Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	temporal_a	3,017	5	8.3913	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51590	The Catholike scriptvrist, or, The plea of the Roman Catholikes shewing the Scriptures to hold forth the Roman faith in above forty of the chiefe controversies now under debate ... / by I.M.	Mumford, J. (James), 1606-1666.	1662 (1662)	Wing M3063; ESTC R32100	169,010	338

many nor halfe so cōvincing Texts cā be alleaged against it And yet grāt this and you must grāt all Note that besides these 30. Texts here alledged I have allso all those numerous and most full Texts related at large Point 3. For whatsoever proves that the true Church cannot faile to be a true church proves allso her infallibility For truth of doctrine is essentiall to a true Church If therefore by being fallible and erring the whole Church could recede from the true doctrine of Christ it manifestly follows that the whole Church could faile to be a true Church contrary to these most expresse Scriptures there plentifully alledged 23. Most impertinent is the distinction which our adversaries use to avoide the force of these Texts They say that the Church may be taken in two wayes first for the visible Church containing all beleevers as well reprobate as elect and this Church they say may erre Secondly for the invisible Church which only containes the elect and this they say cannot erre But this is a palpable contradiction if well noted For this invisible Church of the elect which as you say cannot erre is contained in the visible Church in which as you say both reprobate and elect are contained which visible Church you allso say may wholy erre But if the whole visible Church wholy erre then allso the elect contained in it may erre or if they cannot erre thē many in the visible Church cannot erre And yet you cannot find many in any Church visible vpon earth whome you can shew on the one side to have differed from the beleefe of the Roman Church and on the other to have been guarded from errour as those who make the true Church must be Again I have shewed that many Texts here by me cited speake clearly of the visible Church THE SIXT POINT That the Roman Church is this infallible Church and our judge in all points of Controversie 1. THough this Question seemes to import as much as the certaine decision of all our Controversies yet haveing been so long in the former Point we are able to give in a word full satisfaction in this For no man will denye the Church which is proved to be infallible to be the most commodious decider of all Controversies For what can a man wish more to the right decision of his Controversie then a cleare sentence delivered there in by an infallible authority 2. All that can be imagined against what hath been sayd is this That we have not as yet proved the Roman Church to be infallible We have indeed proved the true Church to be so but there seemes a vast labour to remaine to prove the Roman Church to be this true infallible Church and consequently the decider of all Controversies I most earnestly therefore begg of my Reader to note well this one short demonstration and he will see how evidently convincing it is to prove home our full intent even in a word 3. My demonstration is this No Church can be the true infallible Church and decider of all Controversies which teacheth herselfe to be fallible For if any such Church be infallible in all that she teacheth she is infallible allso in teaching herselfe to be fallible And hence it followeth that infallibly such a Church is fallible but every Church in the world but the Romā teacheth herselfe to be fallible wherefore by evident demonstration no other Church upon earth can be infallible But the true Church is infallible as hath been proved by no fewer then thirty Texts therefore by evident consequence the Roman Church by all those Texts is proved the only true Church and our Iudge in all our Controversies THE SEAVENTH POINT That the Chiefe Pastour of this Church is the successor of S. Peter 1. THe old Testament helps vs thus farr in this Point that it teacheth first that amongst the Priests of the old law one was chosen successively to be the highest and chiefe Priest Num. 3.32 The Prince of Princes of the Levitts Eliazar the sonne of Aaron the Priest And Num. 27.21 If any thing be to be done for Iosue theyr Governour Eliazar the Priest shall consult our Lord. At his word shall he Iosue go out and go in and all the rest of the Children of Israël with him By going in and going out all the principall actions are vsually vnderstood in Scripture In those actions therefore God would have Iosue and all the people to depend on the high Priest When then we read Iosue 3.8 that Iosue did commaund the Priests and that Ch. 5. he appointed Circumcision to be ministred and that Ch. 24. he renewed God's Covenāt c. he is to be supposed therin as in all his principall actions to have proceeded according to the above cited Text only executing that which God by Eleazar the Priest had ordeined him to do For example to command the Priests to go with the Arke into Iourdan to administer Circumcision to renew the Covenant with God c. Again when Princes are allso Prophets as Iosue David Salomon and some others were they might have some extraordinary commission to do and order severall things which belong not to the ordinary Iurisdiction of temporall Princes So Kings 2.27 Salomon cast out Abiather that he should not be the Priest of our Lord yet this was done that the word of our Lord might be fullfilled which he spake concerning the house of Helle. Salomon allso as a Prophet by extrordinary commission v. 35. Placed sadoe the Priest for Abiathar 2. Secondly wee have cleerly in the old Testament the distinction of the chiefe Ecclesiasticall and chiefe secular Power 2. Chr. 19.11 And behold Amariath the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord that is Ecclesiasticall affaires Then for temporall or secular affayres Zebediath the Ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters whence it is cleare that the former causes are not matters which aperteine to the Kings 3. Thirdly we have the old law Deut. 17. v. 8. commanding all such causes as are Ecclesiasticall causes to be brought to the Tribunall of the High Priest and his sentence to be obeyed even vnder paine of death I call them Ecclesiasticall causes because the former Text sayth they be matters of the Lord and distinct from matters of the King 4. Fourthly we have out of the new Testament this vnanswerable Text concerning the high Priests even of the old law Matth. 23.2 Vpon the chaire of Moyses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees all therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you observe and doe it No wikedness of the high Priests his person shall excuse your obedience if he sitt vpon the chaire of Moyses Moyses was not only a secular Prince but allso the first high Priest amongst the Iewes Moyses and Aaron amongst his Priests Psal 99.6 Now those who succeed Moyses as he was high Priest are sayd to sitt upon the chaire of Moyses for as he was the secular Prince of the