Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A60249
|
An answer to Doctor Piercie's sermon preached before His Majesty at White-Hall, Feb. 1, 1663 by J.S.
|
Simons, Joseph, 1593-1671.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing S3805; ESTC R34245
|
67,126
|
128
|
professedly and at large teaches the contrary assigning out of the Canons three other causes as Sodomy heresie or tempting to any grievous sinne in cap. 5. Matth. vers 32. which you also quote and so could not misse of seeing your imposture In the text you cite out of Maldonat he speakes only of a perpetual divorce which was the present question and asserts with our Saviour that if a man so recedes from his Wife except the cause of Fornication commits adultery though he marry no other because if his wife commits it 't will be imputed to the husband as dismissing her unduly 105. The judgement of Chemnitius a fierce Protestant we value not in this matter The Scriptures he quotes are only effects of the conjugall tye not the knot it self which consists in the mutual right of each party to the other not in the actual exercise of that right which may be hindred many wayes Else if upon businesse the husband be long absent in a forraign Countrey he dissolves the bond of wedlock which to assert is ridiculous 106. But now good Doctour you little think that throwing stones at randome with Diogenes his Boy you have hit your Father Does not Luther your grand Patriarch allow of a Divorce not only temporary but perpetual even with leave to marry again for many other causes then fornication The first is in case the wife be froward refusing conjugal right Si non vult uxor veniat ancilla c. If the wife will not let the maid come put away Vasthi take Hester Serm. de Matrim The second if the husband perswade the wife or the wife the husband to any sinne The third if a rich woman marry a poor man and her friends disapprove the match The fourth if the wife brawle and scold and will not live peaceably in 1 Cor. 7. Ann. 1554. lib. de causis Matrim Ann. 1530. 107. Calvin in his Institutions huggs the same doctrine of Divorce with liberty to take another wife in case one marry without the consent of Parents if a Whore instead of a Virgin if either party be absent a year or will not keep home after three moneths warning lib. 4. cap. 19. And in the Genevian Canons pag. 29 32 40 41. If a husband shall be absent let his wife cause him to be called by the publick Cryer avd if he come not within the time limited the Minister shall licence his wife to take another husband 108. But to come nearer home Martin Bucer a Reader of Divinity in Cambridge under Edward the 6. whom Calvin stiles the most faithfull Doctour of Christs Church The whole University of Cambridge A Man most holy and truly Divine Doctour Whitgift A Reverend Learned painfull and sound Father And Sr. Iohn Cheek Quo majorem vix universus Orbis caperet greater then whom the universall world scarce held 109. Hic vir hic est This is the man that professedly argues against your exposition of Christs words to wit that as there is at this day like hardnesse of heart so the distressed Wives ought to be relieved no lesse now then in times past that the Magistrate now hath no lesse authority in this matter then Moyses had and at this day ought to use the same Neither is it to be believed saith he that Christ would forbid any thing of that which his Father commanded but he commanded the hard of heart that if they would not use their Wives with Nuptiall equity they should then procure a Bill of Divorce and marry again Out of this principle he deduces many particular cases as of parting one from another Theft Homicide Lunacy c. in which Divorce with freedome to re-marry may be lawfull in Matth. 19. fol. 147. de Regno Christi lib. 2. cap. 26. 27. 28. 37. 40. 42. 110. And I am credibly informed that even in England Divorce and second Marriage is granted for Frigidity though contracted after Marriage in pre-contracts where no consummation was and in case either party turnes Catholick However what more common in the whole Island then Divorce from Bed and Board allow'd in certain Cases besides Fornication by the Canons of your Church Where then is the onely Council of Trents heynous offence 111. By these therefore and many more corruptions in point of practice and doctrine too which were no deviations from what had been from the beginning but wrongfully imposed upon the whole Church united with their Head the Roman Bishop and never confess'd by the learned'st or unlearned'st Sons of the same Church in their publick Writings the sensuall part of the Christian world was moved to look for a deformation 112. What if Stapleton laments the vices of some Popes who sate upon the Chayre of Peter as the Scribes and Pharisees upon the Chayre of Moyses Did he therefore acknowledge that corruption of manners either in the whole Church subject to that See or that it was ever approved by the Church S. Austin in 166. Epistle will tell you that Christ hath placed in the Chayre of Unity the Doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of wholsome Doctrine in which Chayre even ill men are enforced to speak good things 113. Now because page 31. you ingenuously confesse that corruption of manners in point of practice cannot justifie a separation from the Roman Church and so your Sermon is to no other purpose stuff'd with such pretended corruptions but to spit your venome at the Roman See I pass over what you say of that kinde in the same page and come to your Demonstrations from corruption of Doctrine to evince the lawfulnesse of your Separation But first I must note that this objecting humour Tertullian observed in the Hereticks of his dayes and stopt their mouthes with telling them they were Vitia conversationis non praedicationis Faults of manners not of Doctrine St. Austin discovered the same in the Donatists who had with wicked fury separated themselves from the Roman Church and thus takes up the Heretick Petilian Why dost thou call the See Apostolick the Chayre of Pestilence c. If we listed to retort what a large field opens it self in the lives of your Patriarchs Luther Calvin Beza Zwinglius and others even from your own Concessions Of corruption of Doctrine in matter of Faith The xxi Demonstration Page 30. 114. If the Roman Church's corruptions of Doctrine and that in matters of Faith corruptions intrenching on fundamentalls have been shewed in the former Demonstrations then the Schisme is the Roman Church's who gave the cause of Separation not the Protestants who did but separate when the cause was given But the said corruptions of Doctrine have been shewed in the former Demonstrations Therefore the Schisme is the Roman Church's c. 115. No question if those corruptions of Doctrine have been really demonstrated in which appeares not the least glimpse of evidence no nor of probability neither much lesse
