Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41553
|
A request to Roman Catholicks to answer the queries upon these their following tenets ... by a moderate son of the Church of England.
|
Gordon, James, 1640?-1714.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing G1282; ESTC R9547
|
37,191
|
48
|
far removed from them yet their minds should be at rest because he had already invested St. Peter with a Paternal Authority or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them when he promised to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but since in our Saviour's reproof we find no such Insinuation may it not be pertinently doubted if ever he meant any such matter 11. I would demand how the ensuing particulars can be reconciled to a formal Jurisdiction of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles 1. The Care of all the Churches being committed to every one of them in solidum 2. St. Peter was sent by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem to Samaria he that gave the Commission having rather the Authority than the Person commissionated 3. His being called to an account for conversing with Cornelius the Centurion in Caesaria and other Gentiles by those at Hierusalem velut vehementur infensi as S. Chrysostom phraseth it 4. If St. Peter was then Supreme Governour wherefore did not the controverting Christians at Antioch address first to him in order to the indicting of a Council 5. Wherefore did St. Iames preside therein and by his Verdict determine the Controversie if we believe Eusebius and Epiphanius and not St. Peter on which account and because he was the first Bishop of Hierusalem and of the Christian World Epiphanius positively asserts that St. Iames was invested by our Saviour with a Superiority over all the Apostles 6. Wherefore was not that Decree issued forth in the Name of Peter if he was the Monarch of the Church 7. Why was St. Paul so immethodical to reckon Iames before Cephas or Peter and so arrogant as to say that he was in nothing inferiour to the chiefest Apostles for if St. Peter was his Superiour he came short of him in something which is very material and that is Authority 8. Was not St. Paul a very unmannerly Vassal to rebuke his Lord and Master for Judaizing and so solemnly that both Jews and Gentiles were witness to the Reproof 9. How could St. Cyprian say that the rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Finally How could Eusebius aver in his Old Editions before they suffered the Index Expurgatorius that Peter Iames and Iohn were appointed Princes of the Apostles and that these three were equal 12. Since P. Leo the Tenth with the consent and approbation of the Lateran Council which they account General declares that our Blessed Saviour did institute St. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of the Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that whosoever would not was punished with Death thus Binius Concil Tom. 9. it may be pertinently demanded if they have Five Books of the Kings for in the Vulgar Version which have four of that Name there is not any Syllable which insinuates any such matter 13. If the Bishop of Rome was invested Iure Divino with an universal Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church or if the Roman Church either in its Head or Members severally or in all conjunctly be indued with an infallible Spirit how comes it to pass that all the antient Apologists were guilty of such a Supine Negligence from Iustin Martyr the first of them who lived Anno 150. to Theodoret inclusively who dyed about the middle of the Fifth Century as never to mention that most admirable Prerogative of the Roman Church above all the Societies in the World since some of them descend to many minute Particulars which are long ago obsolete and out of date in all the Churches of Christ 14. If it be a sufficient Answer for the Silence of the Apologists to say that they are so succinct that they had no room for such a matter For though it is easily granted that of Asianus Melito Quadratus and Aristides we have but Shreds in Eusebius and that Athenagoras Tatian Theophilus Antiochenus Minutius Foelix Cyprian ad Demetrianum I. Firmicus Maternus are very brief not to speak of many Orations written by the Fathers against Iulian the Apostate the Jews and Gentiles in general which are also reckoned among the Apologists and are yet briefer yet the two Apologies of Iustin Martyr with his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew all the Works of Clem. Alexandrinus save his Paedagogus the larger Apologetick of Tertullian with his lesser ad Scapulam and some Books against the Jews and Gentiles the eight Books of Origen against Celsus the seven Books of Arnobius contra Gentes and so many of Lactantius his Institutions Eusebius de demonstratione praeparatione Evangelica S. Augustin his 22 Books de Civitate Dei Theodoret his 12 Books de curandis Graecorum affectibus all these are pretty Voluminous yet ne gru quidem not the least word or insinuation of any such prodigious privilegeof the Roman Church either in its Head or Members 15. What greater Elogy could have been given by any of the Fathers to S. Peter than that which S. Chrysostom applies to S. Paul that he was the Light of all the Churches the Foundation of the Faith the Pillar and Ground of Truth 16. Might not the Bishop of Antioch have claimed by virtue of Succession a Superiority over all the Organical Members of the Catholick Church as well as the Bishop of Rome since it is certain S. Peter resided seven years at Antioch and it cannot be proved from any Authentick Record that he was one year at Rome 17. May not the Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of us all with better reason claim an universal Monarchy over the Church by virtue of Succession since the unquestionable Head of the Church dyed there And S. Iames the Lord's Brother was unquestionably the first Bishop of the Christian World whence Epiphanius concludes that the Principality over the Church was due to him and not to St. Peter 18. Since it s granted by Bellarmin and others that St. Peter's Martyrdom at Rome was but accidental there being no Scripture Promise or Catholick Tradition for it can the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his See pretend to S. Peter's Spirit and Power upon better grounds than Vibius Rufus did to the Genius of the Great Caesar because he bought his Chair 19. Could any of the Fathers have Complemented the Bishop of Rome with an higher Hyperbole than Synesius the Bishop of Cyrene did his Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria none of the best of men for he was a great Persecutor of S. Chrysostom by calling his Advice a Divine Response and an Heavenly Oracle 20. Can any Instance be given of any Bishop of Rome who before the famous Council of Nice presumed to exercise any proper Act of Jurisdiction without the proper Bounds of his own Patriarchat called the Suburbicarian Churches except P. Victor who for attempting to Censure others without his own Precinct was severely reprehended by Irenaeus and P. Stephen who was justly censured by
