Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	article_n	church_n	fundamental_a	4,539	5	10.3758	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19951	An oration made on the part of the Lordes spirituall in the chamber of the Third Estate (or communality) of France, vpon the oath (pretended of allegiance) exhibited in the late Generall Assembly of the three Estates of that kingdome: by the Lord Cardinall of Peron, arch-bishop of Sens, primate of Gaule and Germany, Great Almenour of France &c. Translated into English, according to the French copy, lately printed at Paris, by Antoine Estiene. Whereunto is adioyned a preface, by the translatour.; Harangue faicte de la part de la chambre ecclésiastique en celle du Tiers-estat sur l'article du serment. English.	Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618.	1616 (1616)	STC 6384; ESTC S116663	77,855	154

better witnesses then the English writers (a) VVidrington Apol. pro Iur. Prine who haue put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath made by the present King of England against the Pope For hauing vsed all their endeuour to find some doctours in particuler French who had held their opinion before these last troubles they could hitherto bring forth neuer any one neither Diuine nor Lawyer who saith that in case of Heresie or Apostacie from Christian religiō the subiects could not be absolued from the Oath of Allegiance On the contrary the French men whome they haue cited as Iohn of Paris (b) supra pag. 47. Iohn Maior (c) Io. Maior in 4. sent dist 24. Iames Almain (d) Io. Alma supra pag. 48. Peter Gregory (e) Petrus Greg. supra pag. 52. alwaies except the cases of Heresie or of Apostacy from Christian religion And as for Strangers and Forrayners as Occham (f) Occ. supra pag 47. Antony de Rossellis (g) Ant. de Rossell Monarch part r. c. 56 and Vulturnus (h) Vultur lib. de Reg. mundi they affirme the same For as touching Marsile of Padua they were not so hardy as to alleage him for so much as he is well knowne for an heretike by the vniforme consent of all Catholiques as hauing denied that the Pope was head of the Church iure diuino and S. Peters Successour which the Councell of Constance (i) Concil Costant sess 8. in condem art VVicaf bindeth to beleeue as an Article of faith and vnder payne of Anathema In so much as for this very cause the Emperour Charles the Fifth caused his bookes to be burned publiquely Moreouer they durst not alleage the Epistle of the Chapter of Liege against Pope Pascalis during the contentions of the Popes and of the Emperour Henry the 4. First for that the Bishop of Liege vnder whome it was written was the Emperours Chaplaine and one of his faction (a) V●sperg in Chron. very passionate against the Pope as hauing beene created Bishop by the Emperour by the Anti-pope Secondly for that at what time it was writtē the Emperour resided actually in Liege (b) Ibid. Thirdly for that the Chapter of Liege hath since (c) Ibid. abrogated it razed it out by the pardon they craued of the Pope for hauing taken part with the Emperour And fourthly that the same Emperour doth recall it when he wrote to Pope Gregory the seauenth the third Pope after Paschalis saying (d) Inter Epist Hen. ● Protest edit That it was the tradition of the Fathers that he could not be deposed if he erred not in faith Which Cusanus (e) Cusan l. 3. concord Cath. c. 7. the Imperialist writing for the Coūcell of Basil against the Pope hath since auowued and auerred in these words If the Pope finde that he who hath beene chosen Emperour erreth in faith he may declare him not to be Emperour They well alleage indeed Sigebert (f) Sigeb in chro anno 1088. who saith that it was a nouelty not to say heresy to teach the people that they did not owe any subiection to bad Kinges But besides that this Sigebert was a man no lesse passionate for the part of the Emperour then was the Bishop of Liege what he sayth doth not any way touch the case brought by the exception which is of Kinges Heretikes or Infidells Now if those who haue of set purpose laboured in fauour of the Oath of England (g) VVidring in Apol pro iur Princ. to finde out authors who haue affirmed that in case of Heresy or of Infidelity the subiectes could not be absolued from the obligation that they owe to their Princes could not finde out any one And if those who haue since written of the same subiect in France could neuer finde out in all France since the time that Schools of Diuinity haue beene instituted and set open til this day one only Doctour neither Diuine nor Lawyer nor Decree nor Councell nor determination nor Act of Parlament nor Magistrate either Ecclesiastique or Politique who hath said that in case of heresie or of infidelity the subiectes cannot be absolued from the oath of fidelity they owe to their Princes On the contrary if all those who haue written for the defence of the temporall power of Kinges against Popes haue euer excepted the case of heresy and of apostacy from Christian Religion how is it that they can without inforcing of cōsciences not only make men to receaue this doctrine (a) Artic. of the third Estate that in no case the subiects can be absolued from the oath of Allegiance they owe to their Princes for a perpetuall and vniuersall doctrine of the French Church But also to cause all the Bishops Abbots and other Ecclesiasticall persons to sweare it as Doctrine of faith and to condemne the contrary as impious peruerse and detestable And how can we endure