Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	2,088	5	9.4927	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59898	A vindication of a passage in Dr. Sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable House of Commons, May 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the Church of England, to both Houses of Parliament.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing S3369; ESTC R202693	19,865	30

and Councils 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 the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4. That men are good Catholicks not by adhering to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome but of the Scriptures expounded by Primitive and Catholick Tradition All this I firmly believe they 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 Let us then now return again to our Remonstrancer and having got rid of the Council of Constance and proved That it is so far from condemning that it hath approved and confirmed the Deposing Doctrine What remains is nothing but Insinuation and Address without the least appearance of an Argument but let us hear what it is and he proceeds thus I say seeing Roman Catholicks do thus generally declare their Loyalty I think they ought no more in Justice to be charged with disloyal Principles for the extravagancy of some few of that vast body and those censured and condemned too by them than I am to be charged with the Principles of the like Disloyalty and Injustice because some of my Children have been for the Bill of Exclusion and others who communicated with me have written scandalous Pamphlets Narratives c. tending to Treason and Rebellion This is spoke in the Person of the Church of England and a very fair Speech he has made for her wherein there is not any one thing fairly represented For 1. the Doctor does not charge Loyal Papists with disloyal Principles only says That the Popish Religion is not Loyal but it is possible that many Papists may not believe this to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as many of them profess not to do others may abhor the Doctrine and renounce the Authority of the Church of Rome in this particular though they hold Communion with her in her Worship others may have such a Natural and Inbred Loyalty such a Love to their Prince and Country as antidotes them against the Infection of bad Principles now these men may be Loyal as the Doctor acknowledges and may act upon very Loyal Principles too but they are not the Principles of the Popish Religion and there is some hazard that while men embrace a Religion and own the Authority of a Church which teaches the Deposing Doctrine they may be corrupted by their Religion when there happens any competition between their Loyalty and Religion which is all the Doctor asserted and which any disinterested Person would have thought as inoffensive as it is true And since this Passage has raised such an unjust clamour against the Doctor I shall only observe what just reason there is for such a Jealousie after all their declarations of Loyalty in that some very few excepted they obstinately refuse the Oath of Allegeance which there can be no colourable pretence for but that they will not forswear the Deposing Doctrine and there is reason to suspect That those who will not abjure so pernicious a Doctrine may be perswaded to practise it when time serves Pope Paul the Fifth An. 1606. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance established by Parliament 3. Jac. salvâ fide Catholicâ et salute animarum suarum praestari non posse cùm multa contineat quae fidei ac saluti apertè adversantur cannot be taken without violating the Catholick 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 Allegeance well observes p. 11. 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 depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Now when in Obedience to the Pope the Roman Catholicks to this day obstinately refuse this Oath Is there not reason to suspect that they are not clear in this point and then let any man judge what security there is of their Loyalty 2. He says it is unjust That they should be charged with Disloyal Principles for the extravagancies of some few of that vast body and those censured and condemned too by them This I must acknowledge would be very unjust but it is not true Those whom he calls a few are no less than Popes and General Councils and their most eminent Divines Schoolmen Casuists Canonists for several ages who neither were nor could be censured because they were the Highest Authority in the Church whereas in truth it is only some few who have taught the contrary and those indeed have been censured and excommunicated at Rome as some English Chatholicks can inform him 3. He makes the Church of England say That some of her Children were for the Bill of Exclusion If he would have passed for a Church of England man he should have observed a better Decorum in personating the Church and not have made her say such things as no Ingenuous Papist would affix to her If ever the Loyalty of the Church of England was tried it was in that Affair which she had no other Interest but a sense of Duty to oblige her to and I know not any one man who was firm and stedfast to the Church but was so to the Succession too though he underwent the Imputation of being a Papist or Popishly inclined for it It is sufficiently known that the prevailing party of these Houses of Commons who were for the Bill of Exclusion were ready prepared to accommodate and comprehend away the Church of England and he might with equal truth and honesty have charged the Rebellion of 41 on the Sons of the Church of England as the Bill of Exclusion But this is so barefaced a Calumny that it confutes it self and shames its Author 4. Let us then consider What comparison there is between the case of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England or Whether there be the same reason to charge the Church of England with disloyalty that there is to charge the Church of Rome The Church of Rome teaches the Deposing Doctrine by all the Authority that is in that Church the Church of England teaches the strictest Obedience to Princes without any reserved cases and threatens eternal Damnation to all Rebels how religious soever their Pretences are Those who teach the Deposing Doctrine speak the sense of the Church of Rome are her true and genuine Sons those

