Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A61870
|
A censure upon certaine passages contained in the history of the Royal Society as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England
|
Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.
|
1670
(1670)
|
Wing S6033; ESTC R32736
|
43,471
|
70
|
Scripturae It belongs to the Church to judge of the true sense of holy Scripture Dr Holdens booke is Licensed and highly commended by the French Divines and he himselfe a Doctor of the Sorbonne and he thus delivers himselfe Statuendum est quod quicquid à Theologis Catholicis in utramque partem etiam cum maximâ acerbitate disseritur ac disputatur dum vel propriis suis adhaerent nimis Sacrarum Scripturarum interpretationibus vel patronorum suorum opinionibus vel tandem consecutionibus deductis ex fidei principiis certissimum est neutrum contentionis seu concertationis extremum posse Divinae Catholicae Fidei rationem habere Quo sequâ—tur Summum Pontificem nullatenus posse in suâ solâ personâ disceptatas hujusmodi quaestiones ita decernere ut vi solius sui decreti pars definita sit fidei divinae Catholicae articulus Disputant siquidem Theologi an si quando Summi Pontifices hujusâ—emodi argumenta in Scholis utrinque agitata definiverint sintne eorum decreta ex institutione Christi ab omni errere libera Imò an Decretum aliquod à solo Pontifice Summo emanans sit ex hoc tantùm capite divinitùs infallibile Haec inquam in utramque partem ventilata videmus à piissimis quamplurimis doctissimus Catholicis Autoribus tam antiquioribus quà m recentioribus quorum neutram partem audivimus unquam fuisse Censuris aliquibus authenticis prohibitam aut improbatam Quapropter evidentissimè constat Catholicum neminem astringi aut huic aut alteri part adhaerere tanquam Fidei Catholicae divinae articulo tametsi Summorum Pontificum definitionibus debitum obsequium sit praestandum Out of all this precedent discourse 't is manifest that Infallibility and Sovereigne dominion over our faith usurped by the Bishops of Rome neither was nor could be upon Catholique principles and amongst men of common understanding the cause of Separation betwixt the Reformed Churches and the Romanists since neither the one nor other branch of that assertion is defined in that Church or so censured as not to be held upon paine of Excommunication The fourth Proposition as it is conjunctive or copulative to which it is necessary that both parts be true must admit of a distinction before it be censured To assert that we may hold coÌ„munion with any one that is account him of the same Church in generall with us and joyne with him in the celebration of the same Church worship and participation of Sacraments 't is necessary that we consider what it is He professeth and what it is wherein he and we communicate and what relation we stand in in relation to the Actings of our Superiour Governours that may have influence upon the case As for Example if the King by an Act of Parliament shall forbid us exteriour Communion with the Pope whatever charitable opinion I might be induced to have otherwise of him yet I should not thinke fitting to do it or that such my procedure were Schismaticall Thus Obadiah and the seven thousand incorrupt Iewes together with Elijah and Elisha did not resort to the Temple-worship at Ierusalem by reason of the prohibition by Ieroboam 1 Kings 12. Thus the English Papists complyed in England with the Actions of H. 8. Now 't is notorious that by our Laws the English are forbid in England to be present at any other rites or communion then what are authorised by the Church of this Nation and that upon penalties very great upon 5. and 6. Edward 6. and 23. Eliz. 1. so that in reference to this particular the Assertion of our Virtuoso is contrary to the Lawes of our Land charges them with injustice tends to seduce the Kings Subjects from their obedience If we abstract froÌ„ this consideration and reflect upon the persons to be communicated with and the things wherein the communion is held I say it is a difficult thing to determine what those tenets are which cut a man off from the generall communion of Christians provided that the matters wherein the communion consists be innocent and blamelesse I finde the Apostles to communicate with the Iewes in the Temple-worship and in their Synagogue-worship I finde the Communion not interrupted by the Assertions that the Observation of the Leviticall Law was necessary to a Christian Act. 21.20 Thus though S. Paul found very enormous errours and such as would now be called Fundamentall a ground for Anathema's in the Churches of Corinth Galatia and Colossi yet did he speake honourably of them calls them Churches communicates with them but not with their errours and heresies I finde the Arians and the Orthodox to communicate together at first in the same worship scarce to be distinguished one from another till the Gloria Patri came to be said and after the determinations of Nice when the Arians had gained the advantage at Ariminum though there were some Catholiques so scrupulous that they would have no communion with such as received the Council of Ariminum yet S. Hilary thought it best to converse with them and to call them to such Councils as were frequently held in France upon such occasions And where this sort of communion is to be carried on and when to be interrupted I am not learned enough to understand out of Antiquity It appeares to mee that the bare pretense of an Infallibility is not enough to cut off Communion if the Infallibility be restrained to some limitations and explications for as the naturall man may say he is sometimes infallibly assured of sensible objects and consequently be so farre infallible so the Spirituall man may be in many things infallibly assord certitudine fidei cuÌ„i non potest subesse falsum by the grace of God and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost so as that he is so farre infallible Rom. 8.16 1 Iohn 5.13 Iohn 14 20. 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Cor. 2.11 12. And this circumstantiate Limited infallibility if it extend it selfe to some things past whether of a morall or spirituall nature is not alwaies blame worthy much lesse a sufficient ground for to rescind Exterior Communion It remaines then that we inquire into the nature of the pretended infallibility what it proceeds upon and what it interferes with For any man to assume to himselfe an absolute and essentiall and unconditionate infallibility is blasphemy if not madnesse in an humane creature and undoubtedly rescinds all communion if it do not rather entitle to Bedlam For any man to assert that he is by the particular favour and promise of God infallible either in omnibus quaestionibus tam facti quam juris which some Iesuites avow of the Pope or in matters of faith only however that tenet be explicated either in relation to the determining of what hath been taught by the Church of Christ or as to additionall decisions that the profession of such infallibility provided it do not extend to the preaching of any knowne fundamentall errour
