Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	council_n	decree_v	3,988	5	10.1493	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B22558	The Popish labyrinth wherein is made manifest, that the Papists are entangled in the fundamental article of their faith, that the church cannot erre / written in Dutch by ... Dr. Simon Episcopius, unto which is added, The life and death of the author ; as also, The life and death of James Arminius, both of them famous defenders of God	Episcopius, Simon, 1583-1643.; Bertius, Petrus, 1565-1629. Oratio in obitum reverendi & clarissimi viri D. Jacobi Arminii. English.; Chardon de Courcelles, Etienne, 1705-1775? Short and compendious history of Simon Episcopius.	1673 (1673)	Wing E3163	56,195	122

of which they cannot rid themselves For first they cannot tell nor intelligibly declare which is that Church which they believe cannot err Secondly it is impossible for them to bring any Demonstrative Argument whereby to perswade themselves or any other impartial man I do not say the Roman but that the Church cannot err I evince these two As to the first Member I thus query with a Papist When you say the Church or the Church of Rome cannot err what do you mean by the Church Do you mean all Christians in general who take Jesus Christ for their Saviour and submit to all his holy Commands so that not so much as one of them can err Doubtless he will deny it For every one of them considered singly apart yea and all conjunctly together may err For all are Members of one Body which ought to have a visible Head from whom they ought to receive Spiritual Life Senses and holy Affections Grant it be so what then Do you think that the Cardinals Archbishops Presbyters and Doctors are the Church He will deny it again Since all and every one singly may err for the same Reason which we have shewn already Do you therefore by the Church understand a general Council consisting of all the Cardinals Bishops and Doctors as representing the whole multitude of Christians whose Head this Council is He will affirm it But granting this although it be grounded on no Reason I will ask further Do you believe then that this Council as it is the Head of the Church cannot err howsoever assembled and whatsoever shall be decreed therein In no wise he will say it ought to be lawfully convocated By whom say I he will say by the Pope of Rome Grant this though it be void of Reason and without Ground yea and they determine or judge contrary to the Practice of the first General Councils Is this Council so convocated that Church which cannot err in its Decrees and Determinations Or is there that Head of the Church to which no Errour is incident Here he will stick or demur somewhat For I will go on to query thus Put the case that this Council decree any thing without the Consent yea contrary to the Judgment and Dignity of the Pope of Rome whether or no can it err therein Here he must of necessity be wholly at a Loss For it is known that not only diverse Ancient Councils both particular and General have past Decrees against his mind and which did diminish the Pope of Rome's Dignity as appears by many Councils in Africa and also in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon and many others But further also it is evident that the General Council of Constance held in the Year 1414. and called by the Pope of Rome John the 23. or as others the 24. At which were present more than a Thousand Fathers deputed or appointed by the Church of Rome and among these above three hundred Bishops decreed with unaminous Consent that the Council was above the Pope and therefore that it was in the power of the Council to expunge Popes out of the Register of the Church and to degrade them even as by the same Council were degraded three Popes who then exercised the Office of the Popedom and among these even Pope John himself who had called this Council and that for four and fiftie or according to others seventie one nefarious Crimes among which were these two First that he had openly denyed the Immortality of Souls supposing that Men dyed like Beasts to which he also added this Second That he affirmed that there was neither Paradise nor Hell as is manifest by the 11th Session Here the Papist must say one of these two Either that such a general Council is the Church that cannot err no not even then when it determineth any thing against the Pope and to the prejudice of his Highness as was done in this Council Or that such a Council is not the true Church and therefore is capable of Errour If he say the Former he will find himself entangled in a Gordian Knot and besides he will oppose the greatest Part of the Popish Doctors especially the Jesuits who not only affirm that the Pope is above a Council but also determine that that Council of Constance is in this respect to be blamed wherein they decreed that the Pope was inferiour to a Council as is clear out of Cardinal Bellarmin