Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A30359
|
The infallibility of the Church of Rome examined and confuted in a letter to a Roman priest / by Gilbert Burnet.
|
Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.
|
1680
(1680)
|
Wing B5805; ESTC R15581
|
20,586
|
38
|
22. How shall I know who is Canonically Elected The Canon Law declares all Symoniacal Ordinations to be null and Pope Iulius the Second by a Bull de symoniaca Papae Electione declares him no Pope that is so elected How then shall I know that in the Elections there was no Symony For except I be sure there was none I cannot be sure the Pope is Canonically elected Now the secret transactions of the Conclave cannot be so clearly known as to free all people from scruples in this particular On the contrary we have the shrewdest grounds can be for suspecting foul dealings in these Elections Does not all the world know what interest the Factions of the two Crowns of the Nephews and the Squadrone Volante have in the Election of the Popes And all have seen the Intrigue of that Affair so that the very pretence of any Infallibility after such an Election is baffled out of the World Shall any body that understands mankind imagine these Elections go upon any other grounds but Interest Faction Expectation or some such base thing And that after the Pope is thus chosen to imagine the Holy Ghost is tied to all his Decrees is such a monstrous piece of Impudence that I cannot have so little charity for you as to think any of you believe it 23. How shall I know in the case of a Schism who is Canonically Elected Many of those Schisms there have been and all the Pretenders have put in a fair plea for themselves How then shall I be satisfied to which of them I must offer up my obedience And you know there are not three Ages past since for above forty years the Church of Rome was a Monster of two or three heads The several States of Europe being as divided in their Obedience as the Cardinals were in their Elections And it is little to be doubted but in many other Counter Elections had the Anti Popes been as strongly supported as the Popes at Avignon were they had been longer lived than they were Let me also ask you What right have the Cardinals to the Election of the Pope Which by the Primitive Constitution should belong to the Presbiters of Rome and the Bishops of the Province But that Bishops of other Nations shall be made Titulars to the Churches of Rome and so carry the Election as it is a very recent Constitution so can it pretend to no Divine Warrant And if the Election belong to the Cardinals you can give no reason why two thirds are necessary to make a Pope for in such cases either the whole must agree or the major Vote carry it and if the last be true then many a Pope is cast who is canonically elected having the majority of the Votes for him I confess in Political Constitutions men may mould matters as they will but in Divine things especially in choosing the Head of the Church and the Infallible Judg I must expect a better warrant 24. The Popes if infallible must either be such by immediate Inspiration or by a direction of the Divine Grace in considering what is proposed to them To the former they do not pretend nor do they wait for Enthusiasms but proceed as other men upon all emergents Now how can I be perswaded that a man who is wholly possest with affairs of State who minds nothing more than intrigues who has no education in any part of litterature but the Canon Law can upon a slight hearing a Controversie which puzles the most refined speculative heads judg exactly and truly when I plainly see he does not understand the points in debate And that this must be expected at Rome I remit to all who know that Court and it was truly the case of the Propositions of Iansenius which P. Innocent condemned though he confessed he understood not the matter and never gave the Iansenists a hearing but once nor can any body read the Bulls of the Popes but he must see the grossest misapplications of Scripture the falsest conclusions and the weakest reasons imaginable It were easie to instance this in a thousand particulars which must needs occur to every one that reads them Now a man may as soon believe day is night and night day as think that man infallible in his Decisions whom he finds plainly mistaken in many easie obvious things 25. What reason have I to think he has the Holy Ghost certainly going along in all his Decrees who seems plainly to have little or no sense of piety or vertue in all his actions and whole deportment The Divine Spirit purifies as well as enlightens it is true in immediate Inspirations this is not a constant Maxime but in one who expects the direction of the Holy Ghost by Prayers Fastings Applications of mind and other such means which is acknowledged to be the Popes case he must have prepared his mind to a right sense of Divine things by the previous purifying his soul otherwise a false Judgment is to be expected from a corrupt mind And the Prayers of the wicked and their Fastings too are abomination to God Now what men many of your Popes have been I rather refer you to your own Historians than rake such a puddle and since it is not to be disputed but vices of all sorts have been eminently lodged in the persons of not a few Popes who can force himself to think them a race of men that hold so near and close correspondence with Almighty God as to have his Spirit alway at command and yet have not by all that intimacy learned to escape the grosser and more common pollutions of the flesh Though St. Peter tells us that is the way to become partakers of the Divine Nature 26. How can I think the Popes infallible when it is certain if any thing in History be so that many of them have been guilty of opinions which General Councils have condemned and anathematised The Stories of Liberius and Honorius are too well known to be much contested the one having consented to semi-Arrianism against the Nicene Creed the other being anathematised by a General Council where another Popes Legats were consenting for a Heretick I suppose you are acquainted with the History and therefore give but a hint of these passages which are well known to learned men I name not many other Popes whom Historians accuse of Heresie but stand upon these two as more noted and signal And if one Pope be a Heretick the whole Infallibility falls to the ground and when I see Pope Innocent the First and Pope Innocent the Tenth differing so widely in their Decrees the one confirming St. Austin's Doctrin in the matter of grace and the other condemning Propositions which all who ever read St. Austin and are ingenious must see to be plainly consonant to his opinions I cannot forbear thinking neither one nor the other infallible for of two that contradict other I am sure one is in the wrong and if either of them be in the wrong neither