a propositiō to passe for a Fundamentall Law of the Estate of France which came to light was borne in France more then an eleauen hundred yeares since the State of it was founded And when there shal be found as many persons who shall haue followed it in France as there be found who haue followed the contrary what shall they be able to inferre more other nations contradicting then to hold it for problematique in matter of faith and not to cause men to take and sweare it as conforme to Gods word and necessary to saluation and to abuse the other as contrary to the word of God impious peruerse detestable But this is inough for this point Let vs passe to others and endeuour to handle them all in as full worthy māner as this Audience doth deserue THE SECOND INCONVENIENCE that I haue bound my self to shew in this Fundamentall Propositiō is that not only it giueth vnto Lay persons power authority to iudge of thinges of Religion and to decide the doctrine that it contayneth to be conformable to the word of God and the contrary to be impious peruerse and detestable But also it giueth these men authority to impose a necessity vpon the Ecclesiastical persons to sweare preach and teach the one and by Sermons and writinges to impugne the other And who seeth not that this is to make the Church like vnto that woman of whome S. Epiphanius speaketh (a) Epiph. hares 59. quae est Cathar who did put her head-tyre vpon her feete and her shoes vpon her head which is as much to say as to commit the commaund and authority of the Church to the parties that should obey and to put obedience vpon the parties whose office it is to commaund And what is this but to open a gate to all heresy What is it but to turne vpside downe to ouerthrow the Churches authority What is it but to tread vnder foote the respect of Iesus Christ and of his ministery To be short

the beginning of his Empire which continued but there yeares he called the Catholike Bishops home againe who had beene banished and sent into exile by Constantius his predecessour And in the end he had by fauours and his other carriage so gayned the souldiers of the Roman bands as they made almost all profession of Paganisme Whence it was that Iouian a Christian souldier being by them chosen after Iulian his death answered them that he would not commaund men who were not Christians For the answere which they made We are Christians was as much to say that all they made an outward profession of Paganisme to please Iulian yet in their heartes they continued still Christians By occasion whereof the feare of a greater ruine hauing hindered the Church from absoluing the Catholikes from the obligation of fidelity in behalfe of Iulian the Apostata they were still bound to do that which S. Austine sayth of them Aug in Psal 124. For the loue of the Emperour of Heauen they obeyed the Emperour of the Earth But some will say the Christians might well haue deposed the Emperour Valentinian for as much as they were the stronger in Millane when he would haue one of their Churches for the exercising of his Heresy therin It is true But to this the defendants of the affirmatiue part answere foure thinges The first that the memory of the Emperour Gratian his elder Brother and as it were Father and Tutor of the Emperour Valen●●ar and slayne by Maximus the Tyrant and the most Catholike Prince and the greatest freind of S. Ambrose that euer was changed all the malice or euill that the Catholike people could haue had or carried towardes Valentinian into fauour and compassion and into a desire of assisting him for the reuenging of that murther and making away of his Brother The second is that Valentinian was yet so yong the sonne of so Catholike a Father as there was not any cause or ground to despaire of his conuersion which also followed within a while after and that with so great an Edification of the Church as S. Ambrose celebrateth him for one of the most Religious Emperours of his age The third that though in the beginning the people conteyned themselues within the simple boundes of petition gaue Valentinian to vnderstand We contend not O Emperour but we become Suppliantes vnto you yet when Valentinian had a meaning to proceed further the people held their owne resisted the Emperour and stood so resolute in the matter as he fearing a tumult and reuolt was constreyned to yeild vnto them Hence it is that they thought not that the commandment our Sauiour gaue to his disciples when they persecute in one Cittie to flie into another was an absolute perpetuall precept but rather a dispensation a permission accommodated to the tyme wherein the Christian people either were still vnder Pagan Emperours or had not yet the meanes to make resistance against persecutions by might and force The Fourth is that the Emperour Valentinian his owne souldiers thought not themselues so bound in way of fidelity vnto him as they belieued they could not be dispensed with when he should perseoute the Catholikes For when the tumult began to be hoat they caused it to be signified vnto him that if he would come vpon the Place he should come thither accompanied for as much as they would assist and help him if they sawe him conioyned and to take part with the Catholikes els they would put themselues in company with the troupes that held with Ambrose But the propugners of the negatiue part recurre to the Analogy of other practises of the Church say that for Heresie the owners are not depriued of their goodes and