Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	receive_v	tradition_n	2,537	5	8.9791	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30330	A collection of several tracts and discourses written in the years 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685 by Gilbert Burnet ; to which are added, a letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pool's secret power, the history of the power treason, with a vindication of the proceedings thereupon, an impartial consideration of the five Jesuits dying speeches, who were executed for the Popish Plot, 1679.; Selections. 1685	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1685 (1685)	Wing B5770; ESTC R214762	83,014	140

of their Church This latter I undertake to make out from the undeniable Maximes to which all of that Communion are bound to adhere There are Two Principles which I may well call the Fundamental Principles of the Roman Church since all Opinions that are not inconsistent with them can be tollerated among them But whatever strikes at these must needs be Abominated as Destructive of that they call The Catholick Faith The one is The Authority of the Church The other is The Certainty of Tradition If then the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and by consequence Killing them for if they are justly deposed it 's as just to kill them as to kill any Usurper is such that without denying the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition it cannot be denied then all men must resolve either to acknowledg it or to renounce their Subjection to a Church that must needs believe it About the Authority of the Church Two things are to be observed that serve for clearing what I design to make out The First is That the Church in any one Age has as much Authority as ever it had or can have in any other Age For if Christs Promises together with the other Arguments they bring for the Authority of the Church be good they are alike strong at all Times and in all Ages And therefore though in writing Books of Controversies they muster up Authorities out of the former Ages because we profess we pay little esteem to the latter Ages Yet among themselves all Ages are alike and the Decrees of them are of equal authority Secondly The Authority of the Church is as little to be disputed in moral matters that fall under practice as in Articles of Faith that only fall under Speculation and in a word The Church must be the Infallible Expounder of the Ten Commandments as well as of the Creed All the Arguments from Christs Promises from the hazard of trusting to our private Reasonings and the Necessity of Submitting to a publick Judg are by so much the more concluding in Practical matters as it is of more Importance That Men think aright in Practical than in Speculative Opinions If then there arises a Question about a Moral matter or the Exposition of any of the Commandments The only certain Decision must be expected from the Church For instance a Question arises about Images Whether it is lawful to use them in the Worship of God upon the seeming Opposition which the worship of them has to the 2d Commandment Since the Church has once Determin'd that it may be lawfully used it is Heresie to deny it on this pretence that we fancy it is contrary to one of the Commandments So if a Controversie arise upon the Fifth Commandment How far a King is to be acknowledged if the Church has determined the Limits of that it is Heresie to carry it further If also another Question arise how much the Sixth Commandment obliges It must be carried so far and no further than the Determination of the Church allows I confess by the Doctrine of that Church even a General Council may err in a point in which any matter of Fact is included Because they may be deceived by a false Information But in a General Rule about Morality and the Extent of any of the Ten Commandments The Decision of the Church must either be certain and for ever Obligatory or the whole Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church falls to the ground Concerning the Certainty of Tradition the general Opinion of that party is That Tradition is an Infallible Conveyance of Divine Truth and that whatever any Age of the Church delivers to another as derived from Christ and his Apostles must be received with the same Veneration and Obedience that we pay to the Holy Scriptures And for the ways of distinguishing a Tradition of the Church from any Imposture or Novelty There be four of them The first That is the most doubtful is That the greatest and most esteemed Doctors in any Age deliver as a Divine Truth Nor is it necessary that they formally say This is a Tradition but if many of them mention an Opinion and declare their own assent to it this passes as a sufficient proof of the Tradition of any Age of the Church So in all points of Controversie between them and us the greatest part of their Writers some few later and suspected ones only excepted think they have sufficiently justified their Church when they bring Testimonies out of any of the Writings of the Fathers that seem to favour their Opinion and will call it unreasonable for us to reject these because they only deliver their own opinion and do not call it the Tradition of the Church but conclude That many Writers in any age asserting an Opinion it may well be looked on as the Tradition of that Age. But because this is more liable to exception there is another way that is more infallible