Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	name_n	world_n	1,676	5	4.5065	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61458	The church of Rome not sufficiently defended from her apostacy, heresie, and schisme as appears by an answer to certain quæries, printed in a book entituled Fiat Lux, and sent transcribed (as 'tis suppos'd) from thence by a Romanist to a priest of the Church of England. Whereunto are annexed the Romanist's reply to the Protestant's Answer, and the Protestant's rejoynder to that reply. By P.S. D.D.	Samways, Peter, 1615-1693.	1663 (1663)	Wing S545B; ESTC R222361	39,609	116

voluntarily and wilfully left her and if you storme at her because by spiriruall punishments she seeks to reduce you to your former faith you do like Rebells who voluntarily forsake their allegiance and afterwards storme at the King who seeks to reduce them to their former alleglance by severe punishments and if you will needs have the Church of Rome guilty of schisme for forcing you only in this manner then how will you acquit the King that he be not guilty of rebellion who forceth his Subjects in the same manner and so we shall have the King a Rebell and not his Subjects He saith likewise that the Church of Rome hath left her selfe as one may say Reply One that will speak contradiction or not answer the Quaerie may say so for when you say that the Church of Rome hath left her selfe as one may say either you must mean that the whole hath left the whole and this is a flat contradiction or else you mean that she hath left her selfe because certain of her Members have left her but this only shews that they have left her not She her selfe and so the Quarie is left unsatisfied Thus have you a briefe Reply to the Drs. Answer and how solid it is let others judge The Protestants Rejoynder to the Romanists Reply Sir I Received the Paper wherein I know not who maketh a Reply to that accompt which I gave to the Proposalls which you shewed me in the defence of the present Roman-church (a) Facilè est cuiquā videri respondisse qui tacere noluetic aut quid est loquacius vanitate quae ideò nō potest quod veritas quia si voluerit etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas De Civitat Dei lib. 5. c. 27. St. Augustine said it long since and we find it true by experience It is easy for any man to seem to answer another who is resolved not to hold his peace for what is more talkative then vanity which cannot do what verity can because if it pleaseth it can make more noyse than verity The vulgar sort think that he that hath spoken last hath the best cause and so perhaps such of your neighbours that are blinded with the Romish errors conceive all in my Answer abundantly satisfied by the Replyer because he hath thought fitting not to be silent Though I have as little hope to satisfie those who are resolved to continue what they are by my Rejoynder to this Replyer as I had to convince them of their mistake in thinking so well of their Romish church as the first paper would encourage them to do yet lest any of the weaker sort among our selves should think that the Replyer hath sufficiently justified the reasonablenesse of the first quaries by 's accompt to what I wrote or that I were wanting to my duty in defence of the Truth I shall give you a short satisfaction to all the pretensions made by the Replyer for the justification of Rome from Apostacy Heresie and Schisme First the Replyer thinks himselfe concerned to civill at my exceptions against the definition of Apostacy mentioned in the Quaeries he will needs have Apostacy to import as much as is said in the Quaeries not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to Christianity I grant that a totall Apostacy doth but the word signifying no more then a departure it may be more or lesse dangerous according to both the termes of such a motion from what truth and to what error the departure is made (b) Apostasia importat retro cessionē quā dā a Deo quae quidem diversimodè fit secundū'diversos modos quibus homo Deo cōjungitur primo namque homo Deo conjungitur per fidem secundo per debitem subjectā volūtatē ad obediendū praeceptis ejus tertio per aliqu a speciala ad supercrogationem pertmentia sicut per religionē clericaturā vel sacrū ordinē remoto autē posteriori remanet prius sed non cōvertitur 22ae q 12. a 1. Aquinas saith that Apostacy denotes some kind of recesse from God which may come to passe in sundry sorts according to the different means whereby aman is joyned unto God for first'd man is united unto God by faith 2. By the submission of his will to the Divine Precepts 3. By speciall priviledge of super-eminency as by holy Orders and the last being removed the first abideth a man may renounce his Orders and yet not his whole faith let therefore the Replyer turn to his St. Thomas and from him learn to understand what Apostacy signifies or if he please let him consult a better Saint I mean Luke the Evangelist and he shall find him using the word for a particular word of recesse When Saint Paul came to Jerusalem St. James the Bishop of it and the Elders said unto him * Acts 21.21 Thou seest brother how many thousands of the Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law and they are informd of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do we think the Jews had heard that St. Paul did forsake all the law of Moses judiciall morall and ceremoniall no they instance only in circumcision and the customes which were the ceremoniall Law and yet they thought that this recession only was sufficient to denominate him a Doctor of Apostacy (c) Duabus apostasus exisentibus adbuc potest remanere homo Deo cōjunctus per fidem sed si a side recesserit tune omninò a Deo retrocedere videtur id ibid. Aquinas in the place afore-cited affirmeth that one may depart from God by forsaking the order of his profession or degree in the Clergy and also by perversnesse of mind against the Divine precepts and yet notwithstanding these two Apostacies remain conjoyned unto God by faith but if a man depart from the faith and * 1. Tim 4.3 St. Paul saith they do that shall teach to abstain frō marriage forbid the use of meats which God hath created to be received with thanks giving of them which believe and know the truth and will not this Apostacy concerne such as teach thus then he seems to be guilty of a full Apostacy When Bellarmine in his Appendix to his book de summo Pontifice calls Luther an Apostate he speakes properly or not the Replyer I hope will not charge the Cardinall to speak incongruously and yet all the world knowes that Luther renounced not the name and title of Christianity neither did the Cardinall think so But grant what indeed no man not void of common sence can deny that there may be a partiall Apostacy yet the Replyer denies my Minor as he calls it where I instance in the particular doctrines of worshipping Images invocation of Saints halfe-commonion corporeall-reall presence c. I because assumed without proofe and needs there proof that Rome teacheth

