Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	punishment_n	spiritual_a	temporal_a	8,636	5	9.8741	5	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

admitting Arbiters to end the controuersie in a peaceable manner without making warre for that warre must not be waged when the controuersie may otherwise bee peaceably ended But neither also with this controuersie will I intermeddle 4 Fourthly whereas you say that Kings and Princes who haue no Superiours oftentimes fall to warres and one seeke to dispossesse an other onely vpon a probable title you might for answere hereof haue called to minde what Card. Bellarmine related by Widdrington n In his Apologie for the right of Princes nu 445 answereth to such kind of arguments Aliud est facta Regum referre c. It is one thing to relate the facts of Kings and an other to proue their power authoritie And besides it may verie well be that the Prince who beginneth the warre thinketh his title to be certaine and the others title not to bee probable And moreouer the title for which they make warre may be meerely temporall which belongeth not to our case as you shall see beneath But let vs go on to the rest of your obiections Sect. 11. Obiection ANd if a probable title say you were not sufficient excuse for the dispossessing of the right Obiect which an other houldeth it were as good haue no title at all as a probable title without possession Answere 1 BVt first Answ your consequence is not good For no title is good for nothing but a probable title without possession in subiects is good for this to call the title in question and to haue it examined decided by a lawfull and vndoubted Iudge and in absolute Princes who haue no Superiours in temporals it is good in the opinion of some Diuines to haue the matter put to arbitrement or compromise which if the Prince who is in possession refuse the other Prince may according to the doctrine of these Diuines wherewith I will not meddle make warre against him for the wrong done him in not admitting Arbiters Also a probable title without possession is better then no title for that it is good after the decease of them who haue possession to haue the matter decided by the Kingdome or Common-wealth to whom it belongeth as well obserueth Vasquez to determin doubtfull titles when none is in possession As also according to the doctrine of all Diuines it belongeth to the Church or Spirituall kingdome of Christ which a general Councel doth represent to determine and decide the doubtfull titles of two Popes although both of them be partly in possession 2 Secondly your consequent for as much as concerneth the making of warre vpon a probable title without possession Vasquez would not feare to admit For it is not absurd to graunt that a probable title without possession is as good as no title for the making of warre against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession As also it is no absurditie to grant but rather a most certaine doctrine that aprobable matter of Baptisme is in some case for as much as concerneth practise as good as no matter See Vasques 1.2 disp 63 disp 64 cap. 4. for that it is not lawful in some case to baptize with a probable matter to wit when we may vse a certaine and vndoubted matter And a probable medicine is in some case as good as no medicine for that it is not lawfull to apply to one a probable medicine when an vndoubted medicine may be applyed Sect. 12. Obiection NOw in this contention say you betwixt the pope Obiect the Prince though the Prince haue a probable title after depriuation and also possession it is houlden with wrong to the Church preiudice to Christs flocke whose good is more to bee respected then the priuate good of a temporall Prince And so it seemeth he may be depriued of his right vpon a probable title though absolutely abstracting from such case it may not bee done Answere 1 BVt this hath beene fully answered aboue Answ For it is a most false and seditious doctrine to hould that a Prince in keeping the possession of his Crown to which as you confesse he hath a probable right after depriuation doth any wrong or iniurie to the Church or any vniust preiudice to Christs flocke or that the good of the Church or of Christs flocke is to bee respected or obtained by vniust meanes and with the wrong of any man much lesse of Princes who in vsing defending their probable right being in possession do no man wrong For if it be no wrong as you in Vasquez iudgement falsly and absurdly suppose for the Pope or Prince who hath onely a probable title without possession to inuade and assault an other Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession much more it is no wrong for this Prince so assaulted to defend himselfe And therefore you must not bee so mindfull of the good of the Church or other good ends that you forget that the good of the Church and all good ends must be obtained by good meanes for as you know Bonum est ex integra causa c. Good proceedeth from and entier cause Dionisius Areo pag. 4. cap. de diu nom but euill from euerie defect 2 Secondly I doe not well vnderstand that exception you make in your last words though absolutely abstracting from such case it may not bee done For I do not see but that according to the principles of your doctrine if an hereticall or wicked Prince bee depriued by the Pope his Kingdome must alwaies bee held by him with wrong to the Church and preiudice to Christs flocke c. and so that exception of yours whereby you would seeme to limit your former false assertion is in my conceipt to little purpose And moreouer whether it better for Gods glorie and the good of the Church Leo serm 1. de SS Petro Paulo to haue somtimes persecutions Whereby as S. Leo saith the Church is not diminished but increased c. We cannot so easily know and therefore wee ought rather to leaue it to the iudgement of him who maketh a man that is an hypocrite reigne for the sinnes of the people Iob. 34. then ouer rashly to iudge of the secrets of Gods prouidence Sect. 13. Obiection AGaine though in your conceipt and opinion say you the Pope and Prince haue a Superiour or head to iudge the controuersie betwixt them Obiect to wit a generall Councell yet in the opinion of others who hould that the Pope is aboue the Councell and consequently hath no head it seemeth the Pope may as other Princes may without iniurie goe about to depose a Prince depriued vpon a probable title though in full possession of his right and dominions Answer 1 MY conceit indeed is that it is very probable that a generall Councel excluding the Pope is aboue atrue and vndoubted Pope Answ and that to conceiue the contrarie is altogether improbable and absurd Now to