Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	believe_v	faith_n	infallibility_n	5,890	5	11.4885	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56416	An answer to the most materiall parts of Dr. Hamond's booke of schisme: or a defence of the Church of England, against exceptions of the Romanists written in a letter from a Catholique gent. to his friend in England.	B. P.	1654 (1654)	Wing P5; ESTC R220298	14,092	28

AN ANSWER To the most materiall parts of Dr. HAMOND'S Booke of Schisme Or a defence of the Church OF ENGLAND Against exceptions of the Romanists Written in A Letter from a Catholique Gent. to his friend in ENGLAND LONDON Printed Anno Dom. 1654. AN ANSWER To the most materiall parts of Doctor Hamonds Book of Schisme c. SIR YOu have been pleased to send me Doctor Hamonds Book of Schisme or a defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists as also your letters wherein you lay Commands on me to read it and thereupon to give you my opinion truly Sir both the one and the other could never have come to me in better season for having heard from som of my friends in England a good while since of another book written by one Doctor Ferne to the same purpose as also one lately come out of the Bishop of Deries and of this which you have sent me I was wondering what those who call themselves of the Church of England could say to defend them from Schisme but now your favour in letting me see this of Doctor Hammonds I am freed from my bondage and satisfied in supposition that the most can adde little to what hath been upon that subject of Schisme said by him whom you stile wise and learned and well may he be so but here he hath failed as all men must that take in hand to defend bad lawes which I think to make appeare to you or any indifferent Judge and which I will doe rather upon some observations of severall passages in his booke then consideration of the whole which I will leave for some other who hath more leasure in the meane time I must say with the Poet speaking of some Lawyers in his time Fures ●●t Pedio Pedius quid Crimina raris libratin Antithetis The Roman Catholique sayes to Doctor Hamond You are an Heretick you are a Schismatick Doctor Hamond replies good English some Criticismes much greefe with many citations out of antiquity indifferent to both parts of the question but to draw neere your satisfaction his first Chap. is for the body of it common to both parts Sect. 9. yet I cannot omit one strange peece of logick at the end of it where he concludeth that the occasion or motive of Schisme is not to be considered but only the fact of Schisme of which position I can see no connection to any premises going before and it selfe is a pure contradiction for not a division but a causelesse division is a Schisme and how a division can be shewed to be unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives I do not understand nor with his favour as I think he himselfe Much of the second Chap. is likewise common to both Sect. 3. only he slightly passeth over the distinction of Heresie and Schisme as if he would not have it understood that all Heresie is Schisme though some Schisme be no Heresie Sect. 6. againe treating of Excommunication he easily slideth over this part that wilfull continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schisme what he calls Mr. Knolls Concession I take to be the publique profession of the Roman or Catholique Church and that nature it selfe teacheth all rationall men that any Congregation that can lye and knoweth not whether it doth lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any particular to beleeve what she sayeth neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to beleeve what shee teacheth farther then agrees with the rules of his owne reason Out of which it followeth that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of faith which the Protestants and other Hereticall multitudes have likewise usurped if she be infallible is evidently gentle charitable right and necessary as contrariwise in any other Church or Congregation which pretends not to infallibility the same is unjust tyrannicall and a selfe-condemnation to the binders so that the state of the question will be this Whether the Catholique or Roman Church be infallible or no for shee pretendeth not to bynd any man to tenets or beleefs upon any other ground or title By this you may perceive much of his discourse to be not only superfluous and unnecessary but contrary to himselfe for he laboureth to perswade that the Protestant may be certaine of some truth against which the Roman Catholique Church bindeth to profession of error which is as much to say as he who pretendeth to have no infallible rule by which to govern his Doctrine shall be supposed to be fallible and he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule shall be supposed to be fallible at most because fallible objections are brought against him now then consider what a meeke and humble Son of the Church ought to do when of the one side is the authority of Antiquity and possession such antiquity and possession without dispute or contradictions from the adversarie as no King can shew for his Crowne and much lesse any other person or persons for any other thing the perswasion of infallibility all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of Union on the other side uncertaine reasons of a few men pretending to learning every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men wise and learned and those few men confessing those reasons and themselves uncertaine fallible and subject to error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beleefe as she pretends no other no time no seperation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that he saith he who do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatique because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Scismatique because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismaticall grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Haeresie in Capite and more then for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beleefe and all ground of beleefe and turneth it into uncertainty and Weather-cock opinion putteth us iuto the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae fubmitteh us to Atheism and all sort of miscreancie Let him not then over leape the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick i and an heritique too let him acknowledge he is both In his third Chap. what is cheefely to be noted to our purpose is that his division is insufficient for he maketh Schisme to

saith we judg them and despise them as to the first I have often wondered and do now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our Judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we press it upon them out of love and kindness to keep them from the harm that according to our beleef may come unto them but since they deny they are scismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought until we have cause to beleeve them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed Judgment against them In the last Chapter he compiaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the loss of their Church and arguing with their Disciples in this sort communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst Heoker Ecle poll cha 5. most prudent persons confessedly that ever was amongst them to be a building likely to last but 80 years to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick beleeve his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what he hath said before for ask him how doth it remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters amongst them for his defence against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it wil follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and un-bishoped by another secular Authority if it be said the Parliament which pulled them down had not the 3. bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spirit was wanting both in Parlament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pul them down as to set them up but it will be replyed that though they are pulled down yet are they stil Bishops viz the character remains with them Alas what is their characters if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doct makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the layity and so no character can be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the people as bodie and flock and consequently their Church is gone and this he does out of a word in Rufinus which he supposeth to be taken in a special propriety of Law wheras indeed that Authors knowledg in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such beleef especially learned men saying the contrary But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependant upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or new but from Peter and Paul so shal stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their Doctrines and Arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same Authortly that set them up as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with theirs difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this a counterfeit and tyrannical one to punish a better as concerning the Drs. prayer for Peace communion all good People wil joyn with him if he produce Fructus dignes penitentiae especially if he acknowledg the infallibility of the Church and supremacie of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz We desire that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacie over all the World and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in St Peter from Christ a f●● power to feed direct ond govern the Catholick Church so far the Councel without obeying this the Dr is a Scismatick without consing the other an Heretick but lee him joyn with us in these all the rest will follow Thus Sir you have my sence of Dr Hammonds Book in all the Particulars which I think to the purpose my time nor the brevity fit for a Letter not permitting I should be more methodical and do rest Your Friend and humble Servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. FINIS