Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	session_n	5,616	5	10.5793	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35128	Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.	Carwell, Thomas, 1600-1664.	1658 (1658)	Wing C721; ESTC R20902	499,353	446

pag. 65. But why joyns he a wrangling to an erring Disputer are these think you Synonyma's I esteem his Lordship an erring Disputer yet he had reason to think me uncivil if I should call him a wrangling Disputer If they be not of the same signification why ha's he added in the exposition of St. Augustins words the word wrangling seeing in the sentence here debated there is neither wrangler not any thing like it Oh! I see now it is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Catholique Church when they are ill founded But where findes he any such Disputer in St. Augustins words upon whose Authority he grounds his Position Seeing that most holy and learned Doctor is so far from judging that any one can proceed solidly aud demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholique Church and Occumenicall Councils that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod Universa Ecclesia senti which is held by the whole Church and that they have hearts not onely of stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenicall Council for of that he speaks 3. After this the Bishop makes mention of one who should say That things are Fundamentul in Faith two wayes one in the matter such as are all things in themselves The other in the manner such as are all things which the Church hath defined and declared to be of Faith 'T is not set down who it was that spake thus But whoever he was I am not bound to defend him neither was his speech so proper He might have said some thing like it and have hit the mark viz. That Things are Fundamentall in Faith two wayes one in regard of the material object such as are the prime Articles of our Faith which are expresly to be believed by all The other in regard of the formal object such as are all Things that the Church hath defined to be of Faith because he that denies his assent to any one of these when they are sufficiently proposed does in effect deny his assent to the authority and word of God declared to him by the Church and this being to take away or deny the very formal object of Divine Supernatural Faith by consequence it destroyes the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever Wherefore let any man with the Bishop view as long as he pleases the Morter wherewith this Foundation is laid and if he consider it rightly he will finde it well tempered Our assertion is That all points defined by the Church are Fundamental because according to St. Augustin to dispute against any thing settled by full Authority of the Church and such are all things defined by her is to shake the Foundation Hence the Relator would inferre we intend to maintain that the point there spoken of the remission of original sin in the Baptizing of Infants was defined when St. Augustin wrote this by full sentence of a General Council But I deny that from urging that place of St. Augustin we can be concluded to have any such meaning For by Authority of the Church we mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena Authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima full though not the fullest and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in St. Augustins sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it Wherefore although one grant what Bellarmin sayes That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in an Oecumenical Council but onely by a National yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresie would be justly condemn'd without calling a General Council as one that oppos'd himself against the full Authority of the Church and did shake its foundation But the Bishop sayes Bellarmin was deceived in this business and that the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd in the first Ephesine Council which was Oecumenical I answer first 'c is not credible that Bellarmin who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his concealing the matter had he found it there because it would make nothing against the Catholick Church but rather for it However till the Councils words be brought I desire to be pardoned if I suspend my Assent to what the Bishop sayes Truly I have my self viewed that Council upon this occasion but cannot finde it there I fear therefore his Lordship hath been misinformed But suppose all were there which he pretends yet would it conclude nothing against Bellarmin who onely sayes that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in any General Council and the Bishop to disprove him shewes that some who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresie and Nestorianisme also were condemned in the Ephesine Council But how does this contradict Bellarmin Certain Pelagians were indeed condemned in the Ephesine Council but it was not for Pelagianisme but Nestorianisme that they were condemned Had they been condemned for Pelagianisme his Lordship had hit the mark but now he shoots wide He should have observed that Bellarmin denyed onely the condemnation of the Heresie and not of the persons for holding another Heresie wholly distinct from that of Pelagianisme 4. As for St. Augustins not mentioning the Pope when he speaks in the place before cited of the full Authority of the Church which the Bishop tearms an inexpiable omisson if our Doctrine concerning the Popes Authority were true It is easie to answer there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwayes chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church His Lordships followers might as well quarrel with me because I many times speak of the Authority of the Church without naming the Pope though I do ever both with that great Doctor and all other Catholiques acknowledge and understand the Popes Authority compris'd in that of the Church When my Lord of Canterbury findes in ancient Lawyers and Historians that such and such things were decreed by Act of Parliament without any mention of the King by whose Authority and consent they were decreed would he not think you condemn those Authors also of an inexpiable omission and thence conclude that the King in those dayes had not the prime Authority in Parliament and that whatsoever was said to be decreed by Act of Parliament was not eo ipso understood to be done by Authority of the King 5. We grant what is urged that it is one thing in nature and Religion too to be firme and another to be Fundamental For every thing that is Fundamental is firme but every thing that is firme is not Fundamental Wherefore we distinguisht before in the material

Communion that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques as then respectively call'd either for Reformation or such a Free Council as Protestants now do viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever profefsing the name of Christ. Again the Oath which the Bishops usually take does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but onely that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded But I answer first the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come making no exclusive mention of any Secondly the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme had excluded themselves and perhaps durst not venture to come as knowing that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission it being confess'd that no known Heretique or Schismatique hath right othertherwise then by special leave or permission to sit in Council Those Greeks whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope as the Relatour surmizes but expell'd and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope and had right of assisting in the Council as true Bishops of the Greek Church We are told again that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present and not above forty or fifty Bishops and for the west nearer home it reckon'd no more then one English viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph I answer many more were both call'd and expected who likewise came long before the end of the Council and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming which was sufficient Concerning those of our Countrey the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council as he might have been otherwise he would have found beside the Bishop of St. Asaph Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session and divers others As for his Authority or Right to sit there being not sent or deputed by the English Church we answer such Mission or Deputation is not of absolute necessity but onely of Canonical Provision when time and state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope Now 't is undeniable that for some years before the Council ended the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey we cannot give much credit to him in what he affirms either of France or Spain It sufficeth that in diverse Sessions of this Council many Bishops of both these Nations were present and might have been in all the rest had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them The impediment was not on the Councils part and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority Legality or Liberty of it and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats 't is manifest the Council was so full that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils which even our Adversaries themselves account General 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice But to this the Bishop will by no means yield telling us the case is not alike between the said Councils and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects First saith he the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed not to depart from Scripture but engaged to prove what they defin'd by many testimonies thereof whereas the Council of Trent as the Relatour affirms concluded many things simply EXTRA out of all bound of Scripture leaving both its Letter and sense I answer the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture they alledged Scripture for their Heresie they said in effect to the Father 's then what the Bishop and his party say to us now we are sure and we are able to prove that the Council of Nice had not Scripture for them There is therefore no such disparity between them as the Bishop pretends The truth is both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined but neither of them hold it for their onely rule or so made use of it as to reject Tradition for which the Scripture it self is admitted In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius but because Tradition was the principal thing that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side the Arians partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts which Catholiques brought against them and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion against the Catholique Doctrine As to what he addes in the Margent that the whole Church concluded that Scripture was against the Arians and agreeing with the Council of Nice but that the like consent is not that Scripture is for the Council of Trent and against Protestants We answer the like consent of the whole Church both is and was when Protestants first began that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition which is equivalent to it was for the Council of Trent and against Protestants Is it not evident to go no further back then the Year 1500. that

the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS