Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	faith_n	rule_n	scripture_n	4,181	5	6.7162	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03944	An adioynder to the late Catholike new yeares gift, or explication of the oath of allegeance Wherein certaine principall difficulties, obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike, against the sayd New-yeares gift, and explication of the oath, are very clearely explained. Published by E.I. the author of the New-yeares gift.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1620 (1620)	STC 14050; ESTC S100127	50,683	158

their great shame and confusion ere it belong be publikly accused and in my iudgement most cleerely conuicted vnless they speedely change their vncharitable courses cease to make a Schisme and disunion among Catholikes in regard onely of opinions which as witnesseth Cardinall Peron ought not to hinder the reunion of those who are not Catholikes and should desire to be reconciled to the Catholike Church 9 And lastly for my owne part I protest vnfaignedly that as I haue not beene affraid in regard of the dutie obligation wherein I stand bound to God and Caesar to my Prince and Countrey and to the Catholike Religion which I professe to defend with my pen this manifest truth concerning the indissoluble bond g of temporall Allegiance See the Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church tract ' 3. sect 5. due to our Soueraign Prince by the law of God and Nature although I foresaw the great disgraces which both in the Court of Rome and also here in England among our Catholike brethren would come to me thereby so I will God willing be euer readie to confirme and seale the same truth if need shal require with my blood vntill the Catholike Church which is the pillar ground of truth h 1. Tim. 3. to whose censure I most humbly submit my self and whatsoeuer hath or shall be written by me shall infallibly define the contrarie which as I am fully perswaded she neuer will not to say can not i See Card. Caiet in opasc de concept B. virginis cap. 5. Canus lib. 7. de locis cap. 3 who vpon the like grounds thinke assuredly that the Church neuer will though Canus saith expresly she can not define that the B. Virgin was preserued from original sin define for that in my priuate iudgement speaking with all submission she hath no sufficient grounds either from the holy Scriptures as they are expounded by the ancient Fathers or from any other vndoubted rule of faith so to define but that if she will determine either part she will declare and define according to the true and vniuersall doctrine of the ancient Fathers k See the ancient Fathers in M. Widdringt discouerie of Schulkenius slanders § 17 that absolute Princes are supreme in temporals therein subiect to none but God alone and also that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth extend to the giuing of spirituall graces not earthly kingdomes to the remitting of sinnes not of debts to the loosing of spirituall not corporall bonds to the inflicting of spirituall not temporall punishments and to the disposing of spirituall not temporall goods This 27 of December 1620. Yours in all loue and dutie E. I. The Author of the New-yeeres gift A briefe SUMMARIE OF THE CHIEFEST things contained in this ADIOYNDER IN the first Section is shewed that to proue the Oath of Allegiance to bee vnlawfull euident demonstrations are required but to proue it to be lawfull only probable arguments and answers are sufficient In the second Section is shewed First that the immediate obiect of an Oath must bee morally certaine to the iudgement of the Swearer and that it neede not to be morally certaine to all others Secondly that in the second Branch of the Oath is denyed both the Popes power to practise the deposition of Princes and also the practice it selfe in all cases whatsoeuer and that albeit the deniall of some particular practice doth not imply a deniall of the power it selfe to practise yet a deniall of all practices and effects is a vertuall deniall of the power it selfe to practise And thirdly it is shewed that a meere probable power to depose or punish is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power and for practise as good as no power at all to depose or punish In the third Section is shewed that euery doctrine which containeth a falshood against the holy Scriptures is truely and properly hereticall both according to the doctrine of Protestants who hold the holy Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and also of most Catholike Diuines who hold that the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or heresie but doth onely declare it and make it knowne to all which before her declaration was not known to all Neither is it required in the opinion of Protestants to make any doctrine hereticall that it subuert the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti materialis or of the fundamentall things which are to bee beleeued which are the generall articles of our Creede or Christian Beleefe but that it contain a falshood although it be in poynts of a lesse matter then are the Articles of the Creed repugnant to the Word of God which is the rule of faith and consequently subuerteth the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti formalis or the formall cause of our beleefe