to judg of Tradition and that is by the conveyance of the See of Rome which they judg the chief Depository of the Faith and for which they fansie they have so many proofs from the high things some of the Fathers have said about the dignity of that See Now if these conclude any thing it must follow That whatever has been delivered in any Age by a Pope as conveyed down from Christ or his Apostles must either be so indeed or the See of Rome is not a faithful Transmitter of Tradition But there is yet a more certain way of judging of Tradition by what the chief Pastors of the Church have delivered when assembled in a general Council This being the Supreme Tribunal in the Church there can lie no appeal from it Nor can the Doctrines delivered or approved by it be questioned For instance If it were under debate How the Tradition about Transubstantiation can be made out in the Thirteenth Century it is needless to seek any other evidence than That one Almerick is condemned for denying it and in Opposition to that it was formally established in a general Council This is as much as can be had and he were very unreasonable that were not satisfied with it So if it be asked How can the Tradition of the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and giving away their Dominions in the same Century be proved The Answer is plain That same very Council decreed it Upon which a great Prince was deposed and his Dominions were given to another These are the Common Standards by which Traditions are Examined But to these a new one has been lately added which is indeed a much shorter and nearer way And that is whatever the Church holds in any one age as a Material point of Religion she must have received it from the former age and that age from the former and so it climbs upwards till the days of the Apostles If this be a certain Track of Tradition by which we may infallibly trace it Then for instance If

in any one age it hath been believed That St. Peter had power from Christ which he left to the See of Rome by which his Successor in it can depose Kings then this must be an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence of equal authority with any thing written in the Scriptures To these General Considerations about the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition I shall add Two other about the Nature of Supreme and Soveraign Power By which we may judg of what Extent the Popes Power must be if he have an authority to depose Kings and transfer their Dominions to other persons First When the Soveraign Powers proceed in a Legal way against its Subjects If either they abscond so that they cannot be found Or have such a Power about them that the Sovereign cannot bring them to punishment He may declare them Rebels and set Prices on their Heads And in that case it is as lawful for any Subject to kill them as it is for an Executioner to put a condemned Person to Death These being the several ways the Law provides in those several cases So when a Pope deposes a Prince He may as lawfully set on private Assassinates to kill him as oblige his Subjects to rise with open force against him For if the Pope has a Power over him to depose him this clearly follows from the Nature of Sovereign Power and it is the Course that sometimes must be followed when the Rebel can be no other way brought to deserved punishment and if the Pope has the power of deposing then a Prince who after such a Sentence carries himself as a King is a Rebel against his Supreme Lord And is also an Usurper For his Title being destroyed by the Sentence He has no authority over his Subjects and therefore may be as lawfully killed as any Rebel or Usurper Secondly The Supreme power may in cases of great necessity when the thing is in it self materially just pass over such Forms as ought in ordinary Cases to be observed I need not tell you That in a great Fire Subordinate Magistrates may blow up Houses But doubtless the Supreme Power of all as a King in an absolute Monarchy and such is the Papal Power if these Opinions be true may dispence with some Forms when the Matter is in it self just and if the chief design of a Law be pursued the circumstantial parts of it may upon extraordinary occasions be superseded Therefore if the Pope is Supreme over all Kings and has this deposing Power Then though by the Canon a King ought to be first a Year Excommunicated for his Heresy or favouring Hereticks and at the Years end he may be Deposed by the Pope There are also other Rules for Excommunications tho the Summary way in some cases may be used yet all these are but circumstantial and lesser Matters The design of that Law is That no Heretical Prince or favourer of Heresie be continued in his Power The other are but Forms of Law that cannot be indispensibly necessary in all cases Besides the very Canon Law teaches that when there is both a Notorietas juris Facti Summary proceedings are Legal when then it is Notorious that the Doctrines of the Church of England for Instance are Heretical and that the King is an Obstinate Favourer of these Heresies and will not extirpate them Summary and Secret proceedings are justifiable There is no hope that Bulls Breves or Citations would do any good in this case These would on the contrary alarm the State and bring all the Party under great hazards Therefore from the Nature of Supreme Power it is most justly Inferred That though there have been no publick Sentence of Deposition according