Selected quad for the lemma: power_n
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
|
first Bishoprick had not most certain it is that Infallibility is a personal privilege depending solely and wholely on the free grace and gift of God nor had ever any Prophet or Apostle power to transfer it to their Successors or any body else and therefore unless they can make it appear from Scripture or some Divine Revelation which is impossible that God has granted and given Infallibility to the Pope as Peter's Successor and Christ's Vicar their pretence to it will be what indeed it is very irrational 4. And this Position that the Pope is not Infallible does farther appear to say nothing of particular Writers by the clear and undeniable Testimonies of National and General Councils 1. The Church of France in a late and National Assembly of her Clergy expresly denyes the Popes Infallibility as much as we Protestants whom they are pleased commonly to miscal Hereticks 2. Their General Council of Basil tells us That several Popes have fall'n into Errors and Heresies And again it often happens and may happen as that Council says That the Pope may err 3. Their General Council of Constance amongst other crimes declares Pope Benedict 13. a Notorious Schismatick incorrigible and a pertinacious Heretick 4. To omit Pope Vigilius condemn'd for Heresie in the Fifth General Council which is by Dr. Crakanthorp fully and evidently proved I shall only add which is undeniable and authentick Authority against the Popes Infallibility That the Sixth General Council held at Constantinople in Trullo did condem and Anathematize Pope Honorius And tho' some Zealots for Rome and the Popes Infallibility such as Bellarmine and Baronius have endeavoured to excuse Honorius and question the Authority of the Council and the Truth of those things which in the Council were urged against him yet the evidence on which they condemned Honorius for an Heretick was undoubtedly good even his own Epistles read in the Council which Bellarmine pretends were fictitious But both the Authority of the Council and of Honorius his Epistles which were the Evidence on which they condemn'd him are so fully and evidently justified to omit many others by a Learned Sorbon Doctor and a Roman Catholick that I neither need nor shall say any more of this particular but refer the Reader who desires more satisfaction to that Judicious and learned Author I shall only add in short two things which to me seem very material 1. That notwithstanding that Sixth General Council condemned Honorius for an Heretick yet it was approv'd and receiv'd as a General Council by Pope Leo the second the next Successor save one to Honorius as evidently appears by his own Epistle to the Emperors and their own Roman Breviary of their most correct Edition And to make it more evident that the Sixth Synod and the condemnation of Pope Honorius for Heresie was anciently approv'd even in the Church of Rome their own General Council the Second of Nice is a witness beyond exception as by the words and place in the Margin may evidently appear 2. But that which may seem strange tho' it be most true by the Decree of the Council of Constance every Pope at his Consecration was to take a solemn Oath to believe and maintain amongst other Councils the 6. Synod of which we are now speaking and every part and particle of it and consequently they were bound to approve that Synod and their Condemnation of Pope Honorius as an Heretick For this condemnation of Honorius it was evidently an Act of the 6 Synod and the Popes by the said Decree of the Council of Constance were bound amongst other Councils mentioned in the Decree to believe and profess the Acts of that sixth Synod Vsque ad unum Apicem for so the Decree expresly says The Premisses consider'd I believe it may and will appear to all intelligent and impartial Judges that the Opinion of the Popes Infallibility is not only without but against manifest reason For 1. 'T is certain that the Greek Asiatick and Aethiopick Churches never believ'd but expresly oppos'd it 2. For the Western or Latin Church it is evident by their General Councils of Nice Pisa Constance and Basil in which several Popes have been declar'd Hereticks that they were so far from believing it tho' Pope Gregory the 7 th was for it that they condemn'd and Synodically declar'd against it for 1500 years till Leo the 10 th in his Lateran Council in the year 1513. did again set on foot that Apocryphal opinion of the Popes Infallibility So that it is not only erroneous but a very late and novel invention That a General Council is not Infallible is a truth from many cogent and undeniable reasons so evident that as there is no need I shou'd so it is not my purpose to say much only I shall in short say a few things and refer them to your prudence to make use of all or any of them as to you circumstances consider'd may seem convenient Here then I desire it may be consider'd 1. That a General Council is never so much as named in Scripture nor any promise of Infallibility given it The Council of the Apostles which was no General Council was Infallible and might truly say Sic visum est spiritui sancto nobis Because the Apostles had the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost But that any General Council had any such Assistance truly to say after their Decrees Sic visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Tho' that of Trent and others vainly pretend to it is an Assertion without all proof or probability 2. But there is no necessity of such an Infallible Guide as a General Council because Christians for several Ages have attain'd Heaven and Eternal Salvation who never had any General Council to be their Guide For 't is certain and on all sides confess'd that the first Nicene Council which was held An. Christ. 325. was the first General Council the Christian Church ever had Now I desire to know and you may ask those who endeavour to seduce your Parishioners whether the Christians in those 325. years when there was no General Council were saved or not If they were saved then 't is evident that a General Council is not necessary to guide us to Heaven seeing Christians for 325. years obtain'd Salvation and yet in all that time there was no General Council to guide them But if it be said Christians for want of a General Council to guide them were not saved in those three Centuries Then 1. They contradict the sense of Christendom and the constant testimony of Fathers and Historians who universally tell us of thousands not only of pious Christians but of many hundred thousands of pious Confessors and Martyrs Now to say that they were not saved who laid down their lives for Christ and his Gospel is such an uncharitable and unchristian Censure as no sober Christian ever did or