which is the infallible truth of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures In the fourth Section is shewed First both by manifest reason and also by the testimony of many learned Catholike Diuines that euerie Theologicall Conclusion which is euidently deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expressely contained in the Word of God and the other manifest by the light of Nature is of faith and the contrarie hereticall and against faith and that therefore although it bee not cleare in Scriptures expressely and directly that it is manifest wrong to depose a Prince excommunicated and depriued by the Pope yet it is cleere in Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence that it is manifest wrong to depose such a Prince and consequently to deny the same is properly hereticall and secondly that maxime of the Logicians The conclusion followeth the weaker part is clearely explained In the fifth Section is shewed First that it is against the holy Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence and therefore against faith and properly hereticall that it is lawfull to murther Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope Secondly that it is very false and seditious to apply the doctrine of killing manifest Vsurpers to the killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope for that manifest Vsurpers haue no probable title to the Crowne but Princes after the Popes sentence of Excommunication and also depriuation haue besides reall possession a true probable title and right to the Kingdomes which they possesse Thirdly that albeit a Prince should yeeld vp his Crowne after depriuation yet it were not hereticall according to my Aduersary his grounds to kill such a Prince although my Aduersary doth grant it to be euident murther and therfore vertually repugnant to the holy Scriptures In the sixth Section is shewed First that the Author of the New-yeeres Gift did not bring those examples of taking a purse from one who leadeth a wicked life or killing him with a pistoll to compare them to the deposing or murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but hee brought them onely to proue that

are Theft nor Murther nor can with safe conscience be sworne so to be Answere 1 BVt first you greatly abuse the Author of the New-yeeres gift Answ in affirming that he brought those examples to make a paritie or similitude betwixt them and the deposing and murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope For hee brought them onely to shew that it is not necessarie to make a proposition de fide of faith and the contrarie heretical that it be formally and expresly contained in the holy Scripture but that it suffiseth to be contained vertually by a necessarie consequence and that no word or circumstance expressed in the particular proposition doe hinder that it be not included in the generall proposition which is formally and expresly contained in the holy Scripture Neither did he apply them otherwise as you may see if you will pervse the place 2 Secondly although he had compared them together as hee did not yet the paritie is not so vnapt as you would seeme to make it For albeit there be a great disparity betwixt them as there is betwixt salt and sugar in tast but not in colour yet they both agree in this for which onely purpose he brought those examples that they are not formally and expresly contained in the holy Scriptures but onely by a necessarie consequence proued to be Theft and Murther as also the deposing and murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope are by a necessarie consequence proued by the said Authour to bee Theft and Murther and consequently comprehended in those generall words Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not kill as particulars in the vniuersalls 3 But to take a purse from his neighbour or to kill him with a pistoll if hee leade a wicked life are vnquestionable Theft and Murther say you and included in the generals c. This is verie true and for that cause the Authour of the New-yeeres Gift brought those examples But you can not proue by Scriptures onely that they are vnquestionable Theft and Murther because they are not formally and expresly forbidden in the word of God but to proue them to be vnquestionable Theft and Murther you must vse a Syllogisme whereof one of the premisses is not in the Word of God but grounded on the light of naturall reason which is no Scripture And so according to the Discourse you made aboue although this Theft and Murther bee vndoubtedly contained in those generalls Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not kill yet you cannot abiure as hereticall that doctrine which approueth them to bee lawfull Nay according to your grounds you cannot abiure as hereticall that doctrine which holdeth it lawfull to kill any particular man whatsoeuer although it be most assuredly Murther for that you cannot proue by Scriptures that hee is a man but this premisse you must proue by naturall reason or euidence of sence neither of which is Scripture 4 But to depose say you or kill a Prince depriued if after depriuation hee vsurpe is with many questionable and probably thought by some neither Theft nor Murther c. To kill a Prince depriued by the Pope is by no man questionable Suarez in Defens fidei Cathol c. lib. 