and others yea further he will be forc't expresly to confess that the Pope of Rome who hath suceeeded to Peters Right and Power is not the chief or supream Head of all Churches and by Consequence that the Pope of Rome may err in Faith and swerve from the Truth If he say the latter he falls into a new Labyrinth For then he doth not only contradict Councils but also many and diverse both Churches and Popish Doctors And namely the most ancient School of the Sorbon in France which by some is called the first Daughter of the Church which with the greatest part of the French Churches defends and approves of that decree of the Council of Constance Howbeit suppose that he find no difficulty in this matter yet there he will stick that even then he knoweth not and cannot tell or shew that Church which affirms that it cannot err For if a General Council be not the Church or if it may err and doth err when it determines any thing against the Pope or without his approbation I pray what is that which makes the Church not lyable to Errour Haply he will say the Council is the Church when it agrees with the Pope and is confirmed by Him Here again is a new Labyrinth for it may fall out and it very often hath that the greatest Part of the Council may not vote with the Pope Imagine therefore that the greatest Part of the Council do judge and decree something that the Pope disallows of Or that the Pope agree with the lesser Part Which Part in this Case makes the Church Not the greatest For that is contrary to the Pope Doth then the least Part make the Church What Reason What shew of Truth What only because the Pope favours it Then the Pope is the Church For if these few make the Church because the Pope is on their Side then if they were only two who should judge against a thousand others those two with the Pope would make the Church and what speak I of two Although there were only one yea none yet the matter would come to the same Issue the Pope alone at length would be the Fore-castle and Poop and the whole Church which cannot err Although he be even the veryest Knave in the World Yea further not only a Heretick but also an Atheist who denies the Immortality of the Soul Heaven and Hell As Pope John the 23 of whom we have lately spoken of did For which Cause he was degraded by the Council of Constance with so severe a Sentence

foolishly to believe by a Proctour to whom they perswade themselves the Matter is best known although he sometimes be void of all knowledge of matters or else foolishly and without Judgment to catch at all words and syllables which they deem do any way serve their Purpose and Design How tedious a thing it is to enter upon the Stage of Disputation with such every one easily perceives For who seeth not how hard and great a Labour it is to dispatch or put an End to those Questions which are to be demonstrated from the Memory of Ages and so great variety of Books and Histories and being demonstrated so that all way to any further Exception be shut up do produce no Fruit in the Minds of the contrary Party Wherefore those who trouble the People with suc● Things what do they else but involve them in an inextricable Labyrinth whereby the unskilful Multitude either despaireth of an happy Event or End or if they have any Hope they nevertheless cease not to stick fast in the same Mire of uncertainty to wit being dull'd and stupified with the overmuch labour of search This indeed is the readiest Way whereby any one may lord it over the Consciences of simple Men and having entangled them in a Gordian Knot perswade them any Thing But let us propose both these a little more clearly The first I prove thus None will be able to deny that for the asserting the Antiquity not only of the Church but also of a continued and uninterrupted Succession of Bishops in the Church there is necessarily required first a certain undoubted and accurate Knowledge of Authors both Greek and Latin and of all Histories that have been written of this thing And Secondly that to this knowledge there ought to be added a good and quick-sighted Judgment whereby exactly to discern their true and genuine Books from those that are supposititious and adulterate true Histories from those that are foisted in and interlaced those that were composed with Partiality out of Affection and fore-stall'd Opinion from those they composed void of Partiality and Prejudice to reconcile Repugnancies and faithfully to supply Defects How much Pains Trouble and Time it requires every one sees even amongst the most learned for the whole Space of a thousand and six hundred Years there hath been none hitherto who hath been able to perform it The first of them cannot indeed be so much as sought for much less found Shall then the unlearned and unskilful common People who are counted unable to turn over one Book of the Scripture be sufficient to undergo so great a Work as accurately to enquire into all Histories