consequently much lesse Princes should be spoyled of their estates To this agayne the maynteyners of the affirmatiue part bring two answers The one is that in this our Realme Heretikes loose not their goodes and the cause is for that the execution of the lawes made against Heretikes is suspended for the conseruation of the publique peace and tranquillity But if there should creep forth some third sect in France should begin to growe and were not come to be so great and to make a notable part of the body of Estate as Arianisme or Nestorienisme it is questionles that the other two would ●udge them who should make such profession worthy to be depriued not only of their goodes but of their liues also For this is practised at Geneua where Caluin caused Seruetus to be burnt and it is the practise at this day in England where the Most Renowned moderne King of Great Britany punisheth the Arians with losse of goodes and of life The other answere is that there is a great difference between the power that owners haue ouer their goodes and that which Princes haue ouer their Estates For goodes are made for their Maisters and Princes contrariwise for their Estates neyther haue goods any soule nor can be compelled by force or by example or by perswasion of their Maisters to loose life euerlasting as subiectes may be by their Princes by meanes whereof the preiudice of the one doth not make any consequence for the other And if this question be no where found certainly decided neither by scripture nor by the decrees of the ancient Church nor by the Analogy of other Ecclesiasticall proceedinges how is it that lay persons will of their owne authority and without light and president of any generall Councell of any Oecumenicall Synod of any vniuersall Assembly of the Church yea against the greater part of the rest of the Church cōuert this doctrine into an article of faith and make the Clergie to sweare it is conformable to Gods word cause them to abiure the other as a doctrine contrary to the word of God impious and detestable It is fiue and twenty yeares since those of your Order caried away by the tumult and trouble of the tyme laboured in the full Assemblie of Estates to establish one Fundamentall Law of Estate cleane contrary to that article of yours And now you propose another Fundamentall Law intituled of Estate and of Religion quite contrary to that former And will you not you but those by whose inspiration and aduise these clauses be crept into your Bill that the Laytie cause the Clergie to sweare it That the Laytie exact of the Clergie an Oath in matter of faith That the Laytie impose the Lawes of Religion vpon the men of the Church O reproach and shame Oscand all O gate set open to all sort of Heresies And shall our faith then be subiect to the varieties and inconstancy of the affections of the people who chaung euery fiue and twenty yeares And shall the flockes then be guides to their shepheardes Luc. 16. Hebr. 13. and Pastors And shall the children teach their Father And shall that then be frustrated that our Lord hath cryed aloud The scholler is not aboue the Maister And

the matter of this article is not a question of Religion but a simple and meere question of Estate and Policy As if to handle how farre the spirituall vse of the keyes and of the power of binding and loosing which God hath giuen vnto his Church extendeth it self were not a question of Religion As if to dispute whether these keyes might passe to the excōmunicating of them that willingly obey their Princes who after hauing done homage of their Crownes to Iesus Christ come to vse manifest felony against him to proclay me warre against him and to impugne his faith and doctrine were not a question of Religion As though to dispute whether those keys could in conscience and in the Churches tribunall absolue soules of the Oath of Allegiance they owe to their Princes when their Princes violate and breake the reciprocall Oath they haue made to God and to them to mayntaine them in Christian and Catholike Religion were not a question of Religion For therin being two obligations and bandes by which the subiectes are bound to obey their Princes the one politicke which hath for his scope the peace and felicity of the temporall life and against the violating wherof there be temporall paynes ordained which is that wherof the Apostle speaketh (a) Rom. 13. when he saith That a man must obey Princes not only for wrath the other religious and Ecclesiastike which is that of the obedience that Christians owe to their Princes not for the simple respect of lawes and paynes temporall but for respect vnto God and for the consideration of rewards and paynes eternall which is that that the same Apostle (b) Ibid. calleth for conscience sake Who doubteth when there is question of vntying not of the simple knot politike for which the politike lawes be instituted but of the spirituall and Ecclesiastike knot and of the obligation contracted in the tribunall and Court of conscience and this being the matter which is now in dispute whether in case of heresy it may be v●tied or not who doubteth I say whether this question be a question of Diuinity And more then this whatsoeuer the matter be in it selfe who seeth not that to dispute if it be conforme or contrary to Gods word is a question of Religion But some will reply and say that this is so cleere and so euident by Scripture as it admitteth neither vntruth nor dispute nor censure Is it true Where then there is a proposition