-wealth might not in conscience make use of all their strength to coerce the Factious and Rebellious Clergiemen and if such Clergiemen lay under no kind of tye to submit to their coercion how could it be possible in nature that either the one were enabled with a sufficient power of politick Heads or the other had incumbent on them sufficient tyes of Citizens parts or members to attain the ends of their politick common-wealth which they are supposed to compose joyntly Before such debate were ended nay before the beginning of it could be or as much as the news of any such matter could arrive at Rome the evil would often be incurable if it could not be cured at home by the coercive power of the Politick Head and material sword Avant therefore such unsatisfactory answers of Bellarmine answers which himself must have very well known to have been voyd even of all truth and conscience and yet would give them because he could give no better in so bad a cause and that his worldly interest did not suffer him to yield to the victorious cause But although I have so now sufficiently illustrated and abundantly proved my last Minor proposition or that of my last proof and thereby evidently concluded my former whole second argument yet for the satisfaction of the more curious Reader and as an appendix of that either my last proof or of that my former second argument whereof it was the proof I will give here in Bellarmine's own words what he answered to the simile of the natural Head and members of the natural body and to some other particulars objected to him on this occasion by William Barclay You say sayes Bellarmine to Barclay that all the members must be so under the Head and all the Citizens so under the Rector of the Citty that the Head and Rector may correct and punish all the members and Citizens and that Clerks are members of the body politick and as to temporal thing Cittizens of the earthly Citty I answer In the natural body its necessary that all the members be under and obedient to the Head because in such a body exemption hath no place But in the body politick wherein exemption hath place it is unnecessary that all the members that is all the Cittizens be properly under or subject to the power of the Head that is to that of the Rector And therefore it is unnecessary that the Prince may coerce or punish all the Cittizens as it is unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute or that all bear arms or turn souldiers to defend the Republick but it may suffice that by counsel or exhortations or prayers to God they help the temporal common-wealth But the Republick will be troubled or disturbed if Clerks may without fear of coercion or punishment transgress the laws of Princes I answer that they shall not without punishment transgress for they shall be coerced by their own immediate Bishop or by the chief or Great Bishop But Charles the V. called Hermannus the Archbishop of Colen to his own secular tribunal 'T is true but he called him as a Prince of the Empire for the Pope Paul III. called before himself too the same Hermannus as an Archbishop witness the same Surius in the same place which very Surius a little after writes an 1547. that by the Pope's and Emperours command Hermannus was deposed but that the sentence of deposition was given by the Pope But how diligent an observer of Ecclesiastical Immunity Charles the V. was may be hence understood that in the year 1520. a most horrid conspiracy against the said Charles being detected wherein there were some Ecclesiasticks Charles did punish the Laicks but remitted the Clerks to their own Ecclesiastical Situations to be punished Witness Malin ●4 c. 21 de Hispan pri●og Barclay added that there are some grievous transgressions or crimes which in France go under the name of privileg●●ta pri●iledged as reserved to the Princes But this argument may be retorted against the Author For such are not called priviledged because the Prince had reserved them to himself or to his own cognizance when he gave the priviledg of exemption to Clerks as Barclay sayes they are but are called such or crimina privilegi●●a because that by the priviledg of the See Apostolick it is indulged to the Kings of the French that they may take cognizance of such crimes when committed by Clerks which Clarusq 36. Parag. finn v● sicul ultari●● 〈◊〉 and Au●●●rius in Clementina Vit Clericorum de offic J●d Ord ●i●u●● do explicate Bellarmine therefore sayes here the difference in the similed or which to our purpose must be in the similitude twixt the natural body and politick body is that in the politick exemption hath no place and that hence it is unnecessary that all the members politick that is all the Citizens be properly under or subject to the power of the politick Head that is of the Rector and therefore also that it is unnecessary that Princes may coerca or punish all the Cittizens as it as unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute c. But who sees not that there is no exemption can be in the body politick o● of the members of it which may not by similitude be applyed to and found in the natural body For the respective members of natural B●dyes may be qualified with those exemptions which are not against the nature or essence of such members in the same body and under the same Head For example the hand may have this exemption bestowed on it that it be not bound to labour daily and the feet this exemption that by a man's lyeing down a bed they may rest from going And yet will it not follow that either the natural hands or natural feet are not under the power of the natural Head Even so in the body politick may it very well be and is it de fact that some part of the Cittizens be exempted from tributs and from Judicial courts or those of subordinate and ordinary Judges and yet be still under the power of the politick Head to witt of the King or Prince or other supream Governour But neither in the politick body nor in the natural body can the members be so exempted that they be no more under the Head because this would be against the definition and essence of members and

