Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n authority_n church_n king_n 2,752 5 4.0125 3 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
A66370 An answer to a late printed paper given about by some of the Church of Rome in a letter to a gentleman. Williams, John, 1636?-1709. 1688 (1688) Wing W2679; ESTC R24560 12,966 22

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Alexandria and accordingly of Antioch and of other Provinces should have power over their own Provinces according to ancient Custome and the Custome in that case of the Church of Rome and that none should invade the Privileges of each other The same is said and confirmed in the second Canon of the second general Council held at Constantinople by the command of Theodosius the Emperour An. 380. And farther ratified by the third general Council at Ephesus in the Year 431. Can. 8. If we go forward we shall find that it was farther decreed in the abovesaid Council of Constantinople Can. 3. That the Bishop of Constantinople should have the order of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome because it is New Rome And what is thereby to be understood is sufficiently declared in the 28th Canon of the Fourth General Council assembled at Chalcedon An. 451. in which it is decreed That the Church of Constantinople should have equal Privileges with that of Rome there being the same Reason for that as the other as it was the Imperial Seat and accordingly is there a particular Instance given in case of Appeals Can. 9. From this Jurisdiction which every Church had over its own Members proceeded other Canons as That those who were excluded the Communion of one Church should not be received by another so Can. 5. of the aforesaid Council of Nice That no Appeals should be made to foreign or transmarine Churches so the Council held at Milevis in Africa where S. Augustine was present An. 416. Can. 22. which Canon Bellarmine confesseth was made with a particular respect to Rome To the same purpose the sixth Council held at Carthage An. 420. in which also S. Augustine was passed a Decree From all which you may observe 1. That the Bishop of Rome had anciently a limited Jurisdiction it was over his own Province onely 2. That the Jurisdiction which he had over his own Province was such as all other Supreme Bishops had over theirs 3. That none had a power to transgress the ancient and settled bounds of Jurisdiction or to invade those of anothers 4. That the Honour given to the Bishop of Rome whatever priority it was that he had was not by any Divine Authority but as Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. That the Honour and Privilege which it had by that means was what another was capable of for the same was given to Constantinople 6. That none of these Decrees in those General Councils were ever opposed by the Church of Rome 'till the Council of Chalcedon 7. That at that time the pretences of the Pope's Legates were universally opposed and rejected And I may add 8. That what was at any time in those days claimed by the Church of Rome was claimed not upon any Divine Authority but onely upon the Authority of the Council of Nice as it appears from the transactions in the afore-cited Council of Carthage 9. What was then claimed under that pretext was upon a pretended if not a forged Canon of the Council of Nice which was detected so to be by that Council of Carthage and their Usurpation rejected as is evident from the Acts of that Council and the Epistle written by the Fathers there assembled to Pope Celestine upon it From all which it appears and more I could shew that there was no such thing originally as this Universal Pastorship which the Bishop of Rome doth now challenge and that Rome is therein changed from what it was And now let our Authour ask if he please by what Councils was the Church of Rome ever condemned And you may answer by the four first general Councils Let him ask again Which of the Fathers ever wrote against her And you may answer no less than 1068. for so many were then convened in all these four Councils And if this suffice not we may turn him to the Councils of Milevis and Carthage before-mentioned and to others also of good Authority besides particular Fathers I have been the longer upon this not onely because it could not be well comprised in less but also because if this Claim of theirs fall their Cause must fall with it 2. Another new Principle of theirs is That the Pope hath at least in ordine ad Spiritualia a Power over all Kingdoms within the Church and of deposing Kings in case of Heresie or Obstinacy c. and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to them when thus deposed That this is the Principle of their Church is plain from Can. 3. of the Fourth Council of Lateran and from the Council of Trent in Sess. 25. de reform c. 19. where it is somewhat covertly expressed for a Reason which the state of Affairs at that time made necessary That this is the Doctrine of their Church is proved beyond all contradiction by the present Lord Bishop of Lincoln in his late Learned Treatise Of Popery c. But that this Doctrine of theirs is new is commonly confessed among themselves and maintained so to be by several of their own Communion and which any one may so far receive satisfaction in from what is written by Roger Widdrington aliàs Preston in his Apologia pro Jure Principum and his Humillima Supplicatio ad Paulum Quintum 3. Transubstantiation was not originally an Article of their Creed as it is now So it is said by Jo. Tribarn an approved Authour of theirs In primitiva Ecclesia de substantia fidei erat c. It was of the substance of Faith in the primitive Church to believe that the Body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine but it was not of Faith that the substance of the Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ and upon Consecration should not be Bread. For saith he this was not found out by the Church till the time of Innocent the Third in the Council of Lateran where many Truths that before lay hid are explained in the Chap. of Firmiter Credimus amongst which this of Transubstantiation is the chief So also saith Peter Tataret And this was the Opinion of Scotus the great Schoolman Now it is supposed that Scotus who lived within 150 Years after must better understand what was the Doctrine of their Church before it and what was the sense of that Council concerning it than he that comes about 450 Years after and chides him for so doing with a minime probandum 4. The Doctrine of Infallibility respecting their Church as the Seat of it was not anciently known neither claimed by themselves nor granted by others Amongst all the directions given in Scripture for finding out the truth there is not one word to this purpose and amongst all the Disputes in the Primitive Church we find no such course taken for the final determination of them as the having recourse to the Apostolical Chair of Rome Heresies were not then so scarce nor the confutation of them so easie as that this relief should be