which all the schoole Doctours and namely the two great lightes of Schoole Diuinity S. Thomas and S. Bonauenture and so many other Bishops and Doctours haue thought conforme or at least not repugnant to the word of God shall the contrary proposition be so cleere in Scripture as it shall need neither to be disputed about nor censured And what article then of faith may not be thrust out of the Churches Tribunall and exposed to the prey of Hereticall presumption if it be inough to say that it is so cleere in Scripture as that therin there is neither need of dispute nor iudgment Indeed this might haue some apparence if those who hold the one of the propositions should alledge Scriptures for themselues and the others should not cite any at all But as well those who hold the affirmatiue proposition as those who hold the negatiue argue by Scripture answere by Scripture and reply by Scripture For example they who hold the affirmatiue that Princes who ouerthrow and destroy religion 1. Reg. 15. may be excluded and depriued of their right alledge that Samuel deposed Saul or according to others for I pretend not to treate here by way of resolution but only problematically declared him deposed for hauing violated the lawes of the Iewish religion ● Reg. 11. That the Prophet Abia deposed Roboam frō his right of regality that he had ouer the Ten tribes of the people of Israel because Salomon his Father had reuolted and fallen from the lawe of God and sacrificed to false Gods That the Prophet Elias deposed Achab for hauing imbraced 3. ●●g 19. the religion of false Gods and persecuted the seruantes of the true God Those contrariwise who stand for the negatiue part answere that the organs instruments ministers and oracles of such depositions were the Prophets who were particulerly and infallibly instructed taught and inspired of Gods will and that their actions cannot be drawne into a consequence for the time of the Euangelicall law wherin there be more Prophets Those who reply forthe affirmatiue part say that where there were in the Iewish religion two sortes of missions the one ordinary which was Sacerdotall and the other extraordinary which was that of the Prophets it was to this end that if the ordinary came to decay or to decline it might be raysed vp agayne and supported by the extraordinary But in the law of the Ghospell there is but one mission and that Sacerdotall or of Priestes All the authority infallibility which was in the two missions of the old Testament is vnited in the only ordinary Sacerdotall mission of the new which consequently can no more fayle and be deceaued in iudging of Heresy or of Apostacy from Christian Religion which be the two only causes for which the French Doctours who haue written in fauour of Kinges think a Prince may be excluded from the right of raigning ouer Gods people then the propheticall mission of the old Testament And others adde that euen in the old Testament this prerogatiue was not restrayned to the Prophets alone but was extended to the Priest For the Priests iudged of the leprosy If thou perceauest saith the Law that there is difficulty betwene leprosy and leprosy Deut. 27. thou shalt arise go vp to the Priests of the Leuiticall stock And hereof there were two reasons the one for that the leprosy as all the ancient Fathers haue obserued was a figure of heresie the iudgment wherof by right apperteyned to the Priests of the new law of the Gospel alone the other for that the leprosy was not then one simple malady or disease naturall amongst the Iewes as it is now but it was a punishment extraordinary Leuit. 14. miraculous and diuine For this cause it lay one while in a stone of the wall Leuit. 13. which was to be pulled out to take it away another while in a linnen or wollen garment By occasion whereof the iudgment of this plague apperteyned to them who were the ordinary interpreters of the causes of Gods Ire that is to say to the Priestes And in this ease say they all were subiect vnto them euen the Kinges themselues and bound after they had giuen sentence of the leprosy and declared them to be touched with it to separate themselues from company and from the gouernment of the people And of this they bring for example the story of King Ozias 2. Paralip 26. who was suddainly stroken with a mark in the forehead for hauing

he ought when he assayeth to bring in a Schisme and diuision in ours But shall it be said that what the King of Great Britany doth in England against the Catholikes doth serue vs for a law and an example to do the same in our Catholique Countrey Shall it be said that France that hath for so many ages beene honoured with the name of a most Christian Realme Hier. contra Vigil and in which S. Hierome said there were no monsters is brought to this that it permitteth not Catholike religion but with the same conditions and seruitudes that be imposed vpon it in England Shall it be said that Ecclesiasticall persons be not suffered to liue in Frāce but vnder the stipulations conditions vnder which it is permitted them to liue in England Shall it be said that the Catholikes of France and especially the Clergy enioying security and freedome shall be enforced to sweare and binde themselues to belieue the same thing which with groaning and sighes thereby to gayne some litle breath is done by Catholiques in England And if there be found in England Catholikes constant inough to suffer all sortes of punishments rather then to consent vnto it shall there not