and criminal causes all alike all from from the Pope himself to the most inferiour Clerk in the Church without any other distinction in such temporal subjection and consequents of it but what the supream Prince himself and his own proper civil laws do make being that by the law of God declared by the Apostle ad Rom. 13. for as much as concerns or depends only of it the precept is in general as well to the Pope as to the meanest Acolyt Omnis anima potentatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Even as the disparity or inequality of temporal authority and civil jurisdiction between the temporal estates of a Kingdom and the civil diversity of degrees of superiority amongst them by whomsoever instituted hinder not their parity and equality and unity also of subjection in meer spiritual things to the spiritual Prince or Bishop and to his supream spiritual corrective power as purely such and wherein it is purely such Whereby you may clearly see I am not any way concern'd in John the XXII's condemnation of this fourth Article though I also condemn'd it in his sense and in the very words too he gives it us yea notwithstanding I do not approve at all either his allegations or supposititions or the strength of his arguments where he disputes against it And for the last article of all the five which only remains yet unconsidered and is this Quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem punire possit punitione coactiva nisi concedat hoc Imperator as it is related in the beginning of the said Bull or this other form of it as in the repetition about the end of the same Bull where 't is censured Quod Papa vel tota Ecclesia simul sumpta nullum hominem quantumcunque sceleratum potest punire punitione coactiva nisi Imperator daret eis authoritatem I say the very same I did of all the rest Although I confess this Article at first appearance seems to come nearest home of all the five to that part of my doctrine or suppositions explications answers in so many passages hitherto and hereafter in some other parts of this Book where I say the Church as a Church hath neither sword nor territory nor any civil or corporal force coercion or penalty to be inflicted by her self immediatly or even by her mediatly that is executed indeed immediatly by any other but by vertue only of her authority derived to him or injunction laid upon him For this Article seems to say the very same thing in asmuch as it sayes that neither Pope nor universal Church joyn'd together in one can punish any person how wicked soever with a coactive punishment unless the Emperour give them authority to do so Notwithstanding both which it will be facil enough to shew out of this very Bull and out of a great part of Iohn the XXII's own proper discourse therein against this fifth Article in specie that he would understand a quite other thing by coactive punishment here then I do any where consequently it will be also facil enough to shew that this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus taken so or in any bad or heretical sense and my said doctrine which denyes coactive punition or civil and corporal punishments to the Church as a Church or to be inflicted by her and by virtue of her own proper native authority are in the reality of things as wide from one another as from East to West albeit according to the equivocation or rather clear mistake of these two words punitione coactiva or of this one single word coactive or of its proper strict signification they may seem the same thing but to him only that is willing to be deceived or to such a one as Iohn the XXII himself either censuring this fift Article or disputing against it or at least in some part of his disputes against it in this Bull seems to be For immediatly after this learned Pope had given the said fift Article and even in this form Adbuc isti blasphemi dicunt quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem puni●e possit punitione coactiva nisi concedat hoc Imperator he proceeds immediatly to disprove it thus Quod utique doctrinae Evangelicae noscitur obviare Constat enim quod à Christo Petro in persona Petri Ecclesiae potestas coactiva concessa vel saltim promissa extitit quae quidem promissio fuit postea adimpleta cum Simoni Christus dixit quodcumque ligaueris super terram c. Ligantur enim non solum voluntarii sed inuiti Adhuc constat sicut ibi legitur in Mattheo quod si aliquis damnum alii indebite dederit illeque ad mandatum Ecclesiae noluerit emendare quod Ecclesia per potestatem à Christo sibi concessam ipsum ad hoc per excommunicationis sententiam compellere potest quae quidem potestas est utique coactiva Circa quod est advertendum quod cum excommunicatio major nedum excommunicatum à perceptione sacrament●rum removeat sed etiam à communione fidelium ipsum excommunicatum excludit quod corporalis etiam à Christo coactio Ecclesiae est permissa cum etiam secundum Imperiales leges gravius reputetur inter homines conversari ipsorumque privari suffragio quam ab hominibus separari Ex quo sequitur potestatem c●activam non ab Imperatore terreno sed ab ipso Christo fuisse originaliter Ecclesiam consequutam Where it is clear enough out of all his arguments here that by coaction punition and coactive power to punish so or to use such coaction and which he attibutes to the Church as a Church and as given her originally by Christ he understands no other kind of coaction coactive punishment or coactive power but that which is only and purely spiritual because none other but that which is of excommunication or to punish by excommunication and by that kind of excommunication too which is certainly properly and purely Evangelical or grounded in the Gospel And consequently it is clear enough that albeit this kind of coaction be called by him here a corporal coaction also yet as I must say that he somewhat improperly calls it so or corporal coaction or even indeed coaction at all being there is no corporal force used or which may be used by the judge that pronounceth it to put it in execution I mean which may be used by vertue of the same spiritual Church-power out of which or by vertue of which it was pronounced so I must say that whether he call it so improperly or no or whether or no he may not properly call it both coaction and corporal coaction too for asmuch as it brings some kind of necessity on the excommunicated to submit and that this necessity relates also in some degree to the very corps or body of the excommunicated by reason that all others do shun even his corporal communion company or conversation excepting only such as are by