Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	authority_n	church_n	person_n	1,479	5	5.0691	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65695	The absurdity and idolatry of host-worship proved, by shewing how it answers what is said in scripture and the writtings of the fathers, to shew the folly and idolatry committed in the worship of heathen deities : also a full answer to all those pleas by which papists would wipe off the charge of idolatry, and an appendix against transubstantiation, with some reflexions on a late popish book called The guide in controversies / by Daniel Whitby ...	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1679 (1679)	Wing W1719; ESTC R39040	107,837	157

because they seemed to be pleased with the blood and fat of beasts he very honestly confesseth that Heathens might plausibly object the like against the God of Israel Contra Julian l. 4. p. 125. D. because he also did require such Sacrifices to be offered to him The very same objection is taken notice of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril contra Jul. l. 1. p. 9. A. and answered by Cyril of Alexandria Again the Fathers frequently object unto the Heathens that diversity of Sects and of opinions which was to be found among their Philosophers but then they spare not to acknowledge that this objection may be retorted against them and then proceed to give what answer they think fit unto it And when Tertullian had argued that the Heathen Gods must be unjust Hot utique in Deum vestrum repercutere est Apol. c. 41. if they by reason of the faults of Christians were induced to hurt their own Votaries he adds that Heathens might retort this argument upon the Christians God and then proceeds to vindicate his God from that objection And yet if in his days the Romish Sacramental God had by all Christians been acknowledged and adored not only this particular but almost all that he and the forementioned Fathers had offered against the Heathen Deities might have been evidently retorted as we have seen already on the Christians God Why therefore did they not confess ingenuously in all those cases hoc in Deum nostrum repercutere est that they might be retorted on the Christians God and spend some time in vindication of their Sacramental God from these retorts § XIV 3. From what hath been discoursed Gorol II. we have as great assurance as sense and reason and the concurrent judgment of mankind can tender that the Host cannot be truly God and consequently that the Trent Council doth oblige all Christians as much as in them lyes to worship that as God which is not truly so and that the Members of the Roman Church are guilty of Idolatry by giving to it that worship which is due to God alone This charge I know doth very much afflict the Romanists because they clearly see that if it be made good against them our Church is justified in her refusal of communion with them seeing without consenting to and frequent practice of Idolatry we cannot be admitted to communion with them whence it will naturally follow that their Church must be as truly guilty of a wretched Schism as Jeroboam and his ten tribes were and consequently that the Major part of the Western Church may be Schismaticks by virtue of these impositions and that no persons separating on the account of the Idolatry required by the Church of Rome from the external communion of that Church can incur the guilt of Schism that the Roman and other Western Churches united with it and the supposed head thereof St. Peter's imaginary Successor is not that true Church-guide to which we are obliged to submit that a reformation may be lawful against the definitions of that Church that abuses in Doctrine and practice may be reformed by a National Church against and then much more without that Authority that National Churches and Councils are not absolutely subject to Patriarchal Hence doth it plainly follow that the doctrine of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the half Communion must be false hence also it is evident that we cannot safely acquiesce in the judgment of the Major part of our Church Governours concerning either the sense of Scripture the Doctrine of the ancient Church or the consent of Fathers or any article of faith defined by them nor safely practise all they do impose and consequently we may rest assured they are not infallible and therefore that there is no necessity for preservation of the Church from Sects and Heresies that they should be infallible nor is there any promise of an infallible assistance in their definitions in the Holy Scripture nor can it possibly be necessary to Salvation to believe the determinations of those Councils which by the Romanists are styled general Hence also it is evident that there can lye upon us no obligation to believe or yield assent to any Doctrines defined by them and consequently that this submission is not the only means of suppressing Heresies and Sects that to dissent from any Doctrine received or defined by them can be no mark of Heresie that there may be great hazard to the vulgar in adhering to the decisions of that Church that a right judgment may be assured that these Church Governours have erred in making this decision that Christians without this infallibility may be sufficiently secure in points of faith that certainty from sense and reason may rationally be pleaded for some Doctrines against the definitions of that Church and her supposed General Councils that all that R. H. hath said for confirmation of any of these propositions must be false And lastly that if a Church committing and teaching Idolatry is no true member of the Catholick Church the Church of Rome must cease to be so CHAP. III. The Contents The objections of the Romanists against the charge of Idolatry are considered and answered as 1. The Objection that the Prophets have foretold that all Idolatry should be extirpated by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles is answered § I. Obj. 2. That if the Church of Rome be guilty o Idolatry then the whole Church of Christ for many Ages before Luther must be charged with the same guilt answered first in general § II. In particular by shewing 1. That Image Worship was not then received in the greatest part of the Western and in some part of the Eastern Church § III. 2. That the worship of Saints departed with mental prayer or upon supposition of their acquaintance with the secret desires of the supplicant was then no article of faith in the Western Church nor is it yet received in the Eastern Church as such § IV. 3. That many in the Western Churches did not then and that the Eastern Churches do not yet give Latria to the Host § V. That this practice is no necessary consequent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor is it necessary that they who do maintain a Doctrine must practise every thing which follows from it ibid. A large account of the Greek Mass § VI. A full answer to all that R. H. offers from that Mass to prove the Host is worshipped with Latria by the Greeks § VII In the times of Arianism Idolatry prevailed over the major part of the Church Catholick and both the Fathers and the Romish Doctors teach that in the time of Antichrist it will prevail much more § VIII § I THESE being therefore unavoidably the consequences of this crime of which they are accused not only by the Church of England but all other Protestants they do with all their wit and subtilty endeavour to demonstrate the falseness of this accusation and muster

