Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
doctrine_n believe_v church_n infallible_a 2,870 5 9.5232 5 false
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
A30976 A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the Church of England should not turn Roman Catholick by a real Catholick of the Church of England. Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. 1688 (1688) Wing B831; ESTC R18233 36,351 51

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

they had the Scriptures in their vulgar Tongue till Pope Innocent the third which was somewhat above 1200 years after our Blessed Saviour condemn'd and prohibited the reading or hearing the Scriptures in any vulgar Idiome And amongst impertinent things which they mis-call reasons which they then and others since alledg'd against reading Scripture in a vulgar Tongue this was one That such reading of the Scriptures would be the cause of several Heresies Seditions Schisms and almost infinite other mischiefs Certainly all good Christians who as surely they are bound love God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will judge this to be what indeed it is not sober reasoning but railing at and reviling the Holy Scriptures and that Holy Spirit who did dictate them to be a proper and powerful means to bring us to the knowledge of the truth and Salvation by it For if the Scripture be not a good means to procure such an end then they must say which if they do 't is no better than blasphemy That the Holy Spirit could not or would not give a good means for that end for which he intended it But it is certain that the Holy Scriptures are so far from being what they untruly say a cause of Heresie Sedition or Schism that no Book in the world does or can condemn those crimes with that clear evidence and Authority which the Bible doth Especially seeing the Scripture is the sole authentick Rule to know what Doctrines are de fide and what heretical and therefore I have often wonder'd what Heresies they mean when they say that reading the Scripture is the cause of Heresie seeing no Doctrine is or can be de fide a Doctrine or Article of our Christian Faith which is not contain'd in Scripture that being the adequate Rule and measure of our Christian Faith nor can any thing be truly and properly Heresie which is not contrary to some Divine truth reveal'd in Scripture But Azorius and others tell me that Articles of Faith and Heresies are not to be measured and defined by their agreement or disagreement with Scripture only but also by their agreement and disagreement with the Doctrinal definitions of the Church of Rome So that not only the Articles of the Apostles Creed of that of Nice of Constantinople and Chalcedon are de fide and all contrary Doctrines Heresies in which we and they agree but also all the Articles of their new Trent Creed first published by Pope Pius the 4 th in the year 1564. are at Rome de fide and all Doctrines contrary to any Article of that new Creed they call Heresies and condemn them Here I consider 1. That all Protestants do believe and profess many Doctrines contradictory to the Articles of their New Trent-Creed as is confess'd 2. And the Sacred Scriptures are the reason and ground why we do so which in express terms or by evident consequence condemns many of their Doctrines as their worshipping of Images denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests that do not Consecrate forbidding the Clergy to marry c. And yet they mis-cal us Hereticks and our Doctrines maintain'd against them tho' consonant to the Sacred Scripture Heresies and accuse Scripture as the cause of Heresies not that it is the cause of Heresies properly and truly so call'd which are errors contrary to the infallible Rule of Faith for this would make Scripture contradict it self but because it is the true ground and reason why we believe and profess many Doctrines which are contrary to the erroneous definitions of their Church so that we confess the Scripture is the cause of those things which tho' real truths they mis-cal Heresies But to deprive the People of the benefit and comfort of the Scriptures upon so irrational and frivolous a pretence is evidently injust in them and not only dangerous but pernicious to the people So that had we no other reason but this the depriving the people of the use and benefit of the Scriptures it were abundantly sufficient to justifie our Separation from Rome reason 2 But Secondly The Church of Rome does not only deprive the People of the benefit and comfort of Scriptures prohibiting the reading or having them in any vulgar Language by them understood but for the same reason they deprive them of the benefit and Edification they might and ought to have had in the publick service of God all their Liturgies and publick Sacred Offices Missals Breviaries c. being in Latin a Language not understood by the people and many times not by the Priests themselves who not understanding the Language in which the Publick Service of God was celebrated could not possibly know to whom whether to God or Saint or Angels or for what the Priest prayed and so could not which the Apostle thinks they should in publick Prayers and Thanksgiving say Amen to any thing said by him who did officiate For this practice of the Church of Rome in having their Liturgies in a Tongue not understood by the People that it is unjust in them and pernicious to the People I shall only say two things 1. That it is expresly against Scripture and the directions the Apostle has given against it He spends a whole Chapter to this purpose and with so much zeal and so many reasons demonstrates that publick Prayers and Divine Service ought not to be in an unknown Language that it is a wonder that any who pretend to be Christians should as they of Rome do dare to contradict an Apostle of Jesus Christ and that Holy Spirit by which he spoke I know that some of the greatest Writers for Rome and the Vindication of their Sacred Offices in an unknown Tongue indeavour to Answer the Apostles reasons in this Chapter but with such insignificant and miserable shifts that you will easily see that they indeavour that which they cannot possibly do 2. And that it was as manifestly against the practice of the Church of God Jewish and Christian in all Ages is as manifest and by sober and ingenuous persons of the Roman Communion confess'd Now do you consider how pernicious this must needs be to the People to deprive them of that great comfort and edification which they might and ought to have had by the publick Service of God in a Language by them understood especially seeing Cardinal Contarenus and Cajetan convinced of this truth confess in the places now cited that if the Sacred Offices and publick Prayers were in a known Tongue it would tend much more to the Edification and benefit of the People reason 3 Thirdly While we were in the Communion of the Church of Rome the one half of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was taken from us therefore we had good reason to separate from their Communion The Cup in the Eucharist was taken from the Laity and all Priests too save him who did Consecrate and this is most unjust and illegal 1.