Cathedra una monstretur The beginning comes from unity The Primacy is given to Peter that there may be shown one Church of Christ and one Chayre And in the same Treatise He that forsakes the Chayre of Peter upon which the Church is founded do's he trust that he is in the Church Secondly from his 71. Epistle Peter whom our Lord chose first and upon whom he built his Church c. Thirdly from his 40. Epistle There is one God one Christ one Church and one See by the word of our Lord founded upon S. Peter Insomuch that the Centurists famous Protestants reprove S. Cyprian for it saying Passim dicit Cyprianus supra Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam S. Cyprian often sayes that the Church is founded upon S. Peter Fourthly from that the same Centurists blame likewise S. Hierome for the like sayings who upon the 6. of S. Matthew speaking of S. Peter hath these words Secundum Metaphoram Petrae rectè dicitur ei aedificabo Ecclesiam meam superte According to the Metaphor of a Rock 't is rightly said unto him I will build my Church upon thee And in his first Book against Iovinian Inter duodecim unus eligitur ut Capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio Amongst the twelve one is chosen that a Head being establisht the occasion of Schisme might be taken away Which place of S. Hierome is alledged by Doctor Covell above cited page 107. to prove the necessity of one Head for preventing Schismes and Dissentions in the Church Finally from his 75. Epistle when speaking to Pope Damasus Beatitudini tuae saith he id est Cathedrae tuae communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio c. I am joyned in communion with your Blessednesse that is to Peter's Chayre upon that Rock I know the Church is founded Now Sir by these clear and unquestionable Texts is it not manifest that in your Sermon to the Court you cheated these Fathers out of their true meaning The seventh Demonstration Page 18. 51. If every Patriarch and Bishop be appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his then the Pope cannot be chief or Head of the whole Church But so it was appointed by the Canons of the two first General Councils Nicè and Constantinople Therefore the Bishop of Rome cannot be chief or head of the whole Church The Minor is stoutly proved first by the 6. Nicene Canon in which there is not a word of that sense The Canon is this Let the ancient custome held through Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over those Provinces because that also with the Bishop of Rome this is usual or customary that is to allow that power in the Bishop of Alexandria for if this be not the sence how could the Judges in the Council of Chalcedon inferre out of this Canon Omnem primatum all primacy in the See of Rome as we shall presently see The fifth Canon of the second Generall Council runs thus The Bishop of Constantinople must have the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome Doe not those words after the Bishop of Rome rather prove the absolute Primacy of the Roman See Secondly in the Council of Chalcedon which was the fourth Generall Act. 16. the Judges having heard the recitall of those two Canons concluded thus By what hath been deposed of every one we conceive that all Primacy and chief honour is reserved to the Arch-Bishop of old Rome What Canons I pray but those of the two first Generall Councils you have alledg'd which are so far from equallizing the Roman Bishop with the rest that they give him all Primacy that is both of Order and Jurisdiction For Primacy of Order alone is neither all Primacy nor the chief Honour Primacy of Jurisdiction exceeding it far This Primacy is farther pâ—…oved because the same Council pretending to grant the Bishop of Constantinople a Primacy over the East after the Pope of Rome according to the second Generall Council expressely addes that he should have power to order the Metropolitans in the Diocesses of the East that the Bishops chosen by the Clergy of whatsoever Metropolis of the East be presented to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople that he might either confirm or reject them as he pleased And both Theodorus Balsamon upon the Council of Sardica cap. 3. 5. and Nilus de Primatu Papae cap. 7. from those two Canons of the second and fourth Generall Councils endeavour to conclude a right in the Bishop of Constantinople to admit of appeales from all the East Wherefore your exposition out of Iustellus concerning primacy of Order alone is manifestly false and against the Text. As therefore the primacy aimed at for the Bishop of Constantinople over the East but never obtained because the Church of Rome alwayes rejected those two Canons as derogatory to the precedence of Alexandria and Antioch established by the first Council of Nice was both of Order and Jurisdiction so much more the acknowledged Primacy of the Pope over the whole Church Whereupon the Fathers of that Council writing to Pope Leo say You presided in this Assembly as the Head to the Members When therefore in the same Council of Chalcedon it is said that the Fathers of the Church had given those priviledges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City Their meaning is not that the Cities greatnesse was the immediate cause of the Primacy For that was the being S. Peter's Successor as appeares by the Title they gave S. Leo's Epistle in their Speech to the Emperour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speech of Peter's Chayre and having read that Epistle thus acclaymed Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo And in their relation given to Saint Leo speaking of Dioscorus who had dared to excommunicate the Pope in a false Council called without the Pope's consent which never was lawfull He shewed say they malice against him to whom the custody of the Vineyard was committed The Fathers therefore meant causam causae the remote cause to wit the cause why St. Peter fixt his Seat at Rome as being the head of the Roman Empire to the end saith S. Leo that the light of truth which was revealed for the Salvation of all Nations might from the head of the world be communicated effectually to the whole Body And so the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian in a Law made six yeares before the Council of Chalcedon comprehend all the causes saying that three things establisht the See Apostolick S. Peters merit who is Prince of the Apostolicall Colledge the dignity of the City and Synodicall authority that is Divine Ecclesiasticall and Civill right 52. The strict injunction you mention of the second Generall Council laid upon Bishops not to meddle but with their own Discesse was not to hinder Hierarchy but confusion And so by setting bounds