wherewith even whole Barns may be filled and Ships laden The Laicks or lay-People in the the Papacie who laying aside the holy Scripture alwayes talk of Antiquity and Succession bewray a mind stupid and foolish enough because they know nothing more yea happily much less of true Antiquity and Succession than they do of the Scripture indeed being alike ignorant of both It is true indeed that there may easily be drawn up a Catalogue and Index of Bishops where in their Course and Order wherein they succeeded each other they may be set down But that is nothing to the Purpose For the same do the Grecian the Ethiopick Churches and others The Constantinopolitan doth it sayes Bellarmine from the Times of Constantine Caesar in an uninterrupted Series as also Nicephorus who continues the Names of the Bishops even from the very Times of Andrew the Apostle And yet Bellarmine denies and all the Papists with him that the Grecians can of Right claim to themselves a Succession The Succession therefore of Persons is not enough but it is required withal that it be lawful and such as that among the Bishops who have succeeded one another there have been no Heretick Atheist or Apostate among them First it is requisite that it be lawful for as the Papal Decree hath it Dist 79. If any by Money or mens Favour or Popular or Military Tumult without the unaminous and Canonical Election both of the Cardinals and of the following Clergie shall be inthron'd in the Apostolick Seat let him not be accounted Apostolical but Apostatical Secondly it is required that among the Bishops that succeed each other there have been no Heretick among them For for this cause as Cardinal Bellarmine and other Pontificial Doctors affirm the Succession of the Constantinopolitan Bishops is not to be counted lawful because there have been Hereticks amongst them Lib. 4. of the Marks of the Church Cap. 8. He therefore that will judge aright of the Succession of the Bishops of Rome he must of Necessity be most certainly assured of both these even according to the Canons of the Papists themselves But how is this possible Who can undoubtedly know whether all their Bishops have obtained the Episcopacy lawfully Whether some have not obtained the Dignity of Succession by Simony that is by Mony and Gifts as Simon Magus desired to do or by Force Arts and Wiles by Factions and unlawful Suits and Bribings for the same Again if any desirous to read their Histories do find of a certain that even those Writers themselves who have been most devoted to the Pontificians do openly and roundly confess that not only one or two but that many and diverse Bishops of Rome have climbed to the Pontifical Dignity who having been condemned of manifest Heresie have been counted impious Villains Atheists Schismaticks Ruffians and Bands who by Gifts and Bribes by Force and Factions without any precedent Choice or consequent Approbation of the Clergie by dishonest and foul Devices and Guil●●●ve intruded themselves or by Harlots and their Whores have come to the Succession Who I pray can extricate himself out of this Maze of Doubts If you say the best and faithfullest Historians are to be credited in this Case you fall into a new Labyrinth For I demand who are they and by what are they to be distinguished Why shall he derogate from the Credit of the Pontifician Writers For they cannot be termed Hereticks or mortal Enemies to the Church of Rome because themselves were sworn Vassals thereunto and some of them the greatest Flatterers and fawners upon the Popes and the pontificial Dignity He is therefore forc'd to believe that these Writers were impell'd and constrained by the Truth of the thing it self to write these things And suppose that they were not Pontifician Writers What Reason shall perswade that Credit is to be denyed to them as not faithful Writers rather then unto others who were Favourers of the Pope and his Dignity Friendship is no less able to with-hold a Writer from writing the Truth than Enmity or Hatred is He that will deliver Truth to Posterity must write without all Affectation And by what solid Reason and which will convince the Judgment shall we perswade our selves that there hath been any such Writer especially if we live not in the same age and at the

