Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bind_v	earth_n	loose_v	5,255	5	10.5190	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67435	The controversial letters, or, The grand controversie concerning the pretended temporal authority of popes over the whole earth, and the true sovereign of kings within their own respective kingdoms : between two English gentlemen, the one of the Church of England, the other of the Church of Rome ...	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.	1674 (1674)	Wing W631; ESTC R219375	334,631	426

only such as are propos'd for Faith This being admitted as it is universally the difficulty is plainly answered For 't is as plain as can be that here is nothing propos'd for Faith The Emperor is depos'd his deposition is that which is decreed and that is propos'd as a thing to be done not believed To depose is one thing to define they have power to depose is another Had they made such a Decree and obliged all Christians under Anathema to believe it had been to purpose to alledg it But as far as I can learn there was no thought of any such thing in the Council Now for Acting People may act and sometimes very rationally upon probable grounds and such as none are bound to believe And they may have very good grounds for acting in one case which themselves may not think sufficient in another It is very unreasonable out of a particular action to conclude a power which shall extend to all cases when from the bare action there is no necessity of believing a power even in that case The most that can be made of it is that the Council suppos'd or took for granted they had power to do what they did And it may be they had For the Emperor had sworn particularly to stand to the Judgment of the Church He pleaded in this Council by his Procurators who when they saw things go against them made no exception to the Jurisdiction of the Court but appeal'd to a future Council more general pretending all were not present who had right to sit there But why may not a Council take for granted more then every body is obliged to grant This supposition of theirs was undoubtedly one of the Reasons of their Decree And Bellarmin assures us we are not bound to believe any of their reasons So that for his particular he had no reason to expect this Decree should cause belief in any But whether he had or no this is plain without him That where there is nothing to be believ'd there can be no belief and where there is nothing in his languag propos'd for Faith there is nothing to be believ'd Here is something commanded but nothing defin'd and as sure as no Mass no hundred Mark no Definition no Article of Faith Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder to see learned men lay so blindly about them some with great formality citing the Council and heightning its authority by reckoning up the number and quality of those who met there others striving to diminish it by consulting Historians and carefully observing all exceptions they afford when all this while the Authority of it neither applys it self nor can be applyed to the matter in hand For t is evident they defined nothing one way or other and afford us no more then a bare matter of fact past indeed in or by a Council but whatever be true or whether the Fact were just or unjust our belief is not a jot concern'd and this even by the confession of those who most urg the Council The Fate of eager Disputers is upon us with much ado we are where we were again and must either be taught this Doctrine by Decrees which teach nothing or which neither are nor were intended for teaching Decrees or not to be taught it all as far as I perceive For this is the sum total of his ten Councils His fourth and last Argument is He says from Scripture and if you will pardon a scurvy pun t is indeed very far from it so far that one would not readily perceive what Scripture has to do with it As tedious as it is to transcribe I must submit to the pains of setting down and you to the patience of reading his whole Discourse for fear I should be suspected of wronging it by contracting Fourthly says he We prove it from the divine writings as Greg. 7 proves it in 21 Epistle of the 8 Book For we find the Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Bishop of Rome most manifestly founded on Scripture and Tradition in which Primacy is contained most ample Power of governing binding and loosing whomsoever even Kings and Emperors and this neither Barclay nor any Catholick denies But out of this principle is gathered plainly enough that there is in the Bishop of Rome a power to dispose of temporals even to the deposition of those Kings and Emperors For by that spiritual Power the Pope can bind secular Princes by the bond of excommunication by the same he can loose the people from their Oath of Fidelity and Obedience he can oblige the same People under pain of Excommunication not to obey the excommunicated King and chuse them another Besides since the end of spiritual government is the gaining eternal life which is the supream and last end to which all other ends are subordinate of necessity all secular Power must be subject and subordinate to the spiritual power of the supream Ecclesiastical Hierarch which secular power he is to direct and if it deviate correct and judge and in fine bring to pass that it hinder not the salvation of Christian people And this is the reason why both Greg. 7 and Innocent 4. when they depos'd Emperors to shew they did it justly alledg'd the words of our Lord Whatever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Mat. 16. And feed my Sheep Jo. 21. namely to signify that their power to dispose of temporals when the salvation of souls the safety of Religion and preservation of the Church require it depends not on the uncertain opinions of men but the divine Ordination of Christ the eternal King and highest Bishop and who above all is God blessed for ever according to the Apostle Rom. 11. This is every word of what he calls proof from Scripture if you or any else think it so you shall find me reasonable But indeed it sticks with me Let us see The Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Pope says he is founded in Scripture and Tradition and this Primacy extends to Kings and Emperors and contains most ample power of governing binding and loosing and this no Catholick denies Very well and because I must acknowledg my self a Catholick I must acknowledg I think it all very true Thus far we are right Only I take this most ample Power to mean no more then most ample Ecclesiastical power for that is all which Ecclesiastical Primacy imports which Ecclesiastical Power that it extends to Kings and Emperors no King nor Emperor who acknowledges the Ecclesiastical Primacy scruples to admit For they take themselves to be part of the flock of Christ and claim their share in the benefit of the Keys as well as others But out of this Principle says he the deposing Power is plainly gathered The Controversy sure will quickly be at an end now Scripture is acknowledged on all hands and what is plainly there or may be plainly deduc'd from thence will find a ready