Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	john_n	send_v	son_n	16,040	5	6.2799	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35138	The catechist catechiz'd: or, Loyalty asserted in vindication of the oath of allegiance, against a new catechism set forth by a father of the Society of Jesus To which is annexed a decree, made by the fathers of the same Society, against the said oath: with animadversions upon it. By Adolphus Brontius, a Roman-Catholick.	Cary, Edward, d. 1711.; England. Parliament.	1681 (1681)	Wing C722; ESTC R222415	68,490	195

faces of his own Fathers But grant saies he they did subscribe to the Censure did they swear to what they subscribed Again where is old Honesty Will not a Religious honest man swear to what he will not refuse to subscribe If what he subscribes to be true what harm is there in due Circumstances to swear it If it be not true what honesty can subscribe to it Is not this still to bespatter his French Fathers He advances thus Can the Subscription of Sixteen Jesuits make the Doctrine of deposing Heretical I answer no. But this argues that some Jesuits have two Faiths in their pockets one for Rome and another for Paris they at Rome professing it to stand with the Word of God and they at Paris declaring it to be against the Word of God and is not this to play at Blind-mans-buff with his own Fathers Next he asks whether the French Oath of Allegiance be the same with the English and he answers himself no but adds that the Oath-teachers use to say it was the same My reply is that if he fancy any such Oath-teachers he may fight against his own dream for I know of none who use to say so nor do I see what great need there is of such a Oath in France for those men of your Society whose Books were burnt in Paris for teaching the deposing Doctrin do restrain the Pope's Power of deposing to the cases of Heresy and Apostacy Now the French Kings living in communion with the Church of Rome and fearing no danger from the deposing Doctrin it may be reason of state in them not to meddle with the Pope's Power in their Oath of Allegiance But should the French Kings recede from the Roman Communion as the Kings of England have done or should the deposing men be found in a secret Conspiracy against their Lives as the Powder-Traitors were at Westminster who acted by the deposing Principles can he tell us what Oath the French King would then frame If he cannot let him learn from the Decrees already made against that Doctrin both by that Church and State When I had in defence of the Oath of Allegiance declared that a Moral Certainty was a sufficient assurance to justify an honest man in his Oath and consequently that there was no necessity that the thing sworn should be so absolutely true in it self that it could not possibly be otherwise for then no Oath or at least but few could be taken but onely that it should be true to the judgment of the Swearer when I say I had declared this the Catechist both in his former print and also now inveighs against me as encouraging the greatest dishonesty imaginable and yet poor man he is lap'st into the same errour but sees it not for he assures us he has the same Certainty in swearing the King to be the right and Lawful King of this Realm as he has of Innocent the 11th being Pope who not-withstanding he confesses may possibly be no Pope as not being Baptized Ordained or being simoniacally Elected c which is not to swear the truth of a thing in it self but as it is in the swearers judgment who has for warrant of his honesty a moral Certainty whatever the truth in it self may possibly be Is not this to play at blind-buff and contradict himself At the winding up of his Catechism he propounds to himself a question of all hitherto it may be the most Important 'T is thus How comes it to pass saies he that the Pope's Declaration binds to a Compliance in not taking the Oath even with the loss of Liberty Life and Fortunes seeing the Precepts of the Church do not oblige with so much rigour and he answers himself in the words following because saies he the Law of God obliges me not to take an Unlawful Oath and the Law of God is indispensable Now the Pope declares my Obligation of not taking the Oath to be a part of God's Law from whence it follows that 't is indispensable On the contrary the Precepts of the Church are dispensable and oblige not to the forfeiture of Lives and Fortunes The Question put I confess is clear and easy but in his answer he confounds himself though from both I conclude his sence must be thus that the Oath is not therefore indispensable because it is prohibited by the Pope for that would not oblige us with the hazard of Lives and Fortunes but because it is against the Law of God antecedent to the Pope's prohibition and the Pope now as God's Vicar declares it to be so and consequently 't is Indispensable This I say must be his sence if he has any For when he tells us that God obligeth us not to take an unlawful Oath the Question returns what makes an Oath Unlawfull If it be the Pope's prohibition onely that 's dispensable if it be the Law of God antecedent to the Pope's prohibition 't is therefore indispensable This being so I ask whether this prohibition or declaration of the Pope be a definition of Faith or no If it be where is the thing defined without which 't is impossible there should be a Definition Besides is not every man free to maintain any one clause or proposition of the Oath without doing the least injury to the Popes prohibition or declaration For whoever affirms that the Pope's Prohibition falls upon any particular Clause is too rash as not having any warrant from the Pope for his bold Assertion Since then every part of the Oath may separately be maintain'd without infringing the Pope's Prohibition how can the Prohibition of the Oath be a Definition of Faith Clearly then the Pope's declaration by his Breves is bottom'd upon his own private Opinion unto which though all due respect is to be pay'd yet why it should oblige the Catholicks of England with the loss of Liberty Fortunes and Lives since he owns the precepts of the Church do not I expect to be instructed by another Catechism nor do I think he values his own life so little as to hazard it upon the private Opinion of the Pope though never so Learned and Holy But if he will he must pardon others who are not of his mind To convince him that some Breves of Popes may pass un-obey'd I instanced in Nicolas John Caelestin Alexander and most particularly in Boniface the Eight who in his Bull against the French King declared himself not only Supream in Spirituals but also in Temporals and that all were Hereticks who held otherwise To these Objections he sends me to Bellarmin to receive my Answer and I at the same time sent him and another to Withrington and to John Barclay Father and Son who to a tittle have made good the Objection against Bellarmin To say as he does that those Errours were the private Opinions of Popes is to yield the cause and own that Popes may err in their private Opinions and consequently that his Commands such as is the prohibition