Qu. 1. WHen Nectarius with his Church of Constantinople discharged for ever the Office of Penitentiaries because of a scandalous Deacon can it rationally be presumed that this Office was ever reputed by them a Sacrament but rather at the best an Expedient to prepare men for it for we are bound in Charity to think that neither the Bishop nor that Church would have ever consented to the Abolition of a Sacrament for the sake of such a Scandal as happened in the mis-management of it or if they had done so much less can it be imagined that the greatest part of the Christian Church would have concurred with them in it Moreover since the ancient Church had no Form of Absolution but only the admitting Penitents to the Communion where then shall the Form of that pretended Sacrament be found among the Ancients 2. If the Absolution of a Roman Priest hath the power to convert Attrition that is such a consternation of mind as fell upon Iudas when he went and hanged himself into the Grace of Contrition as divers Popish Casuists aver had it not been an unspeakable happiness to that Betrayer of the best Master that ever was to have rencountred in the way of striving such a Priest when he was seeking after some Instrument to become Felo de se. SECT XV. Of the Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies restraint therefrom Qu. 1. IF Marriage be a Sacrament and confer Grace as Baptism and the Eucharist wherefore do they restrain their Consecrated Persons from that supernatural Quality since it s only an Ecclesiastical Restraint they pretend unto 2. Since God hath sufficiently declared his Approbation of the Marriage of the Clergy in that the whole World hath been twice by his Appointment Peopled by Two married Priests viz. Adam and Noah and that he tyed the Priesthood under the Law to a Race of married People and that the Scripture hath told us Marriage is honourable in all and placeth it among the Qualifications of a Bishop That he be the Husband of one Wife having faithful Children not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Gangra nor of the Discourse of Paphnutius in the Council of Nice nor of Spiridion S. Hilary Eucherius Lugdunensis and many other Primitive Bishops who were married beside the Apostle S. Peter may it not be pertinently enquired if the Church of Rome borrowed their Doctrine of the unlawfulness of the Marriage of Priests from the Manichees who allowed Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Laicks but forbad it to their Elect as that Church doth to her Priests 3. Had not Aeneas Sylvius afterwards P. Pius the 2d good reason to write that in consideration of the vile Abuses of the Celibacy of the Clergy whatever reasons the Clergy had at first to restrain them from Marriage now for much better Reasons they ought to be restored to that which God hath made the Privilege of all men who cannot contain SECT XVI Of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Quest. SUppose the Administration of Extreme Unction to dying persons as a Sacrament had been the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church in all Ages though for a Thousand years after Christ we find no such thing how can the Practice of the Roman Church be reconciled to the Doctrine of S. Iames or S. Mark for these are their Scripture-pretences who manifestly shew us that the design of that Anointing was the recovery of the Patient the gift of miraculous Healing not being ceased in the days of S. Iames whereas the Romanists do not practise that Ceremony till all hope of Recovery is past SECT XVII Of Tradition Qu. 1. OF those who magnifie the Tradition of the Church so highly as to imagin that the very Credit of the Scripture depends thereon or that it gives the Scripture its Authority which is as much as to say that Man gives Authority to Gods Word it may be demanded What if the Church should have concealed or taught otherwise of those Writings than as of the undoubted Oracles of God would she not have erred damnably in her Tradition 2. Since Tradition in the Roman Church is taken in to supply the Imaginary defect of Scripture and the Authority thereof to supply the defect of Tradition doth it not hence follow that neither Scripture nor Tradition signifie any thing without the Churches Authority And consequently it must needs be the Rule of their Faith that is They believe themselves 3. Since the Doctrine of the Millenaries was unanimously received as an Apostolick Tradition in the 2d and 3d Centuries of the Church meerly upon the Authority and Antiquity of Papias who lived presently after the Apostles and yet by St. Hierom and many of this present Age looked upon as an Imposture and if both Irenaeus for his asserting that our Saviour suffered about the Fiftieth year of his Age and Clem. Alexandrinus that he died for the Sins of the World about the Thirtieth year of his Age are judged exceedingly mistaken and not without good ground notwithstanding they both pretended an Apostolick Tradition as having conversed with Apostolick Men Irenaeus having written An. 180. and Clemens 190. And in fine since in that famous contention about Easter which miserably afflicted the Church in the days of P. Victor Bishop of Rome by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western one pretending Oral Tradition from S. Iohn and S. Philip and the other from S. Peter and S. Paul may it not be pertinently demanded What stress can be laid upon a pretence of Apostolick Tradition sixteen hundred years after Christ suppose it were now become Universal but especially when it is but the particluar Tradition of a particular Church 4. What greater certainty can be given of the uncertainty of Oral Tradition as it is contradistinguished from the Scripture than this consideration that of all Christ said and no doubt he spoke much in point of Morality which is not expressed in the Gospels nothing is found in any Authentick Record save the Scriptures except that one expression preserved by S. Hierom Be thou never merry unless thou see thy Brother living in Charity for which notable expression we have the sole Authority of S. Hierom 5. Since its evident from the penult of S. Iohn's Gospel at the end as also the close of the last Chapter That our Saviour did many great things which are not recorded in Holy Scripture is it not a great Evidence of the great incertainty of Oral Tradition that none of all those Miracles not found in Scripture are conveyed to us by any warrantable Record the Legends which contain some of those pretended Miracles being rejected as Fabulous by the best Criticks of the Roman Church SECT XVIII Of that Thred-bare question Where was your Church before Luther Qu. 1. OF those who are still harping on that Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther May it not as pertinently be demanded Should a Revolt happen from the