6. ca. 4. num 10. vnlesse the Pope after depriuation giue a particular commission to kill him And in this case onely Suarez among all that euer I read durst aduenture to teach expressely That if the Pope giue such a commission to any priuate man hee may lawfully kill such a Prince But considering that this seditious or rather diabolicall doctrine is grounded vpon a most false and improbable foundation to wit that it is a cleare poynt of faith and out of all controuersie among Catholikes that the Pope hath authority to dispose of the Crownes and also liues of temporall Princes in order to spiritual good which all the world seeth not onely to bee a controuersie among them but also to bee condemned by the Parliament of Paris for a false and seditious damnable and pernicious doctrine it is manifest that the conclusion which is grounded vpon this false and improbable foundation cannot bee probable And therefore those your words and probably thought by some to be neither Theft nor Murther are very vntrue and dangerous and also the examples you bring in taking spoyles from the enemy in time of iust war and killing a Tyrant in call an Vsurper are vnaptly and perniciously not to say seditiously applyed by you to the killing of a Prince depriued by the Pope or taking from him his Crown both for that depriuation doth not take away the right hee hath to liue neither is that Prince keeping his Crowne after depriuation such a knowne and manifest Vsurper as that he hath not at least a probable title to the Crowne of which manifest Vsurpers only those Diuines who approue the killing of Vsurpers doe speake And that it is manifest Theft to take from a Prince his Crown to which he hath a probable right after depriuation you shal see more plainly beneath Sect. 7. Obiection BEsides your exposition say you of those words depose Obiect or murther taken out of Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation to proue the lawfulnes of swearing this Branch seemeth to me not altogether so sound For though indeed such examples may be found sometimes yea and oftentimes as he well doth demonstrate wherein for the truth of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition it sufficeth that the one part be true though the other bee false and consequently wee may sweare the whole proposition if the one part bee but true yet hic nunc in this Oath and with these circumstances with the words going before and the words comming after adding therunto the intention of the Law-maker who no doubt would haue vs no lesse detest the one then the other it cannot bee but they must by the Oath bee both abiured as hereticall and consequently this euasion of the conditionall disiunctiue can helpe nothing here to saue from periury Answer 1. BVT first Answ you are greatly mistaken in setting downe Mr. Widdringtons doctrine concerning the nature of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition For he doth not say that to the truth but to the falshood of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition it sufficeth that the one part bee true though the other befalse and consequently that wee may hee doth say sweare but abiure the whole proposition if the one part bee but true But this your mistaking I do not attribute to any want of you in the vnderstanding of Mr. Widdringtons doctrine in this point but onely to the errour and hastinesse of your pen. 2. Secondly he doth not onely say that sometimes and oftentimes but also that most commonly the conditionall disiunctiue proposition to wit when the Coniunction or followeth the Verbe may is so to be taken and that there can scarse bee alledged any one conditionall disiunctiue proposition wherein it is not so to bee taken and that

but on the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Pope and Church when they shall declare or define any thing ex Cathedra for the whole Church to be lawfull or vnlawfull which declaration is indeed and in effect a definition in my conceit that declaration must binde for the assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer the ground therof bee a formall Law or but onely an opinion and so if the Pope haue the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in his definitions and declarations ex Cathedra as in Suarez opinion he hath though in yours not and that also probably and intended in his Breues to declare to the whole Church ex Cathedra that the Oath is vnlawfull I see not why it should not so bee thought and taken whether the ground of such declaration was his only opinion or no. And so wee see that if the whole Church should in a Councell declare any thing to bee lawfull or vnlawfull which before was in doubt as is now of this Oath when wee all agree that she hath the assistance of the Holy Ghost in her generall decrees as well as in her definitions wee ought to to take it for such whether the ground of her declaration be certaine or onely but probable The same I would think should bee thought of the declaratiue Breues of Popes at the least in the opinion of those who maintaine that the Pope cannot erre no more without a Councell then with it For if the declaration of any such thing to be lawfull or vnlawfull should binde vs no more then the ground of that declaration whether it were a formall Law or but onely an opinion such declaration were but idle and