Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n believe_v church_n faith_n 17,021 5 6.3601 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A50334 Doubts concerning the Roman infallibility I. whether the Church of Rome believe it, II. whether Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever recommended it, III. whether the primitive church knew or used that way of deciding controversie. Maurice, Henry, 1648-1691. 1688 (1688) Wing M1362; ESTC R15937 24,517 44

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

required but Orthodox Faith and the Truth of Apostolick Doctrine And it is strange in all the Disputes between Cyril and Theodoret there is not the least Word about the Infallible Definition of the Ephesin Synod which had decided the Matter under Dispute And it is no small Prejudice against the Infallible Way Cyril Ep. ad Euopt that Cyril tells his Adversary That he ought to Argue out of the Scriptures only There was never Council occasioned more Dispute than that of Chalcedon the World was a long while divided about it But those who declare their Adherence to it never pretend it to have been Infallible but on the contrary Ep. Anatol. ad Leon. Ep. Episcop Europ ad Leon Episc Isaur ad eund vid. Tom. 5. Conc. Ed. Labb Profess their Approbation of it Because it had Asserted the True Faith not that the Faith must be true because asserted by it because it had defined nothing New or Strange against the Rectitude of the Faith because it had added nothing to the Faith or altered nothing in the Constitutions of former Councils or explained any thing Incongruously but followed the Scripture and the Nicene Council Ep. Syriae 2. ibid. And the Bishops of Syria declare their Opinion not only of this but of all the other received General Councils That they Decree them to be True Councils because they have Asserted and Ratified this Faith by the Holy Seriptures What shall we call this but a Protestant Rule of Faith when a Council is to be known to be True or False from its Doctrine and not the Doctrine from the Infallibility of the Judge And Maximus it seems Collat. S. Maximi cum Theodos Ep. Caesar Ed. Sirm. p. 161 162. had no other Means of discerning True from Erroneous Councils but the Doctrine they defined For says he If the Emperor's Summons or Commands give Authority to Synods and not the True Faith receive the Synods that have been assembled against the Word Consubstantial And having reckoned up many Heretical Councils concludes But they were all condemned for the Impiety of their Erroneous Opinions confirmed by them And then The Rule of the Church acknowledges those for true Synods which the Orthodoxness of their Opinions doth Recommend And Theodosius Answers It is so as thou affirmest It is Orthodoxness of Belief gives Credit and Confirmation to Synods I might pursue the same Observation through several other General Councils which a considerable part of the Church believed to have actually mistaken but to which none for some Ages ascribed the Prerogative of Infallibility but those in which I have instanced being the Principal for Reputation and Authority it is needless to observe the same thing of those that followed And the Fathers taking the Liberty of Judging Conciliary Definitions by the Rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures do plainly overthrow all Pretence of an Unaccountable Infallible Way of Defining presumed to be above all Examination and Review because above all possibility of Mistaking Now as the Church was Ignorant of the Infallible Judge during the conjunction of East and West and the Opportunity of General Councils so the Greek Church after it was broken off from the West was altogether unacquainted with this Infallible Way and when the Church of Rome began to assume to it self the Quality of Infallible the Eastern Church Protested against it And while they follow the Patriarch Photius they can never Resolve their Faith into any Human or Ecclesiastical Authority for he has prevented all such Pretences by that strong Protestation he makes in his Epistle to the Bishop of Aquileia Photii Ep. ad Ep. Aquil. in Auct Biblioth Patr. per Combef p. 535. where in answer to the Authority of the Fathers touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost he saith What should I descend so low as to speak concerning the number of those that affirm this thing though the whole Creation should do it with onc Voice none surely would leave the Instruction and Doctrine of the Creator to hearken to the Voice of the Creature contradicting him that made it To conclude I cannot avoid suspecting the Roman Infallibility when I consider not only That no other Church pretends to it but that no Heresie or Sect of Christians ever claimed it These did seldom come behind the Church in Assuming and Pretence and commonly presumed more upon their Authority and what they wanted in Truth and Proof they made up with Arrogance and the Positive Way There is no other Principle into which Faith is used to be resolved but they endeavour to make their own Scripture Tradition Miracles Revelation all these they boldly challenged but this Assurance of Infallibility we never find them to have usurped I am loath to ascribe it to their Modesty it is more likely they had no Example to provoke them and they were not so Fortunate as to find out the Way themselves to so bold a Pretence unless we may imagine that they had a better Opinion of their Way than to think it stood in need of so Miserable a Subterfuge So that the Impudence of this Pretence is peculiar to the Church of Rome and may serve as a more proper Note to distinguish it than any of those laid down by Bellarmine But this is no note of Honour but a Brand for as the Church of Rome corrupted it self beyond all others in Doctrine and Worship the Divine Judgment delivered her up to a Reprobate Sense that renders her incapable of Discerning or Reforming her Errours this Presumption That she is not subject to Mistake hanging perpetually like a Veil over her Eyes FINIS Books Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard I. A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy wherein its Rise and Progress are Historically considered In Quarto II. A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith writ by Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester before the Reformation about the Year 1450. In Quarto III. Several Captious Queries concerning the English Reformation first proposed by Dean Manby an Irish Convert in Latin And afterwards by T. W. in English Briefly and fully Answered by the late reverend and learned Dr. Clagett Preacher to the Honourable Society of Grays-Inn and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty IV. Two Discourses of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead In Quarto V. The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Or an Account of the Books written on both Sides in a Letter to a Friend In Quarto VI. Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before printed viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Transubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Motives In Quarto VII Clementis epistolae duae ad Corinthos interpretibus Patricio Juneo Gothifredo Vandelino Joh. Bapt. Cotelerio recensuit notarum spicilegium adjecit Paulus Colomesius bibliothecae Lambethanae curator accedit Tho. Brunonici Windsoriensis dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis His subnexae sunt epistolae aliquot singulares vel nunc primum editae vel non ita facile obviae In Quarto VIII The Travel of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant in Three Part viz. 1. Into Turky 2. Persia 3. The East Indies In Folio