are bound to believe it and I readily grant him all this but do still averr That it is the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome which is all that I intend to prove for I never thought it was the Doctrine of the true Catholick Church or that any Christian ought to believe it As the Church of Rome is distinguished from other Communions of Christians we have no other way to learn what she teaches but from Popes and Councils who are the highest Authority in that Church and they teach the Deposing Doctrine and therefore those who live in Communion with that Church and own its Authority must own it too Those who disown this Doctrine so far disown the Authority of the Church of Rome and may be the better Subjects for being the worse Papists which I think is no great Commendation to that Religion 3. Now since Popes and Councils have decreed and thereby defined the Deposing Doctrine and this Answerer does and must believe the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church I desire to know how he can avoid that Inference That this Deposing Doctrine ever since it has been decreed by Popes and Councils has been the Doctrine of the Church For is not the Church of Rome the Church still since it decreed the Deposing Doctrine and is not a General Council the Representative of the Church of that age wherein this Council is held And are not the Decrees of such a Council then the Doctrine of the Church No says our Answerer I do not understand how the Church can be engaged unless she proceeds on those Grounds on which alone a Church as a Church or Congregation of Faithful can proceed Which he there tells us is a revelation by Christ preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform practice of the Faithful that is by that exploded Oracle of Infallible Tradition But If any or all of those who make the Church believe not or act on other grounds than these I conceive they believe and act not as a Church or as faithful but as Men or Scholars or in some other Capacity The truth is when Councils leave their proper work defining and declaring to Posterity the Faith received from their Ancestors and fall to discoursing or rather acting on discourses formerly made they are not in strict formality Councils I mean in that propriety in which they are held to be Infallible but men assembled to be a Council and proceeding now not as a Council but as so many men And must this pass for good Catholick Doctrine that all the men in the Church may err and yet the Church cannot err which preserves Infallibility in the Church by as great a Miracle as the species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament without a Subject But I beseech you When are General Councils Infallible When they decree and define what is Infallibly true Right And thus the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury or York are as Infallible as any General Council Nay any private Christian is as Infallible as either if he adhere to Infallible Tradition But I thought it had been Catholick Doctrine That a General Council are no longer to be considered as men but as the Church representative which is under the Conduct and Influence of an Infallible Spirit to secure them from Error But it seems even a General Council may err only then they err not as a Council but as Men but how shall we know when they are a Council and when they are Men Truly this is not to be known till they have made their Definitions and Decrees and then if they be agreeable to Catholick Tradition they acted as a Council if not they were only Fallible Men. But who shall be Judge of this Who is the Keeper of this C●tholick Tradition Why every Man must judge for himself It is the sence written in the hearts of the Faithful and appearing in their Actions The Writing foretold by the Prophet Jerem. 3. in the bowels and hearts of the house of Israel And thus I hope in time our Quakers may be good Catholicks The Sum then of his Argument whereby he proves That the Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the Church though it be taught by Popes and General Councils is this That the Pope is not Infallible at least that his Infallibility is but a probable Opinion That General Councils are not the Church but Fallible Men when they err and Infallible only when they do not err That though Popes and Councils and all the Men in the Church teach this Doctrine yet the Church does not teach it Now Whether these Propositions be true or false I enquire not but desire all good Catholicks to observe That they must renounce the Infallibility and Authority of the Popes and General Councils of the Church of Rome or acknowledge the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church This Distinction between the Church and the Men of the Church destroys all the Visible Authority of the Church and leaves every man at liberty to judge for himself What is Catholick Tradition which is so loose a Principle that a Doctor of the Church of England would be ashamed of it let them no more talk of a Visible Church if the whole Visible Authority of the Church be not the Church if all those men in whom the teaching and governing Authority of the Church resides whether Popes and Councils may teach such Doctrines and yet the Church not teach them does the Church cease to be a Church when it teaches any thing contrary to Catholick Tradition Then it seems there was no Church during all the time of those Popes and Councils which taught the Deposing Doctrine nor is there any Roman Catholick Church to this day wherein these Doctrines are still taught and will be so till those Decrees of Popes and Councils be repealed which teach these Doctrines Or are they a Church and yet the Church not teach what they who are the Church teach with all the Authority of a Church Or are they a Church and no Church at the same time Is not the Sentence which a Judge pronounces by the Authority of a Judge a Judicial Act though it be contrary to Law And by the same reason Are not the Decrees of the Council which is the Church representative the Acts of the Church though they be contrary to Catholick Faith and Tradition Does a Judge cease to be a Judge or the Church to be the Church when they pronounce false And if not Are not such false Judgments or erroneous Decrees the Acts of the Judge or of the Church still Let him but tell me Whether he will have a Church or no Church and he shall find me very civil in granting either but how this Doctrine will relish with good Catholicks I cannot guess In short these men 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