to the Forms of the Canon Law yet all these may be dispensed with and a Secret and Summary one may do as well These Positions are such that I cannot fansie any just Exceptions to which they are liable and from all these laid together the Inference will undeniably follow That according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the power of Deposing Kings is lodged with the Pope by a Divine Authority and that by consequence private persons may conspire to take away the Life of a King so deposed Even though there be no publick Sentence given about it But before I bring the Evidence for all this I shall desire the Reader will a little reflect on the Positions I have laid down in which he will find an Answer to all the Exceptions that can be made against the following Evidence By the first The Authority of the Church being the same in all Ages he will see it is to no purpose to pretend these were dark Ages So that what was done in an ignorant time cannot oblige the World when things are seen in a better light But if the Church has an Authority from Christ that shall last till the end of the World it must be the same in all ages The Ignorance of the age is a very good answer when made by a Protestant but can signifie nothing in a Papists Mouth By the second Of the Churches authority in setling Moral Rules for practice it appears how fond that distinction is which they make between a Canon and a Decree It is true a Decree about a particular Case in which there is some matter of Fact may be wrong according to their Principles and yet the authority of the Church remain entire For instance in the deposing a Prince or condemning a Man for Heresie the Church may either by false Witnesses or mistaking a Man's words be drawn to pass an unjust Sentence by reason of a mis-representation of the Fact But that is nothing to the purpose here where a Decree is made as a perpetual Rule of Practice this must be of the same authority of a Canon about any article of Faith Otherwise it will follow that the Church may mislead the People in matters indispensably necessary to Salvation For such is the Obedience to the Ten Commandments By the first way of judging of the Tradition of the Church from what the most received Writers in any age deliver as the Doctrine of the Church it will appear That the Schoolmen and Canonists are as competent Conveyers of Tradition from the twelfth age downward as the Fathers were from the sixth Age upward and laying this for a Principle That the Church is the same in all Ages they are really more competent Witnesses than the Fathers were First Because they write more closely to the subject they have in hand they consider what is said for or against an Opinion in a more exact manner than the Fathers did who being carried with the heat they are sometimes in go off from the purpose and generally affect Eloquence which is the most improper Stile for nice Matters Whereas the Schoolmen write in a blunt way only considering the purpose they are about coyning the most barbarous words they can light on when they

The Third Branch of the Christian Religion is the Worship of God and that chiefly the use of the Sacraments For the Worship of God let it be considered that we pray to God and praise him only for all these things about which the Scriptures command us to address to him Our worship is in a Language that all the people understand and so are edified by it according to St. Paul who has enlarged so much on this matter in a whole Chapter that it is strange how any who acknowledg the Authority of that Epistle can deny it Our Liturgies are such that the Romanists cannot except to any part of them Our ceremonies are few and these be both decent and useful So that in all the parts of our Worship we do so exactly agree to the Rule of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church that they cannot blame us for any one Rubrick or Collect in it But for their worship It is in a Language not understood by the people who to be sure can receive no Edification from that they understand not nor can they say Amen to such Devotions This is as it were in spite to St. Paul who took special care that as long as his Authority was in any esteem in the Church such an abuse should never creep into it Nor is there a shadow of Authority for such a practice from the Primitive Church in which for many Ages the Worship was still in the vulgar Tongues Next their Worship is so overcharged with many Rites and Ceremonies that the seriousness of Devotion must needs be much alloyed by them A great part of the Worship is so whispered as if they were muttering Spells Their Books of Exorcisms are the most indecent things that can be full of Charms and other ridiculous Rites And for the Pontifical and Ceremonial of their Church they may match with Heathenism for Superstition Their Offices are so various and numerous and the Rubricks seem so full of disorder that a man may as soon learn a Trade as know all the several parts of them How this can be reconciled to the Simplicity of the Gospel or the Worshipping God in spirit and truth may be easily judged by those who can compare things For the Sacraments we have the Two that Christ Instituted Baptism and the Lords Supper And for Pennance Confirmation Ordination and Marriage we have them also among us as they were appointed by Christ and his Apostles though we do not call these Sacraments For Extream Unction we find no warrant at all for it as