should not afford that certaintie and satisfaction which at the Church is required in time of doubt I know you answer this difficulty about the Popes Breues sufficiently in saying that the Pope may erre in declaring or defining without a Generall Councell and that there was no such Councell when these Breues were set forth but this difficultie I finde about your doctrine and much more about the doctrine of Suarez of Declaratiue Breues because you stand not vpon that answer onely Answer 1. BVt first it is manifest in my iudgement that in all declaratiue precepts especially belonging to manners or of things to bee done or omitted for onely of these precepts not of definitions declarations or precepts of faith or of things to bee beleeued Suarez speaketh the obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the fundamentall ground reason end of the precept and that therein also is implyed the intention and will of the Law-maker which is the soule and life of the Law who intendeth onely to binde by his declaratiue precept for as much onely as the thing he commandeth or forbiddeth is of it owne nature necessarie or repugnant to some former Law of God Nature or some other positiue Law which the declaratiue precept doth declare and suppose And therefore as Suarez well obserueth a pure declaratiue precept doth not make the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull but only supposeth and declareth it to bee vnlawfull as forbidden by some former Law Whereupon it followeth that if it bee but a probable opinion that there is such a former Law the declaratiue precept can binde no more then the probabilitie of the opinion which is the fundamentall ground and reason of the precept hath force to bind 2. Neither doth your obiection impugne this manifest doctrine For although in such generall precepts wherein the Church cannot erre to wit when shee commadeth the whole Church something which is necessary to saluation the certainty and obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet this doth not hinder but that it must also depend vpon the substantiall ground reason and end for which the Law was made But this onely at the most is proued by your obiection that because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept it must consequently bee annexed to all those things whereon the precept doth necessarily depend But to affirme therefore that the precept doth depend on nothing else then vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost were ridiculous 3. As also due diligence and examining of the cause is according to the doctrine of all Diuines necessarily required in a Generall Councell to define infallibly any doctrine of faith And because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to her definition it must consequently be also annexed to all that whereon her infallible definition doth necessarily depend And thereupon the Diuines affirme that if it be certaine that the Church did not erre in her definition it is also certain that she vsed due diligence and all other necessary conditions which by the institution of Christ are required to an infallible definition But to affirme that because the infallibilitie of her definition dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost therefore neither due diligence nor examination of the cause nor any other thing is necessarily required to her infallible definition were absurd ridiculous 4. Wherefore you must distinguish betwixt fundamentall intrinsecall and necessary reasons or grounds and Extrinsecall or accidental as M. Widdrington hath often affirmed from the doctrine of Bellarm Canus to which also all other Diuines doe agree for these last may be false and yet the definition true As in the second Councell of Nice it was declared that Angels might bee painted because they haue bodies the declaration was true although this reason being extrinsecall and accidentall was false But if shee had declared that it is lawfull to paint Angels because it is not repugnant to faith or good manners which is a fundamentall ground and reason of that declaration the declaration can not be true if that fundamentall reason and ground be supposed to be false And thus much concerning the doctrine of Suarez in generall 5 And therefore secondly to apply it to the Popes Breues if it were certaine that the Pope in making his declaratiue prohibition of the Oath had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost Mr. Widdrington would not sticke to affirme that as the prohibition is infallible so consequenly the fundamentall reason and ground for which the Oath is by the Popes Breues forbidden is also infallible and that therefore some thing is in the Oath repugnant to faith or saluation which is the fundamentall ground reason and end of the Popes forbidding the Oath for if there were nothing in the Oath against faith or saluation the Pope could not forbid it with such iniurie to his Maiestie and so great damage to English Catholikes 6 But thirdly this obiection of yours concerning the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost promised to the Church for the making of general precepts ex Cathedra either touching faith or manners doth not sufficiently confirme the infallibilitie of the Popes Breues forbidding English Catholikes to take the Oath for that Mr. Widdrington