things should be changed that had obtained in the Church to hazard their own lives by speaking their minds freely when they could do but little good and being more desirous it should be done by others than themselves Who knows not that when the reformation was begun by Zuinglius and Luther they were encouraged and approved of by the best and the most learned of that Age And that innumerable persons did presently embrace and testifie their approbation of their Doctrine which is an evidence beyond exception of their good inclinations to it Doth not Elias complain that all besides himself in Israel had shamefully revolted to Idolatry and yet we are assured by God himself that the was certainly deceived And if such a great Prophet erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own Country why may not you mistakein thinking that in the former Ages of the Church all the professed members of it did bow the knee to your Baal 2. There is no necessity there should be Histories or Records of all those persons who disliked any of the practices which commonly obtained in the Church Apud Hott Hist Ecc. Sec. 16. Part. 2. p. or were possessed with that hatred of the false worship generally received Cat. test ver l. 19. p. 867. as Wesselus was or said as did Domitius Calderinus when by his friends constrained to go to Mass Eamus sanè ad communes errores Nor 3. Is it necessary that all the Histories and Records of this kind which have been written should remain and much less that they should continue perfect and uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all the power in her hand hath been so wickedly industrious by her Indices expurgatorii to corrupt all Histories Records and Monuments of Antiquity which make against her But to omit all these advantages I shall ex abundanti shew the falshood of this suggestion in all those three particulars out of those Records which yet remain and have escaped her destructive hands And § III 1. Idolatry as it imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The worship or religious service of an Idol or the similitude of any thing in heaven or earth made to be worshipped in the service of Religion I say Idolatry in this which is the prime and natural import of the word was not the practice of the whole Church of Christ for many Ages before Luther For 1. The German and the French Churches saith Cassander Consult Cap. de Imag. p. 201. after the Council held at Frankfort most constantly continued for some Ages in that sentence which they first received from the Church of Rome viz. That Images were neither to be broken nor yet to be worshipped If then the German and French Churches continued firm in this opinion for some Ages after the Council held at Frankford A. D. 794. they must have constantly maintained it in the VIII and the IX Centuries And that they held the same opinion in the IX Century is evident from Agobardus Bishop of Lyons who was make Bishop by consent of the whole Clergy of that Nation For he wrote a Book against this Image-Worship Sect. 30. wherein he hath declared that it is contrary both to Scripture and Tradition and the Doctrine of the Old Roman Church Sect. 35. and also that whosoever worships any molten or graven Image doth not honor God Quod omnes tum in Gallia ut etiam Sirmondo observatum est consentiebant Balhuz Not. in Agobar p. 88. or Angles or holy men but Idols and in which he doth fully Answer the exceptions and evasions of the Roman party And yet Balbuzius and Sirmondus do ingenuously confess that Agobardus hath writ only that which the whole Church of France did then acknowledge Moreover in this IX Century the Second Nicene Synod was declared to be a Pseudo Synod or falsly to retain the name of Synod L. Contra Hincmar Laudun Cap. 20. Ad. A. D. 792. A. D. 794. Chrot A. D. 794. because it Decreed for Image-worship by Hincmarus Rhemensis and Ado Viennesis In the X. Century it is so stiled by Regino Abbas Prumiensis In the XI by Hermannus Contractus an Author of great Credit and Reputation in the world And that the Germans continued of the same mind in the XII Century Lib. 2. de Imp. Isaachi Angel F. 199. is evident from the plain words of Nicetas Choniates who saith that then among the Germans and Armenians the worship of Holy Images was equally forbidden And that the French Church then believed the Doctrine of the Second Nicene Council to be against the definition of the Orthodox and Antient Fathers is evident from the Continuator of Aimoinas De Gestis Francorum l. 5. c. 28. who plainly tells us that the Fathers of the Nicene Synod otherwise decreed concerning Image = worship than the Orthodox Doctors had before defined And Ivo Bishop of Chartres then declared this to be the judgment of the Council of Eliberis Nos illas non adoramus l. 1. c. 3. Num. 1. that Pictures ought not to be worshipped but that they only should be memorials of what is worshipped Was it then received by the French Church in the XIII Century No Durandus a French Bishop in his Rationale doth expresly say we do not worship Images and he moreover gives this admonition to them that do so L. 4. C. 39. N. 3. If neither men nor Angels are to be worshipped let them consider what they do who under pretence of Piety do worship divers Images for it is not Lawful to worship that which is made with hands Was it then received in the XV. Comp. Theol. in explic praecepti primi Ed. Paris 1606. Century No Gerson Chancellor of Paris who flourished Anno Domini 1420. saith we do not worship Images and that they are forbidden to be worshipped and that the words of the commandment Thou shall not bow down to them nor worship them must be thus interpreted Thou shall not bow thy body or thy knees unto them thou shall not worship them with the affection of thy mind When therefore was it that this Image-worship obtained in the Gallican Church Answ Pithoeus doth ingenuously confess that it is but of yesterday If we be willing saith he Praes in Hist P. Diaconi seriously to confess the truth it is but very lately that our people began to be in love with Images Moreover in the VII Century it was condemned by a Karolus Rex Franciae misit Synodalem librum ad Britaniam sibi à Constantinopoli directum in quo proh dolor multa inmconvenientia verae fidei contraria reperichantur maximè quod poene omnium Orientalium doctorum unanimi assartione confirmatum fuerit Imagines adorari debere quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur contra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolam ex authoritate divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter dictatam illamque cum eodem Synodali libro in