and that but of 19 Bishops Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged because the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell I know the Cardinall doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there assēbled but yet it plainly hence appears that restore the Canon to its genuine sence and it declares the present practice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received nay to have receiv'd a check by Men though fewer in number then have met in following Synods yet reverenced for their antiquity being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice and therefore to be had in estimation for their age And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme yet considering that (o) Cùm quae ab illís de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom Pontifice excutentur nemo sit qui accusare praesumat Pope Innocent had acquitted them that met there he would have none to presume to accuse them upon which words Binius concludeth that Baroniues though * Eam synodum legitimā esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries propound and the answer will be proper enough for it was not only required by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved a Provinciall Synod hath authority inferior indeed to that of a Generall Councell but yet ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine that is defended as Catholique for what hath been censured though but by a provinciall Assembly so early in the Church cannot lay claime to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis who admits not that to be such (p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ad emnibus reditum est advers haeres c. 3. which was not taught in all places at all times and by all Christians and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality Antiquity and Consent that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake a constant man against Idolatry who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice and was as devout in his conversation as his (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth as Phosius observeth keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly the Replyer I suppose will not think that any censure of his can take away The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made that the secōd Nicene Councell was not universally received what proof more Authentique then the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis and Frankford alledged by me I have given an accompt of the first already and for that of Frankford this puisne Replyer presumes I suppose without the Lycense of his Superiors to say that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons but concurrs with the Nicent Councel that gives though not Latriam yet honorariam adorationem an honorary adoration to Pictures Two things are to be rejoyn'd t● this reply 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canon● concerning Image-worship and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures were not Cathelique Sanctions As to the First it is evident that the Replyer opposeth the judgment alwell of Bellarmine as of Baronius when he saith That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice Let him turne to his Binius and there he shall find that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed but yet that they thought so What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals I shall not enquire Sure I am that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case he deserves little credit in other of his assertions For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it (r) Tantum abest ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Fran● of urdienci Concilio ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium quidem haud dubiae fidei aut autoritatis Baron Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly professeth by undeniable testmonies to put it beyond all question and so he doth as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus Strabo Amalarius Finimarus A●astatius and many others If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfie the Replyer I could send him to better witnesses to the Annalls set forth by Pythaus (s) Synodus habitu in Franconofu●t in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum Germaniarum Gal liarum Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo missis Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est Pseudo Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus habita falso septima vocata ab Episcopis dānatur Chamler de imag To 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at Frākford where Foelix was condemned and the Pseudo Synod of the Greeks that established Image-worship being falsely called the seventh is cersured by the Bishops So the life of Charles the Great published by the same Pythaeus so Ado and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeu● gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the contents of them which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Councell of Nice It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters doe in this dispute I mean not to say that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice but to under-value the Authority of that Councell as confronting without just Authority the Canons of the second Nicene which they say was a Generall whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above to prove I mean that the Canons of the 2d Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions that is the Canons that give religious worship to images were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine In this enquiry I question neither the number nor the power of such as either called this Assembly or came to it though there lye a great prejudice against Councell opposed by not a few of the Greeks and by almost all the West the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no