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 1 Thess. 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good IMPRIMATUR Jo. Battely Septemb. 15. 1687. LONDON Printed for R. Clavel at the Peacock at the West End of St. Paul's MDCLXXXVIII My Reverend Friend I Received Yours wherein you tell me That some Emissaries have of late earnestly solicited some of your Parish and so belonging to your Cure and Charge to desert the Church of England and turn as they would be call'd Roman Catholicks The Motives amongst some others they principally insist upon you say are these Two First That if they return to their Mother Church of Rome they will have what they say Protestants neither have nor pretend to a sure and Infallible Guide to secure them from all Error and Heresies which will be a great Blessing and comfort to them Secondly They will free themselves from the great and mortal sin of Schism For the Protestants they say neither have nor can have any just reason to desert the Catholick Church of Rome and so their Separation from it is evidently Schismatical You desire me to give You some directions how to Reply to these Pretences and fortifie your People against them who are not skilled in such Controversies You should rather have apply'd your self to your Diocesan for his Abilities and immediate concern to assist you being more than mine I doubt not but he would willingly have assisted you But seeing you say you are not particularly known to him and therefore not willing by any such Address to trouble him and seeing we are bound to give a reason of the hope and faith which is in us for the Confirmation of some and Conviction of others I shall in obedience to your Command crave leave to say a few things and leave the management of them to your Prudence according to the several Circumstances of Persons Times and Places wherein You may have occasion to make use of any of them And here 1. In the general I shou'd advise That when you have occasion to discourse of any of these Points with the Romish Priests and Emissaries who endeavour to seduce any of your Parishioners you remember and observe that good Rule in the Gospel If any man be overtaken in a fault You who are spiritual restore him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the spirit of meekness All railing all bitter and provoking language should be avoided and then by your good Reasons and a Christian and Meek urging of them you may possibly bring your Adversary to see the Errors of his own Church which he endeavours to propagate in Ours 2. For the Infallibility of their Church of which they continually and without any thing like a good reason so vainly boast of I consider 1. That if it did which neither does nor even can really appear that they had an Infallible Guide we of the Church of England are not so irrational as not to follow an Infallible Guide nor so simple to take an ignis fatuus for a real and true fire and believe they have such a Guide because against evident reason they confidently say so 2. They are not yet agreed amongst themselves who is their Infallible Guide And can they think it possible for them to perswade us that they have an Infallible Guide when they themselves know not who it is For 1. Many of them place this Infallibility in the Pope so Gratian and the Canonists who follow him who tells us That all the Pope's Sanctions are to be taken as if they had been confirmed by the divine mouth of S. Peter And the Gloss and Marginal note in another place tells us That to dispute or doubt of the goodness of any of the Pope's actions is a mortal sin and sacrilege So we have it in the best Edition of their Canon-Law with the Glosses So Pope Leo 10. in his Bull against Luther tells us That neither the Roman Church nor any of the Popes ever err'd in any of their Constitutions And to this purpose the Jesuits make the Popes as Peter's Successors Infallible not only in matters of Faith but of Fact too as appears by their famous Theses publickly defended in France 2. Many place the Infallibility in the Pope and Church or General Council concurring So the Clergy of France 3. Others in a General Council without the Pope So the Council of Pisa and Constance and Basil in which several Popes are condemn'd as Hereticks Schismaticks c. and the supream Power to be in the Council and that Infallible Now is it not unreasonable for them to boast of an Infallible Judge of Controversies and think to perswade us to believe it when they themselves know not who that Judge is If Sempronius were very sick and Caius coming to him and pitying his condition should tell him that there was an excellent Physician in that City but knew not who he was nor where to find him Sempronius would have little comfort or benefit from such a story No more can we from them who tell us with great confidence but without any just proof or probability that they have an Infallible Guide in their Church but can neither tell us who it is or where to find him But to manifest the exceeding vanity of their pretence to an Infallible Guide there are certain and to all Impartial Judges evident reasons to demonstrate That neither the Pope nor Council nor both together are Infallible 1. For the Pope they say that he is Infallible as S. Peter's Successor and as Peter was Vicar of Christ. But this is gratis dictum without any just proof or probability For 1. Admit S. Peter was 25 years as they say Bishop of Rome which is evidently untrue yet that he left Infallibility to his Successor there is an Assertion which has no ground in Scripture or Antiquity the Popes themselves not so much as pretending to Infallibility for a thousand years after our Blessed Saviour 2. S. Paul was an Apostle and as Infallible as Peter and planted many Churches in Asia Macedonia and Achaia c. and left his Successors there But it is confess'd that S. Paul did not leave his Infallibility to any of his Successors not to Timothy at Ephesus nor Titus in Crete and therefore that Peter should which S. Paul did not leave his Infallibility to his Successor is a Position for which they neither bring nor can bring any just proof 3. They say that Peter was before he came to Rome Bishop of Antioch 7 years and 't is certain and confess'd that his Successors at Antioch tho' that was his first Bishoprick had no such Infallibility left them by Peter and therefore I desire to know how his Successors at Rome his second Bishoprick come to have the privilege of Infallibility which his Successors at Antioch his