a sacred Ordinance and we are sure the Church for many Ages did not think of it For Baptism it is done among us in the very Form our Saviour appointed and this they do not deny But among them they cannot be assured that they are at all Baptized since according to the Doctrine of the necessity of the Intention of the Priest to the Being of a Sacrament they cannot be assured of it for an Atheistical Priest can spoil their Baptism so that unless they can be certain of that which is impossible for them to know I mean the Intention of the Priest they are not sure that they were ever truly Baptized But for the Lords Supper if any person will so far trust his own Reason and senses as to compare all the Warrants we have in Scripture for that Ordinance with the Practice of our Church and theirs they will soon see who agree most to them Christ took Bread which he blessed and gave saying This is my Body which is given for you He also took the Chalice and said Drink ye all of it c. All this we doe and no more so that it is indeed a Communion among us and those who have read the account that Iustin Martyr gives us of the Rites in the Communion in his days would think he were reading the very Abstract of our Office But in the Church of Rome besides the less material things of the Form of the Bread the Consecration of Altars and Vessels with the numberless little devices in the Canon of the Mass that they seem not of such importance let these considerable changes they have made be looked into 1. They have brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation against the clearest Evidence both of sense and reason against the nature of a Sacrament and its being a Memorial of Christs Death and that by the very words of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Christs Body and Blood as the one was given for us and the other shed for us on the Cross and not as he is now at the Right hand of God The belief of this crept in by degrees from the eighth Century in which it was first set on foot but much contradicted both in the Eastern and Western Church and was not fully setled till the 13th Century We are sure it was not the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome Constantinople Asia Antioch nor Africk in the 5th and 6th Centuries by express Testimonies from the most esteemed Authors of that time Gelasius Chrysostom Ephrem Theodoret and St. Austin 2. They deny the Chalice to the Laity against the express words of the Institution and contrary both to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church for 1300 years 3. They have declared the Priests saying Mass to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and the Living though the Scripture plainly says That Christ was once offered for us It is true the Primitive Church used the words Sacrifice and Oblation as our Church yet does but their meaning by that was only in the general sense of these terms as Prayers Praises and Alms are called Sacrifices 4. They have brought in a new piece of Worship which is the hearing of Mass without receiving the Sacrament and it is now the great Devotion of their Church Though by the Institution it is as express as can be that the Consecration is only in order to its being a Communion And by the Apostolical Canons which some in their Church believe to be the work of the Apostles and are by them all acknowledged to be a Collection of the Rites of the first Ages all persons that were present at the Worship and did not communicate were to be severely censured 5. The adoring the Sacrament the exposing it on the Altar and carrying it about in solemn Processions to be worshipped as they are late Inventions so if Transubstantiation be not true they are by their own confession the grossest Idolatries that ever were And are not these considerable variations from the first Institution of this Sacrament As for their own Sacraments though there is no reason to equal them to either of these that were instituted by Christ yet some of them we use as they were at first appointed Persons Baptized are Confirmed with Imposition of hands the only Ceremony used by the Apostles We allow the use of Confession and do press it in many cases and give the benefit of

Absolution but we do not make this an Engin to screw peoples secrets from them For which there is no warrant in Scripture nor was it thought necessary for many Ages after the Apostles Confession of publick Scandals was enjoyned and for private sins it was recommended but this latter was not judged simply necessary for obtaining the pardon of sin And what noise soever they make of the good that Confession and the enjoyning of Pennance may do if well managed we need only appeal to some of their own best Writers now in France whether as they have been practised they have not rather driven all true Piety out of the world If these abuses had been only the faults of some Priests the blame could not have been justly cast on their Church but when the publick Rules given to Confessors printed with Licence are their warrants for so doing then their Church is in fault So that nothing is more common among them than for persons after a confession made of their sins with a slight sorrow and some trifling pennance undergone together with the Priestly Absolution to fancy themselves as clean from all sin as if they had never offended God And this being the Doctrin of their Church it both lessens the sense of sin and takes men off from making