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 |
|
A42048
|
The grand presvmption of the Roman Church in equalling their own traditions to the written word of God by Francis Gregory.
|
Gregory, Francis, 1625?-1707.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing G1894; ESTC R13146
|
76,854
|
132
|
Rome then to prove his universal Preeminence over all other Bishops and Churches by some Act of that famous Council which no Church gainsayeth This is that which Bellarmine attempts and because he cannot doe it convincingly by the Canon as it is vulgarly read and expressed in the usual and publick Editions he produceth a private Copy and tells us that the Canon as it is commonly read is imperfect and ought thus to begin Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum Mos autem perduret c. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy c. One would think it strange that Bellarmine should adventure to make such an Addition to the Canon of so known and famous a Council but to justifie himself he tells us that this Canon was anciently so read and that about a thousand years ago it was thus translated out of the Greek Copies into Latine by a certain Abbot named Dionysius and that such a Copy was found in the Roman Library and that it was so read by Paschasianus the Legat of Pope Leo in the Council of Chalcedon and there approved But in desperate cases the old Rule must be observed Scelere tutandum est Scelus One Lie must be justified by another For 't is not easie to believe that the onely true Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council and that in a Latine Translation too should be preserved at Rome nor is it easie to imagine that if there had been such an authentick Copy of that famous Council lodged at Rome it would have been permitted so long to have lain in the dark and never have been produced ti◠the Council of Chalcedon especially since the Interest of the Roman Bishop required the Production thereof to prove the same Prerogative above fifty years sooner For will any man believe that those Roman Bishops Zosimus and his Successour Boniface who claimed this Primacy from the sixth Council of Carthage would have been so far wanting to themselves as not to have produced such an authentick Copy which if clearly made out would have satisfied the Council ended the Controversie and established the Primacy of Rome by a Law True it is Faustinus the Pope's Legate produced in that Council his Commonitorium which he had from Rome pretending the Authority of the Nicene Fathers for the Primacy of the Pope and particularly in matters of Appeal but how little these Pretences were liked by the Council we may easily guess by that Answer which was returned by Alipius who was a great man there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It troubleth me that though we have examined the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council yet how it comes to pass I cannot tell we can by no means find any such thing as the Roman Bishop pretends and claims And so much did they certifie Pope Boniface himself in their Synodical Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having many Greek Copies before us we could not find what was intimated and demanded from Rome no not so much as in any one However that they might satisfie themselves and the Bishop of Rome too so much the better they thought fit to dispatch away their Letters to Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and Atticus Bishop of Constantinople desiring them to send over what Copies and Registers they had of the Nicene Council who accordingly did so For thus Cyril tells them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus Atticus too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is evident by these Expressions that these two Bishops sent over to the Council of Carthage the Acts Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Fathers entire uncorrupted and unquestionable And what 's the Issue do any one of these Copies agree with that of Rome No the Council having perused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these true Copies sent this Message to Caelestinus who was now become Pope and had made the same Demands with Zosimus and Boniface 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We cannot find any such Canon as is pretended no not in the most authentick Copies that we have perused But the truth is that Copy of the Nicene Council mentioned by the Pope's Legate to the Council of Carthage was to the shame of the Roman See unworthily and basely corrupted and those words mentioned by Bellarmine Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum were de novo how politickly soever yet knavishly enough added to the old Canon For 't is evident that the Council of Carthage resolved to alter nothing that had been defined by the Nicene Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Expressions are enough to convince all reasonable men that this Council of Carthage had no inclination to change any but confirm all the Constitutions of the Nicene Fathers but as to that Canon which the Pope's Legate pretended requiring or allowing the African Clergy to appeal from their own Bishops to the Bishop of Rome they were so far from confirming this that they established an express Canon against it and thus it runs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Deacons and other inferiour Clergy-men in whatever Causes they have let them not appeal to any Tribunal beyond the Sea i. e. as the Council expresly words it in their Letter to the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them not appeal to the Bishop of Rome This Canon did so nettle the Roman Bishops that upon this occasion Boniface the Second told Eulalius Bishop of Carthage who had now unworthily submitted his Chair to the See of Rome that his Predecessour Aurelius St. Austine and above two hundred more learned and pious Bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage had denied Subjection to the Roman Bishop because they were as he impudently affirmed inspired and instigated by the Devil But as from this Determination of the Council of Carthage we may conclude that pretended Canon of the Nicene Bishops alleged by Faustinus in the Pope's behalf to be spurious and forged so may we reasonably infer as much from the consideration of its matter which is altogether untrue and evidently false For is it imaginable that so early a Council as that of Nice should acknowledge and ratifie the perpetual Primacy of the Roman Bishop since 't is notoriously known that the Primacy of the Roman Bishops was first derived from that bloudy Emperour Phocas and procured by the crafty Insinuations of Boniface the Third who magna cum contentione as Platina writes with much adoe procured but most willingly assumed to himself the Title of Vniversal Bishop and Head of all other Churches That it was not thus in former Ages we have the Confession of Gregory the Great who tells us Nullus unquam Praedecessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consuevit None of all my Predecessours would ever assume to himself this profane Title and as for himself he was so far from owning it that he was the very first Bishop of Rome that styled himself Servus Servorum Dei the Servant of the Servants of
