Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41553
|
A request to Roman Catholicks to answer the queries upon these their following tenets ... by a moderate son of the Church of England.
|
Gordon, James, 1640?-1714.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing G1282; ESTC R9547
|
37,191
|
48
|
and that P. Martin the 5th in his Bull for the Confirmation of the Council of Constance Sess. 45. gives the Sense of the Proposition of that Council Sess. 15. may it not be very pertinently asserted that the said Council condemns only the killing of a Tyrant and not of an Heretick and the killing of a Tyrant who is not condemned and deposed not of one who is excommunicated for Heresie for that last Clause without expecting the Sentence and Command of a Judge supposes that it may be a very lawful and meritorious Act to kill such Princes as are deposed by Superiour Judges that is by the Pope or Council which is the only Authority that ever pretended to judge or depose Sovereign Princes and therefore when Suarez was urged with this Decree he answered Defens Fidei lib. 6. cap. 4. Where do you find in the Acts of that Council that this extends to Princes excommunicated or deposed by the Pope 13. If we may take and leave of the Roman Councils what we please and be good Catholicks still wherefore may we not reject the Decrees of their Councils about Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images c. and continue as good Catholicks as they are who renounce the Authority of their Councils as to the deposing Power 14. Since P. Paul the 5th Anno 1606. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls that the Oath of Allegiance established by Parliament 3 Iac. 1. cannot be taken without violating the Christian Faith and injuring the Salvation of their Souls as containing many things which are manifestly contrary to Faith and Salvation Now as the Author of the First Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance called The Jesuits Loyalty well observes there are not in it multa many things to which this Censure is possibly applicable unless this be one that the Pope hath no Power to despose the King or absolve his Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance now when in Obedience to the Pope the Roman Catholicks have to this day obstinately refused this Oath some very few excepted who were Anathematized at Rome for doing so is there not reason to suspect that they are not clear in this Point and that they who will not abjure so pernicious a Doctrine may be perswaded to practise it when time serves and then let any man judge what security there is of their Loyalty 15. As for those Loyal English Romanists who will not allow the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though they acknowledge it to have been Decreed by Popes and Councils because all the Ages before Gregory the Seventh were positively against the Deposing Doctrine that this was a Doctrine brought in in the 11th Century against the Judgment and Practice of Ten before and that all the Fathers were against it must they not needs go upon these Principles 1. That Popes and Councils may and have decreed such Doctrines as are contrary to Scripture and Catholick Tradition 2. That no good Catholick is bound to own such Doctrines though decreed by Popes and Councils 3. That this Doctrine although so decreed is not the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4. That men are good Catholicks not by adhering to the Doctrine of Popes and Councils but to the Scriptures expounded by Primitive and Catholick Tradition These are indeed the better Subjects for adhering to those Principles for those are the very Principles on which our Reformation is founded and by which we justifie our selves against the Innovations of the Church of Rome But though these Principles will justifie the Reformation yet they will not prove that this Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the present Church of Rome 16. But to shut up all these Queries concerning that vile Deposing Doctrine I desire only to be informed what Roman Catholick Nation who had all the Power in their hands would have suffered a Protestant Prince to Succeed quietly to his Throne We know how it fared with Henry the Fourth of France notwithstanding the Parliament of Paris burnt Mariana's Book and what Henrician Hereticks in those days signified but our Church teaches better and the True Sons of the Church practise better and we hope they shall never have reason to repent of what they have done SECT XXII Of their Vncharitableness to all other Christians Qu. 1. HOw can they be vindicated from Hypocrisie in a very high degree beside their Uncharitableness who after they have Condemned an Heretick and delivered him to the Secular Judge to be burnt yet thus bespeak him We passionately desire you for the Love of God and in regard of Piety Mercy and our Mediation you would free this miserable person from all danger of Death or mutilation of Members How can this be reconciled to the 20 Cap. of the 25 Sess. of the Council of Trent about Reformation 2. Since Boniface the Eighth hath determined that it is indispensably necessary for all men to believe the Bishop of Rome to be the Oecumenical Patriarch the Universal Bishop the Visible Head and Monarch of the Catholick Church the Infallible Doctor of its Faith and Manners S. Peters Successor and Christs Sole Vicar upon Earth which Arrogant Titles are now become a part of their Canon Law and occur frequently in the sixth Book of the Decretalia may it not be pertinently demanded Where was their Charity to all Christians before the time of Boniface the Third who dyed in the 7th Century seeing there is no Bishop of Rome found who did assume or claim those insolent Epithets before that time 3. What difference can be assigned betwixt the old Donatists and the present Romanists since the former confined the True Church of Christ to Africa yea to that Corner of it which was ex parte Donati and the later to Rome 4. Let us suppose a man to walk as Conformably to the Precepts of the Gospel as ever any of the Sons of Adam Christ only excepted would it not argue the height of uncharitableness to Damn that man in our Imaginations because he cannot believe the Popes Supremacy to be jure divino for want of Divine Revelation since the best Logician in the World cannot deduce it from any place of Scripture per decimam sextam Consequentiam 5. Because some moderate Protestants grant that he who is under Invincible Ignorance of the Corruptions of the Roman Church and makes Conscience to live up to his Light may through the infinite Mercy of God be saved though he live and die in that Society hence to argue that its best to joyn in Communion with the Church of Rome wherein by consent of both parties Salvation may be had doth the force of that Argument in the eyes of sober persons amount to any more than this Come over to us for we have less Charity than ye whereas a good Christian who understands the nature of his Holy Religion will be ready to answer