such earnest applications to God through Christ as the Gospel commands For Orders they are among us with the same Rites that Christ and the Apostles gave them first And a learned Man of their own Church has lately published the most ancient Forms of Ordinations he could find From which it appears that all the Ceremonies in their Ordinations for the want of which they accuse us were brought in since the eighth Century so that even by their own Principles these things cannot be necessary to Ordination otherwise there were no true Orders in the Church for the first eight Ages For Marriage we honour it as Gods Ordinance and since the Scriptures declare it honourable in all without exception we dare deny it to none who desire it St. Paul delivers the Duty of Clergy-men towards their Wives with Rules for their Wives behaviour which had been very impertinent if Clergy-men might have no Wives We find a married Clergy in the first ten Centuries And we know by what base Arts the Caelibate of the Clergy was brought in and what horrid ill effects it has produced Neither do we allow of any devices to hinder Marriage by degrees of kindred not prohibited in the Law of God or the trade that was long driven in granting Dispensations in those degrees and afterwards annulling these and avoiding the Marriages that followed upon them upon some pretences of Law Thus it appears how they have corrupted the Doctrine of the Sacraments together with the Worship of God The last head of Religion is Government and as to this we can challenge any to see what they can except to us First in reference to the Civil Power we declare all are bound for conscience sake to obey every lawful Command of the Supream Authority and to submit when they cannot obey We pretend to no Exemption of Clarks from the Civil Jurisdiction but give to Caesar the things that are Caesars We do not obey the King only because he is of our Religion much less do we allow of Conspiracies or Rebellions upon our judging him an Heretick so that we deliver no Doctrin that can be of any ill consequence to the Society we live in And for the Ecclesiastical Government we have Bishops Priests and Deacons rightly Ordained and in their due subordination to one another every one administring these Offices due to his Function which has been the Government of the Christian Church since the times of the Apostles So that we have a clear vocation of Pastors among us from whose hands every person may without scruple receive all the Sacraments of the Church But for the Church of Rome how unsafe is the Civil Government among them not to mention the Doctrin of deposing Princes for which I refer you to my former Letter What a security does the Exemption of Clerks from the Civil Courts in cases criminal give to loose and debauched Church-men and what disturbance must this breed to a Common-wealth The denying the Civil Magistrate power to make Laws that concern Religion or oblige Churchmen takes away a great deal of his Rights for scarce any Law can be made but wrangling and ill-natur'd Churchmen may draw it within some head of Religion And that this was frequently done in former Ages all that have read History know The quarrels that were in the beginning of this Century between the Pope and the Republick of Venice were a fresh Evidence of it But for the Ecclesiastical Government they have spoiled it in all the parts of it The Pope has assumed a power of so vast an extent and so arbitrary a nature that all the ancient Canons are thrown out of doors by it We know that originally the Bishops of Rome were looked on by the rest of the Church as their Colleagues and fellow Bishops The Dignity of the City made the See more remarkable and the belief of St. Peters having founded it with his suffering Martrydom there with St. Paul made it much honoured so that when the Empire became Christian then the Dignity of the Imperial City made the Bishop of Rome be acknowledged the first Patriarch From this beginning they arose by many degrees to the height of pretending to a Supremacy both Civil and Spiritual and then they not only received appeals which was all they at first pretended to but set up Legantine Courts every where made the Bishops swear Obedience and Homage to them and the Arch-Bishops receive the Pall from their hands in sign of their dependance on them Exempted Monasteries and other Clarks from Episcopal Jurisdiction broke all the Laws of the Church by their Dispensations So that no shaddow of the primitive Government does now remain And though Gregory the Great wrote with as much indignation against the Title of Universal Bishop as ever any Protestant did yet his Successors have since assumed both the Name and thing And to that height of Insolence has this risen that in the Council of Trent all the Papal Party opposed the Decree that was put in for declaring Bishops to have their Jurisdictions by Divine Right The Court Party not being ashamed to affirm that all Jurisdiction was by Divine Right only in the Pope and in the other Bishops as the Delegates of the Apostolick See and they were in this too hard for the other Party So that now a Bishop who by the Divine appointment ought to feed the Flock can do no more in that then as the Pope gives him leave The greatest part of the Priests have no dependence on their Bishops The Monks Fryars and Iesuits being immediately subordinate to the Pope so that they do what they please knowing they can justifie any thing