Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A29039
|
A brief enquiry into the grounds and reasons, whereupon the infallibility of the Pope and the Church of Rome is said to be founded by Edward Bagshawe ...
|
Bagshaw, Edward, 1629-1671.
|
1662
(1662)
|
Wing B404; ESTC R9275
|
31,865
|
56
|
it is clear they cannot yet that any of Peter's personall Priviledges should be communicated to another who will needs usurp his Name and stile himself his Successour can as little be maintained as that his power of Miracles his gift of Tongues c. should be continued which the Pope as yet doth not pretend to I conclude therefore that Bellarmine's first Plea from Scripture is so far from Demonstration that it is scarce tolerable Sophistry and so much in Answer to his first Argument Secondly Arg. 2 The second Argument in defence of the Popes Infallibility Bellar. de sâ—â—mo Pontif. l. 4 1 is taken from the Analogy and Resemblance that ought to be between the Jewish and the Christian Church For in the Jewish Church saith Bella mine there was an High Priest which was Infallible unto whom they were commanded to have recourse in all difficult Causes and to abide by his Determination as appears Deut. 17.8 14. And therefore in the Christian Church there being the same if not greater necessity because of the extent of it it follows that there must likewise be some visible Infallible Judge for the ending of Controversies which will daily arise among Christians and this can be no other than the Bishop of Rome To this Argument from Analogy I answer 1. That the similitude and resemblance between the Jewish and the Christian Church doth not consist in having the same outward Oeconomy and Forms of Administration as in a visible High-Priest with other Rites and Ordinances answerable to such a Visibility but in the spirituall and inward performance of what heretofore was materially and outwardly represented He 's 9.10 So that the Jewish Sacrifices did not import that they should alwayes be continued but as the Apostle tells us they were to last only untill that great Sacrifice was offered of which all the others were only faint and weak Preludiums The like is declared concerning their meats and drinks their washings and bodily purifications Heb. 7.18 with other carnall and on side Ordinances which were only imposed untill the time of Reformation and after that were not that we read of to be continued with new names and under another form but utterly to be abolished Heb. 7.18 because of their weakness and unprofitableness The like the Apostle observes concerning the High Priest into whose room our Saviour succeeded who is called a Priest for ever after another order than that of Aaron even after the order of Melchisedeck who can supply all defects of his Church without appointing a visible Head in his place by his own immediate Energy since he lives for ever Heb. 7.25 to make intercession for them So that if any upon earth now will pretend to bear the same place in the Christian Church that Aaron did in the Jewish he must be able to shew the same divine warrant for as the Apostle observes Heb. 5.4 5. No man takes this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron so also Christ did not glorify himself to be an High Prist but he that said to him thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee Let then the Pope of Rome but deale above-board and show us some such plaine place of Scripture which doth Authorize his plea and then let them be Anathema that will not submit unto his Dictates but since this is not so much as once offered we cannot be faithfull to the Honour and Prerogative of out Great and only High Priest if we doe not looke upon this pretended Vicar of his as a bold and unwarrantable Intruder But 2. It doth not appear that the High Priest among the Jews was at all Infallible nor doth the place alleadged evince so much Deut. 17.11 for there Moses speaks not of Religious but of civil causes and commands that the Parties litigant should do according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee so that the High Priests were not to pronounce according to Tradition or private fancy but according to the Law of God which whoso consulted might speak Infallibly not as if the High Priest meerly by vertue of his Office and Place was more priviledged from Errour than the common Jew but because God did give his Law for an Infallible Rule and in all parts that concerned his own Worship had made it so plain and particulat that unless they would they could not mistake it But for want of taking heed to it we find that in David's time both himself and all the Priests did Erre in conceiving that the Arke might be carried upon a Cart which was expressely commanded to be carried upon the Priests shoulders whereupon when God smote Uzzah Numb 4. David acknowledged that a breach was made upon them 2 Chron 15.13 because they sought him not in the due order Besides in the generall Apostacy of the people which the Prophets so sadly complain of and so much enveigh against we have no reason to imagine 2 Reg 16.10 that the High Priest continued stedfast in Religion since in all probability Uriah the Priest whom Ahaz employed in building an Idolatrous Altar was the Chief Priest at that time and not only a partaker in but a promoter of that wicked King's abominations We read likewise that none were more fierce against Jeremy and other of Gods Prophets than the Priests and to put the matter out of Dispute we have it plainly told us that there was for many ages none in that Church that could Infallibly guid them so the Psalmist Psal 74.9 We see not our Signs there is no more any Prophets neither is among us any that knoweth how long And in Ezra we find that the Tirshatha or Governour as some think Nebemiah Ezra 2.63 commanded that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a Priest with Urim and Thummim who was to enquire of the Lord in difficult cases according to the command given to Joshua Numb 25.21 that he should consult with Eleazar the Priest who was to ask counsell for him according to the judgement of Urim which in Ezra's time was utterly ceased and we do not read that ever it revived again Just as much Infallibility therefore as the High Priest and Sanhedrim had in our Saviours time when they put him to death I am content to allow unto the Pope and a Councell of his calling and more than that this Argument from Analogy will not amount to For if they were so fatally deceived in so important and evident a truth who had as Bellarmine supposeth a clear promise of being Infallibly assisted how much more liable to Errour is the Bishop of Rome who hath no promise nor pretence of Plea but only an usurped and unjust possession Since then 1. the High Priest of the Jewes was only a Type of Christ and did not figure any other person in the Christian Church who was to bear a Resemblance to