S. Cyprian 21. Since to be the ultimate Object of Appeals or dernier besort as the French phrase it is the Essential Privilege of all Monarchs is it accountable that the Council of Nice believed the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the Catholick Church when it determined that all Appeals during the Intervals of general Councils should be determined in the Provincial Synods or by the respective Patriarchs and that there should be no Appeal from the one to the other 22. If the Churches of Africa believed the Popes Supremacy to be jure divino how could 217 Bishops in the 6th Council of Carthage whereof S. Austin was one have opposed Three Popes successively in the matter of Appeals to Rome and condemned all those as Schismaticks who did thus Appeal and made a formal Separation of their Churches from the Roman upon the account of its Illegal and Uncharitable Incroachments 23. If that Separation was unjust how comes S. Augustin to be reputed over all the Christian World and at Rome too an eminent Saint since he died as the Romanists think in actual and unrepented Schism since S. Augustin denied the Popes Supremacy in matter of Appeals to Rome no less than Henry the Eighth of England might not P. Coelestin as justly have Excommunicated S. Augustin as P. Paul the Third did Henry the Eighth of England 24. Since by many of the Epistles of Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauricius and Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople its apparent that he declares all those Prelates who usurp the Titles of Oecumenical Patriarch Universal Bishop and Head of the Catholick Church to be the Forerunners or Harbangers of Antichrist may it not be pertinently demanded if all those Popes who from Boniface the Third inclusively have affected those Titles do not stand condemned by the Judgment of their Predecessour as Antichristian 25. If it be the Popes Prerogative as the Romanists pretend to assemble all the general Councils how did it chance that during a Thousand years after Christ and more there was not an Oecumenical Synod in Italy no not in all the West unless that of Frankford be accounted one which was indicted by Charlemain against the Conventicle at Nice and that they were very desirous to have one in Italy is most evident from the Letters of P. Leo the First none of the meanest spirited Popes to Theodosius the Younger his Sister Pulcheria the Emperour Marcianus Valentinian the Third with Eudoxia the Empress whom he did Supplicate on his Knees with many Tears thus he phraseth it for a Council to be holden in Italy against the Eutychians but could never obtain his desire as to that Circumstance 26. If the Emperours were nothing else but the Popes Mandatarij in the indicting of Councils as some term them what could be the reason that P. Vigilius being personally in Constantinople would not Countenance the 5th general Council assembled there by Iustinian the Great till he was haled thereto by the Authority of the Emperour and forced to obey the Mandat of his pretended Mandatarius in condemning the tria Capitula which by a former Constitution he had approved 27. If the Confirmation of a general Council by the Pope be so necessary that all its acts are invalid without it as some Romanists pretend how could the Patriarchs of Constantinople be so irregular as to possess the place in all succeeding Councils where they were present which the 2d and 4th general Councils had allotted to them notwithstanding of all the Protestations of P. Leo the First and his Successors against those Council Acts 28. Since the Bishops of the Primitive Church were promiscuously termed Popes from the old Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Father their Episcopal Sees Thrones and Empires and themselves how small soever their Diocess were were also called Princes if we believe S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary of Poictiers all were termed the Successors of the Apostles and equal as to the intrinsi Power of Bishops whether it were the little Bishoprick of Eugubium compared with that of Rome Rhegium with that of Constantinople Tanis with Alexandria if we give Faith to S. Hierom therefore it may pertinently be demanded What solid Grounds had Hildebrand to Monopolize those Titles to the Bishop of Rome 29. If the Romanists can produce any Authentick Author for the Decretal Epistles of all the Popes from Clemens to P. Sirvius that is to the middle at the least of the 4th Century though they have made up a considerable part of the Canon Law before Riculfus Archbishop of Mentz who lived 500 years after those Popes were dead 30. Since the Belief of an Infallible Headship in the Bishop of Rome is with many Romanists the reason why they receive their Articles of Faith must it not then be the fundamental Article of all others And ought it not to be the best attested by some plain places of Scripture and not leave by its silence this sole visible Vicegerent of Christ to the Suspicion of bearing witness to himself 31. Since the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Apostolick Canons as they are termed with the Canons of the Eight first general Councils and notwithstanding it is evident from the 35 and 36 Canons of the Apostles or the 33 and 34 Canons as Binius hath them that these are directly against the Popes Supremacy as also the 6 and 7 Canons of the First general Council the 9 17 and 28 Canons of the Fourth general Council the Fifth in condemning the Sentence of P. Vigilius in favour of the tria Capitula tho he was very vehement in the cause the Sixth and Seventh in Condemning P. Honorius of Heresie the Eighth and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging Obedience thereunto viz. its Condemning a Custom of the Sabbath Fast in Lent may we not very rationally hence conclude that the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by Divine Right or any Right at all seeing they opposed it And that they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome that they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility that it is in vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either and that the Canons of these eight general Councils being the sense both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority must needs stand Condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in Profession with the ancient And in fine how can the Church of Rome escape the charge of Heresie for he who believes the Popes Supremacy denies in effect the eight first general Councils at least in that point and that 's Heresie and he who believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Popes