the Cup as well as the Bread and although it was the practice and custome of all other Christian Churches in the World to this day to receive it so and as Greg. de Valentia confesses of the Roman Church till a little before the Council of Constance yet that Council in contradiction to all this grounds the prohibition of the Cup upon which is most false a most ancient and approv'd custome of the Church to receive only in one kind which custome they say has the obligation of a Law and ought to be observ'd This Decree of the Council to say no worse is highly irrational For can any intelligent person think that a late custom of a particular the Latin Church should be sufficient to warrant Communion in one kind and taking away the Cup from the Laity when the institution and express command of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles did as 't is evident S. Paul did require the People to receive in both kinds and the perpetual practice and custome of the Vniversal Church of Christ even of Rome herself for above 1200 years was to give the Sacrament in both kinds However what was most erroneously decreed at Constance is confirm'd at Trent and the Cup taken from the Laity though both the Emperour and the King of France by their Bishops in that Council earnestly desir'd that it might be restored Seeing then that the Premisses consider'd it is or ●o Impartial Judges may be evident That the Church of Rome injuriously forbids the Laity and all Priests save he who Consecrates to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament and our Blessed Saviour expresly commands the contrary saying Drink ye All of this and in obedience to his command they did All drink it I suppose we may justly say to the Pope and his party what the Apostles on the like occasion said to the high Priest and the Council of the Jews It is better to obey God than men and to separate from the Communion of that Church which with great wrong and Iniquity denyes us the Communion of the Cup which our Blessed Saviour commands us to drink in Remembrance of him reason 4 4. Another Reason to justifie our Separation from Rome that it was not Sinful nor Schismatical may be taken from their denying Matrimony to the Clergy against the light of Nature of Scripture and the Judgment and Practice of the Church of God Jewish and Christian in all Ages Concerning this I shall only set down some few particulars in short and leave them to your prudence to use these or add such other particulars as circumstances consider'd may seem to you more convenient And here I consider 1. That here in England not only in the Saxon but also in the Norman times the Secular Clergy were married concerning which we have a signal passage in Matth. Paris out of Rog. Wendover as also in our other Historians Matth. Paris tells us 1. That Pope Gregory the 7 th in a General Council prohibited all married Priests to celebrate any Divine Offices and forbid the Laity to hear any of their Masses which was in the year 1074. 2. That this was a New thing and an Innovation brought into the Church by that Pope 3. That many believed it to be a rash and inconsiderate act of that Pope against the Judgment of the Holy Fathers 4. And then he tells of the horrid effects and ill consequences which follow upon it However to say nothing of the Ethiopick or Greek Churches who never did receive the Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning the Celibacy of their Priests by the Premisses it is certain that even in the Roman Church for above 1000 years after Christ Priests were some of them marry'd and afterwards when they were prohibited to marry it was judged to be as the Historian tells us 1. An Innovation 2. A Rash and Inconsiderate act 3. Against the Judgment of the Holy Fathers 4. And that it had mischievous consequences scarce any Heresie having made a greater Schism in the Church than this Prohibition of Priests marriages 2. But however the Popes prohibition of Priests marriages was censur'd then yet it prevail'd afterwards in the Roman Church as may appear to omit others by the Council of Trent For that Council tho' the French were earnest for the marriage of the Clergy condemns all those who say that the Priests marriages are lawful or valid if they do marry This they know all Protestants say and as they have good reason believe and so they lye under the Councils Anathema But tho' they are so fierce against their Priests Marriages yet their Canon-Law will allow him who has no wife to keep a Concubine and it shall be no hindrance to him but he may receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in contradiction to the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.11 But of late they will not allow at least they will not publickly own it the keeping of Concubines yet they do say that if a Priest keep a Concubine and commit fornication tho' it be a sin yet it is a less sin than to have a wife of his own that is in plain and true English it is a greater sin with them to disobey the Pope and his party who disapprove and prohibit Priests Marriages than to disobey our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles who approve and in some cases as to avoid burning and preserve Chastity expresly command it as shall hereafter evidently appear 3. And here it will be worth our time and pains diligently to consider what the reason and cause is why the Pope and his party so severely forbid the Marriages of their Clergy For 1. It cannot be for Religion and Reformation of their Clergy to make them and their lives more conformable to the Gospel and the Laws of the primitive and purer Christianity For 't is evident that the Gospel approves the Marriages of the Clergy and several of the Apostles themselves were marryed and so were the Bishops and Priests in the Primitive and purest times of Christianity as is both in itself evident and confess'd by our Adversaries even by the Jesuites the most zealous Advocates for the Errors of the Roman Church So that the disapproving and prohibition of Priests Marriages is so far from being a matter of True Religion and Reformation of them and their lives according to the Gospel and purest times of Christianity that 't is directly contrary to it 2. Nor can the Prohibition of Priests Marriages be for this end and reason to make their Clergy better men and more pious Christians For upon our Adversaries own principles it deprives them of the good means which God himself has instituted for their Justification and Salvation For First The Trent Fathers tell us That all true justice is either begun or increas'd or repair'd by the Sacraments Secondly They say that Matrimony is a Sacrament instituted by our Blessed