be found those in France to doe the same rather then to subscribe to sweare an article that putteth the raynes of the faith into the handes of the Laytie and bringeth a diuision and Schisme into the Church Yes certainly Gentlemen such will be found in France And all we who are Bishops will rather go to martyrdome then giue our consentes to the deuiding of Christes body Apud Euseb Eccl. hist lib. 6. cap. 37. remembring this saying of S. Dionysius of Alexandria That the martyrdomes that men suffer for the hindring of the Churches diuision be no lesse glorious then be those that men endure for absteyning from sacrifising to Idolls But we are not God be thanked vnder a King who maketh martyrs he leaueth the souls of his subiectes free and if he doth it to those of his Subiectes that be strayed from the Church how much more will he do it to those soules of his Catholike subiects we liue the one and the other vnder the shadow of the Edictes of peace in liberty of conscience And wherefore then should we be constreyned to sweare that which we forbeare to make others to sweare There is not one only Synod of Ministers who would haue subscribed to that article which they would bind vs to sweare There is not one Consistory of others but beleeueth that they are discharged of their Oath of fidelity towardes Catholike Princes when they shal be forced by them in their consciences Of this come those modificatiōs that they haue so oft in their mouth Prouided that the King forceth vs not in our conscience Of this come these exceptions in their profession of faith So the Soueraigne Empire of God abide in his owne integrity Of this came the taking of arms so many times against the Kings when they would take from thē the liberty of religiō Of this came their insurrections and rebellions both in Flanders against the King of Spayne Sweden against the Catholike King of Polonia whome they spoiled of the Realme of Sweden his lawfull inheritance and therin established Duke Charles a Protestant Neither yet do they restrayne these exceptions to the only case of religion of conscience but they further extend them to secular matters The writinges of Buchanan Bruse and infinite others giue testimony who will that if the Kinges fayle in temporall conuentions and accord which they haue made with their subiects their subiectes be free to reuolt from them Not considering that there is great difference as we haue already declared betweene faylinge in a simple accord made by Oath and destroying the Oath by the which the accord was made For when a Prince doth of frayltie or of humane passion commit some iniustice he doth indeed against the Oath he hath made to his people to do them iustice yet he doth not thereby destroy his Oath But if he make a contrary Oath that is to say insteed of what he hath publiquely and solemnly sworne to his people which was to do them iustice to wit as far as humaine frailty will permit he should sweare and bind himselfe by another publique and solemne Oath that he would neuer render them iustice but rather sweare that he will minister nothing but iniustice he should then destroy his Oath renounce his owne Royaltie in renouncing by a contrary Oath the clauses and conditions of his former oath for which and by meanes and occasiō wherof his Royalty was instituted And therefore Barckley the Achilles of the doctrine of your Article hath had most iust cause to reprehend and find fault with the aforesaid authours but in reprehending them he hath reserued an exception of two cases which make much more to the preiudice of Kinges then do the Churches censures from which he would exempt them For he affirmeth expresly that in two cases the people may shake off the yoke of Kinges Guil. Barcl lib. 4. cont Monarchomach c. 16. arme themselues against them Behold his wordes What then Can there not occurre any cases in which the people may rise take armes by their owne authority and assaile a King insolently raigning None indeed so long as he contynueth King For this commaundement of God contradicteth it alwaies Honour the King c. who resisteth power risisteth God The people then addeth he cannot haue by any other meanes power ouer him but when he doth some thing by which he ceaseth of right to be King For then for as much as he spoyleth and depriueth himself of his principality and maketh himself a priuate person the people remayneth free and becommeth superiour And these two cases as he saith be when a Prince laboureth and hath intention to exterminate and ouerthrow the Kingdome common wealth as Nero and Caligula did or when he will make his Kingdome feudatary to another Ibidem I finde saith he two cases in which a King by fact maketh himself of a King no King and depriueth himself of his royall dignity and of power ouer his subiectes The one is if he goeth about to exterminate the Realme Common wealth that is to say if he hath a designe and intention to destroy the Realme as it is recorded of Nero that he had a deliberation to exterminate the Senate and the people of Rome c. And the other if the King hath a wil to put himselfe vnder the clientele and protection of some other But who seeth not that this is a thing tooto vnworthie for a Christiā to admit these exceptions in case of the destruction of a Cōmon wealth and not in case of the destruction of Religion and otherwise the iudgment which the people may make of the one is much more perilous to Princes thē that which the vniuersall Church may forme of the other And