do grant it Hart. They grant that the Pope may be an Heretick perhaps by a supposal as many things may be which never were nor are nor shall be For you cannot prove that any Pope ever was an Heretick actually though possibly they may be whereof I will not strive This point of the fallibility of the Pope and his subjection to a Council is so notorious with every man that is acquainted with the more ancient and modern Writers so known to any one that hath either read the determinations of Bishop Davenant qu. 5. or the defense of the Dissuasive of Bishop Taylour pag. 40. or the Review of the Council of Trent written by a French Catholick from whom the Disswader borrowed his allegations or that hath so much as read over the History of the Council of Trent that I need not insist on it any longer Notwithstanding the earnestnesse of the Iesuits under Laynez in the Council of Trent yet neither was the Pope's superiority over a Council nor the Infallibility of the Bishops of Rome defined there directly as appears out of the Review of that Council lib. 4. c. 1. and out of the English History pag. 721 722. Neither is there to this day amongst the Papists any thing enacted or determined in that Church which obligeth a man under pain of Excommunication to hold any such thing as the personal Infallibility of the Bishops of Rome the contrary being daily maintained there by more than the Iansenists much lesse is there any Sovereignty in matters of Faith ascribed unto them at this day All books of the Papists are subjected to the judgment of the Church not to the Arbitrement of the Pope The fides Carbonaria or Colliers faith so famed amongst the Papists was not established upon the infallibility or sovereignty of the Bishops of Rome no he told the Devil that He believed as the Church believed and the Church as He. And how necessary soever they make the communion with the particular Church of Rome how great influence soever they ascribe to the Pope over Councils yet the Decrees of the Council of Trent run in the name of the Holy Synod not Pope and there it is determined sess 4. that none dare interpret Holy Scripturs against the sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held or does hold If you enquire in-the doctrines of M r White D r Holden Serenus Cressy and such others as endeavour at present and that with great shew of wit and artifices to seduce the English to that Apostaticall Church there is not one of them that I knowe of who attributes any infallibility to the Pope or submitteth his faith to the Sovereigne decisions of the Bishop of Rome As for Serenus Cressy he very judiciously deserts the School-terme of Infallibility for that of the Churches Authority and saith that the exceptions and advantages which the Protestants have against the Roman Church proceed only from their mis-understanding of her necessary doctrines or at most that all the efficacy they have is onely against particular opinions inferences made by particular Catholique writers He shews that D r Stapleton asserts that the infallible voyce and determination of the Church is included in the decree of the Church speaking in a Generall Council representatively In which the Church is infallible with this restriction viz in delivering the substance of faith in publique doctrines and things necessary to salvation Other Catholiques and namely Panormitan teach that the decrees of Generall Council are not absolutely and necessarily to be acknowledged infallible till they be received by all particular Catholique Churches because till then they cannot properly be called the faith of the universall Church or of the body of all faithfull Christians to which body the promise of infallibility is made And this was the Doctrine of Thomas Waldensis and some other Scholmen c. An opinion this is which though not commonly received yet I do not saith S. C. find it deeply censured by any yea the Gallican Churches reckoned this among their chiefest priviledges and liberties that they were not obliged to the decisions of a Generall Council till the whole body of the Gallican Clergy had by a speciall agreement consented to them and so proposed them to the severall Churches there And to this last opinion doth S. C. incline and his book was approved at Paris as consonant to the Catholique faith He guides himselfe by the Authority of received Councils he acknowledges that to be onely necessarily accounted an Article of Catholique faith which is actually acknowledged and received by Catholiques and since contradictions cannot be actually assented unto it will follow that whatsoever decisions of Councils may seem to oppose such articles are not necessarily to be accounted Catholique doctrines and by consequence not obligatory He denies that Generall Councils can make new articles of faith they are witnesses of what hath been delivered not Sovereigns to determine of new truths either by way of addition to the former or in opposition thereunto Their Infallibility is limited to Tradition and spiritually assisted in the faithfull reporting of what hath been delivered what ever reports or decrees they make of another nature they are to be received with a different assent from what is Catholique faith There is a double obligation from decisions of Generall Councils the first an obligation of Christian beliefe in respect of doctrines delivered by Generall Councils as of universall Tradition the second onely of Canonicall obedience to orders and constitutions for practice by which men are not bound to believe those are inforced as from Divine authority but onely to submit unto them as acts of a lawfull Ecclesiasticall power however not to censure them as unjust much lesse to oppose and contradict them Much more doth the same Author adde which give little countenance to that state of the controversie which our Author forms unto us No Soveraigne dominion over our faith is by him ascribed to the Bishop of Rome or Nationall or Generall Counâ—ills and as to Infailibility which Mr Chillingworth had impugned he thus acquits himselfe I may in generall say of all his Objections that since they proceed only against the word Infallibility and that word extended to the utmost heighth and latitude that it possibly can beare Catholiques as such are not at all concerned in them seeing neither is that expression to be found in any received Council nor did ever the Church enlarge her authority to so vast a widenesse as Mr Chillingworth either conceived or at least for his particular advantage against his adversary thought good to make show as if he conceived so As to the subject wherein Infallibility or Authority is to be placed since Catholiques vary as to that point he sayes 't is evident thereby that they are not obliged to any one part of the Question only they are to agree in this Tridentine decision Ecclesiae est judicare de vero sensu Sacrae