Passage I am apt to believe that this Apostle might have sav'd himself the labour of coming down from Heaven to be his own Commentator I must confess that in reading this Epistle I have often wondred how St. Paul should come to omit one Argument which according to the Men of the Infallible way must have been worth all the rest And that is the Determination of this Question by the Council of Jerusalem for all are agreed and the Notation of years which we find in the First and Second Chapters makes it clear that this Epistle was written after that Council yet in all this long Vindication of the Liberty of the Gentile Christians it is not once urg'd And I cannot conceive any reason of this Omission unless it be that having in the very beginning laid aside all Human Authority and Respect of Persons he might not think it proper afterwards to alledge the Apostolical Decree But if this had been the only Infallible way of Deciding Controversie this Omission cannot be excused Now because some have endeavoured to prove the Infallibility of Councils from the Example of that of the Apostles I proceed briefly to shew That they did not proceed in the way of Infallibility though they were really Infallible because they were Inspired Persons but all their Proceeding was according to Allegation and Proof and the Conclusion is made to depend upon these Premisses and not their Infallibility in pronouncing it Whereas in the New Way the Conclusion is Certain because some Men declare it though the Reasons alledged may be good for nothing The summ of that Synodical Action was this First S. Peter represented to them How the Holy Ghost had already Determined that Question by falling upon Cornelius and other Persons Uncircumcised then Paul and Barnabas declared What Wonders that God had wrought among the Gentiles by them And lastly S. James shews out of the Prophets How the Conversion of the Gentiles was foretold and concludes Wherefore my Sentence is Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders to send certain Persons with an account of this whole Matter to the Churches concerned and a Letter with this Expression among others It seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and to us Which does not import as if whatsoever they agreed to declare must therefore be the Truth and to be received without asking farther Questions though what they did Decree was certainly Truth and Right but only suggests the former Decision of the Holy Ghost in the Case of Cornelius and some other declared by Barnabas and Paul for then it seemed Good to the Holy Ghost to receive the Gentiles without Circumcision But in the Assembly of Jerusalem we have not the least Intimation of any Declaration of the Spirit either by Miracle or Revelation But the Holy Ghost having before visibly declared upon the Point to that in all likelihood the Expression must allude But whatever the Apostles thought of the way of Infallibility it is plain The Believers were not yet well instructed concerning it for this Definition could not end the Controversie And in the beginning of the next Chapter We find S. Paul Circumcising Timothy whose Father was a Greek Because of the Jews that were in those Quarters and how little Use was made of it in ending the same Controversie in the Church of Galatia I have observed already But further yet S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans teaches another Method of Belief than the Advocates for Infallibility for some time would impose upon the World for he utterly disallows this way of making the Faith of God to depend upon the Belief or Unbelief of Men as if that were to be the Standard of Truth and Error For what if some did not Believe shall their Vnbelief make the Faith of God of none Effect God forbid Yea let God be True and every Man a Lyar as it is written c. This is an Answer to such Objections as were Suggested against the Christian Faith from the Unbelief of the Jews For when our Saviour appeared they had the Visible Church and all Ecclesiastical Authority the Priesthood the Sanadrim the Scribes and Pharisees and the Renowned Doctors were theirs the Religious Sects the Outward Purity the Opus operatum and Supererogation were on their Side Now if these must prescribe to our Belief we Christians have lost our Cause for the High Priest and the Elders assembled i. e. The Pope and Council of that Time condemned Christ for a Blasphemer But S. Paul would no more submit to such Definitions than we Protestants to those of the Council of Trent but enters his Protestation against all such as by any Act of Men would Prescribe against the Truth of God and gives Reason and Scripture for his Proceeding God must be Pure but all Men may be Lyars and so fairly takes his leave of all Infallible Men. And so far is he from Affecting that Brerogative himself which he denies to others that he appeals to the Scriptures as his Vouchers and does not desire to be believed upon the Authority of his Place but by the Method he uses of proving what he advances he sets a Fair Precedent to all other Teachers and which Origen upon this Place understands to be his Design For if a Person so Great and so Qualifyed as S. Paul did not think the Authority of his Saying any thing to be sufficient unless he prove it out of the Law and the Prophets how much more should we the least of Gods Ministers observe the same Rule And Lastly S. Peter from whom some of the Competitors for Infallibility derive their Title advises all Christians To be ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh them a Reason of the Hope that is in them Now all Interpreters of this Place both Antient and Modern that I have seen are very much out if this Reason be no other than the Infallibility of S. Peter or of the Church Now this Answer I Believe because the Church Believes is surely the Easiest of any and all other Answers would be Impertinent if this alone were the Infallible Reason The School-Men have upon some Occasions thought fit to ground their Rational Way upon this Passage and Valued their Usefulness and Service to the Church on this Account But for God's sake What Use can there be of these Fallible Reasons in a Church that is Infallible in her Conclusions and holds not her self obliged to render any other Reason for them but a Curse And indeed I cannot see any Occasion of giving any Reason since her Disciples do Profess that they have no Assurance but that in these she may be Mistaken Now if the Apostles did not think fit to use this Way of Infallibility it seems something incongruous for the Church in Succeeding Ages to pretend to it for as the Gifts of the Spirit grew less methinks the Way of Teaching should rather be less than more Magisterial unless some new Paraclet to supply the Defect