to the very written Oracles of God yet 't is clear enough that himself Baronius and others of the Roman Faith do use the Authority of these forged Epistles to countenance several Doctrines and Practices wherein the Reformed Church and theirs differ And yet for all this there are several learned Writers of the Roman Church who cannot but acknowledge that such and such Epistles Constitution Recognitions fathered upon their Primitive and Martyred Bishops are shrewdly suspected yea and clearly proved too to be false and counterfeit Thus Lorinus Verborum Domini liber tam est Apocryphus quà m in quibus memorantur Clementis Recognitiones The Book of our Lord's Words is as Apocryphall as the Recognitions of Clemens wherein that Book is mentioned He tells us indeed Clementis Constitutiones paulò majoris sunt fidei the Constitutions of Clemens are of a little more Credit But are these unquestionable no that he denieth Clementis libri Constitutionum non sunt usquequaque indubitatae Authoritatis The Constitutions of Clemens are not of an Authority that is undoubted altogether And what else can we think of those Decretal Epistles that are ascribed to Zephyrinus which contain things foolish ridiculous and false as that the Consecration of the Holy Cup must be in a vessel of Glasse onely that a Bishop must be accused before twelve Judges and that Evidence against him must be made by seventy two Witnesses How contrary is this not onely to Scripture but to those very Canons which are ascribed to the Apostles whereof this is one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to the same purpose the Council of Nice too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Canons according to the Rules of St. Paul require the Testimony two or three Witnesses onely even against a Bishop whereas the pretended Decree of Zephyrinus demands seventy two and that with an Appeal to Rome which is enough to prove it false and forged Such a counterfeit Epistle too was the second of those two fathered upon Pontianus which begins thus Pontianus Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae Episcopus Pontianus the Bishop of the Holy and Vniversal Church This Title in those early days unknown to the World being as yet not claimed nor assumed by any Roman Bishop but afterwards denied and decried by Gregory the Great gives us a fair and clear Evidence that this Epistle is counterfeit and written by some other hand as well as those of Fabianus Stephanus and some other succeeding Bishops with a design to pretend something of Antiquity for the defence of those unwarrantable Doctrines and Practices of the present Roman Church for which they can produce no fair and clear Evidence from the genuine and acknowledged writings of the most ancient Fathers And as for the Decrees Constitutions and Canons of the Bishops of Rome which have sate in that Chair since the time of Sylvester what security have we but that these also may have been changed corrupted and falsified according as the exigence of the Roman Church hath so required Bellarmine tells us that Pope Leo complained that whilst he himself was yet alive the Graecians had corrupted his Epistle to Flavianus and why might not the Latines for their own ends doe as much What reason have we to give credit to such and such Papal Decretals when Bellarmine himself being pressed with a Canon of Zacharias that made against him had little to say but this Zachariae Canon mihi valde suspectus est This Canon of Zacharias I do very much suspect And the truth is we are so much of his mind and have so much cause to be jealous that many Canons and Constitutions ascribed to such and such Bishops of Rome were indeed none of theirs but onely forged and counterfeited that we cannot upon their Authority admit those Doctrines and Practices for which we can find no warrant in the written Word of God But 2. The Testimony of Roman Bishops in the Cause of Traditions is not firm and sure because the Pope at least in matters of this nature notwithstanding their Pretence of his being Infallible may possibly be deceived himself and if so he may deceive us too 'T is the free Concession of Bellarmine and that as he saith wherein all Catholicks do agree Posse Pontificem etiam ut Pontificem cum suo coetu Consiliariorum vel cum Generali Concilio errare in Controversiis facti particularibus quae ex Informatione TestimoniÃsque hominum pendent That the Pope considered as Pope with his private or General Council may erre in particular matters of Fact which depend upon the Information and Testimonies of other men And that seems to be the Case in hand the business of Traditions is a matter of Fact and the whole Controversie under our present Disquisition is onely this Whether Christ delivered to his Apostles the Apostles to the Primitive Bishops they to their immediate Successours and so from Age to Age such and such particular Doctrines and Practices as are now contended for by the Roman Church So that the whole Question in hand being concerned about matters of Fact wherein they themselves acknowledge the Fallibility of the Pope we have little Reason to acquiesce in his Determinations and to be so well satisfied with his Testimony as to think our selves obliged thereby to believe and doe those things which the Scriptures do neither assert nor command But what if the Pope may erre in considerable Points of Faith too and become an Heretick are we obliged to believe his Testimony even then too Photius tells us that by the Canon-Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereticks might not in any Judicature be admitted to bear witness against any Orthodox Christian within the Church And certainly if Heresie be a Crime of that nature as that it hath been thought enough to exclude or evacuate any man's Evidence in Civil Causes we shall have but little reason to admit any person that is as liable to Heresie as other men as an infallible Witnesse in matters of Spiritual and Sacred Concern And that several Bishops of Rome have been not onely shrewdly suspected but publickly accused and condemned too and that of the foulest Heresies 't is not to be denied by any man whose brow is not made of Brass 'T is recorded by several Authours and those of good name and credit that some Roman Bishops have been Monothelites some Montanists some Eutychians some Arrians yea and some downright Atheists too But the Charge being heavy against them and the Honour of the Roman See lying at stake and the Pope's Infallibility also being herein somewhat concerned we must enquire into the Witnesses and see that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as deserve to be believed For so justly tender is the Christian Church of the reputation of her Bishops that she will not admit all persons whatsoever to bring in Evidence against them No the sixth Canon of the Second General Council forbids it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