minu◠probi Bell. Prafat cannot but force them to acknowledge that he is liable to Errour but in his Politicall or which is all one his Ecclesiasticall capacity as he is the pretended Head of the Church and vested with all those Immunities and Priviledges which his Favourers suppose to be due unto the Universall Bishop 2. By the Church of Rome I mean not the diffused and scattered Body of the Papists but according to their own Sense how Absurd and Insignificant soever the Bishops and Doctours of their Church assembled together in a Councell where they may be supposed to meet with the greatest Advantage and Opportunity for the Disquisition and Search of Truth 3. By Infallible I mean to have a certain fixed and unerring Judgement in Religious matters which things alone do properly belong to the determination and cognizance of a Church as it is a Church And in this sense of the Question thus explained in as great a Latitude as any Papist can possibly understand it in I deny the Pope whether considered as apart from or conjoyned with as a part of a Councell to be Infallible For the proof of which Assertion though I might find out great variety of Arguments from the express and direct contradictions which have been among the Popes themselves some reversing that which others have ratified and others establishing that which their Predecessors under the severest Penalties have forbid Yet since the proper and direct way of Arguing lyes in shewing the weakness and insufficiency of those Arguments which are brought in defence of the Popes Infallibility that is the Method which I purpose altogether to insist on For since this great and so much admired Diana of the Papists is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a thing to be discerned by its own Light and to be credited meerly for it self as the testimony of the Spirit is when it bears witness unto the truth of Scripture and besides it being generally denied by all the Protestants who make the Errours of the Church of Rome the ground of their separation from them hence it cannot be expected that we should tamely give up out Assent to believe this Infallibility unless there be some evident and concluding Reasons to enforce it from us If therefore it shall appear that whatever Bellarmine and when I mention him I mean the strength of the whole Popish Party hath said is altogether impertinent and unconcluding indeed nothing else but a plain begging the thing in Question my Deduction from thence will be Infallible viz. that we have as yet no Reason to believe the Popes Infallibility To clear up this the best way will be to take a short view of those Arguments which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his Books De Pontifice Romano and they are briefly these three 1. Some Texts of Scripture in the New Testament 2. Some Analogicall Inferences out of the Old 3. Some Absurdities and Inconveniences which would follow in the Church of God should we not allow the Pope and Church of Rome to be Infallible 1. The Texts of Scripture which Bellarmine and all Writers since him do urge to prove the Popes Infallibility by are these three Mat. 16.18 19. Luk. 22.31 32. Job 21.15 17. From which they draw these three Conclusions 1. That in those fore-mentioned places our Saviour did confer upon Peter some speciall Priviledges above and beyond the rest of the Apostles and they were 1. Supremacy in Matthew 2. Infallibility in Luke 3. Universall Episcopacy in John 2. They Assume that whatever was bestowed upon Peter was not confined unto his Person but was promised likewise unto his Successours since what was granted unto Peter was given for the good of the Church and therefore ought not to die with him 3. They take for granted that the Pope was Peter's Successour both in the Bishoprick of Rome and also in all his other Priviledges and for the last they alleadge nothing but the credit of that which they call Apostolicall Tradition Whether or no these Deductions are cleare in the Texts or violently haled and wrested from them with so much impudent and shamelesse Sophistry as a wise and disinteressed Person would blush to be guilty of will best appeare by examining the places themselves and if when they are put upon the Racke they can be forced to confesse so much as Bellarmine and the Popes Parasites conclude from them I shall then consent to dethrone Scripture from its plainnesse and Perspicuity but till then I must take leave to thinke that that Church doth very wisely which makes Ignorance and Implicite Faith the Mother of Devotion for nothing lesse then an over-awed and Religious stupidity would make any man submit unto such Impossible and farre fetched interpretations 1. The place in Mat. 16.18 19. runs thus And Jesus answered and said unto him i. e. to Peter Blessed art thou Simon Barjona for flesh and bloud hath not revealed this to thee but my Father which is in Heaven And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which place they thus interpret 1. By the Rock upon which Christ saith he will build his Church is meant the Person of Peter and the Churche's being built upon him signifies say they that the care and government of it was committed to him and thus they understand likewise his Having of the Keyes 2. By the power of Binding and Loosing they understand the power of commanding and punishing of making and repealing Laws with all such things as belong to a Soveraign and Legislative Power 3. They tell us that whatever Peter had here was likewise granted to the Pope who is his Successour and therefore he being the Rock and the Foundation of the Church cannot be tossed about with every wind of Doctrine and therefore is Infallible But I answer 1. Upon supposition that Peter here was constituted as they call him Head and Prince of the Apostles yet how would this Personall Priviledge any more belong to the Bishop of Rome if he were Peter's Successour than what our Saviour elsewhere saith to Peter Why didst thou doubt O thou of little faith doth note the Pope's uncertainty and instability in Believing Or Mat. 14.31 what our Saviour presently after speaks Get thee behind me Satan doth signifie that every Pope is an Incarnate Devil or to take the mildest Interpretation an Adversary to Christ and to the good of mankind For what Reason can be assigned why the Pope may not as well succeed in Peter's Personall Defects as into his Priviledges since the Scripture is utterly silent either that he had or that he was to have a Successour in either But 2. I deny the Supposition upon