same time with him He that considers these Things without Prejudice ought to be induced to believe that those who endeavour to defend or shelter themselves under Antiquity and Succession do involve themselves in a Labyrinth in which one may easily be intangled but hardly nay nor indeed hardly be disintangled or loosed CHAP. X. That Truth is to be preferred before all Antiquity and Succession whatsoever BUt granting that any one could prove this Antiquity and Succession What will be evinced from thence as to the chief Point of the Matter Nothing at all For Antiquity and Succession of Persons being proved yet the Question concerning Truth will still remain If Antiquity and Succession be not joyned with Truth what I pray do they make for the proving of this Business Antiquity is not the Cause of Truth much less Succession And if Antiquity and Succession ought necessarily to be joyned with Truth then the Truth is first and chiefly to be known which whilest it is unknown so long a man hangs in Suspence Even as if a man should find Money which he certainly knows was coined many Ages before yet remains in doubt whether that Money be made of good Metal or no. Antiquity doth wholly differ from Goodness Nor doth a naughty Person cease to be naught because he is old Not every ancient Custom is good And this is the Cause Why the Fathers discoursing of true Antiquity and Succession would have us chiefly to Mind that Succession which is in Conjuction with the genuine Doctrine and Truth Especially when we have to do with those that reject the Scripture either in Part or in whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Gregory Nazianzen i. e. For the one is a being of the same Mind or Judgment and to sit on the same Throne The other is to be of a contrary Opinion or Judgment and to sit on a contrary Throne The one hath the Name the other the Truth of Succession And Ambrose saith Qui Petri Fidem-non habet is nihil à Petro haereditario Jure obtinet ac frustra gloriatur de Petri Successione That is He that hath not Peter's Faith he inheriteth nothing from Peter and boasteth in vain of his Succeeding of Peter This thing is so clear that even the most learned Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine proveth the same acknowledging both these 1. That the Argument concerning Succession is not brought by his Party to prove that that Church wherein is the right of Succession is therefore to be accounted the true Church but onely to prove that that is not the Church where there is not Succession And 2. That Antiquity and continued Succession doth nothing at all avail the Grecian or at least the Constantinopolitan nay nor all your Patriarchal Churches to prove that they are a true Church because there have been sometimes amongst them Bishops that have been heretical whose Thread therefore of Succession hath been broken and cut off From hence it most clearly follows that though Succession be already proved yet the main Question concerning Truth doth remain still For if when Succession is proved it cannot infallibly be gathered and concluded that that Church is the true Church in whose Hands the Succession is And if farther it ought to appear for certain that no Heresies or heretical Bishops have broken off the Succession Reason it self dictates that Succession is proved in vain or at least to no great Profit unless we be thorowly informed concerning the Truth For whilest the Truth is unknown it is impossible to know whether any thing favour of Heresie or no. But who shall shew us the Truth Or who shall most fully assure us thereof Shall the true Church But where and which is it It cannot be For when Succession of Persons is proved it is not yet certain and undoubted that that Church wherein is Succession hath Truth on its side or hath been alwayes free from Heresie and by Consequence hath belonging to it the Right and Power to point out the true Church What Church therefore shall it be that shall infallibly shew us and say that this is true that that on the contrary is Heretical For the Church that wants Succession according to the Jesuits cannot do it nor the Church in which is Succession as is manifest from the precedent Grounds What then What End is there It is impossible for a Papist to untye this Knot To which I add this over and above Suppose that no heretical Bishops have interven'd or stept in among those that have succeeded but such who as we have said have by Force Faction and popular Tumult by Gifts and Bribes thrust themselves into the Apostolical Seat where I pray will be the Succession Must we indeed believe that holy and saving Truth may better consist with these nefarious Wickednesses than with Heresie and Errour Nay rather if farther it be found in Histories that at one Time and that indeed for fifty or eighty Years together there have been two or three Popes the one of which expunged the other out of the Catalogue of Christians call'd him in Reproach Heretick and Antichrist pronounced him an unlawful Pope cut off two of his Predecessors fingers drew up out of the Earth Bodies already buried and having shamefully abused their Ashes cast them into the Tyber all which three Popes sometimes together have been condemned and degraded and taken out of the Number of Christians by an universal Council as false and unlawful Popes as Hereticks and ungodly Villains by whom notwithstanding there were many Bishops and Clergie men ordained what End or Bounds of Succession will the Thread of Connection find For if it be said for Examples sake That that Pope which in the Times of the Council of Constance was by common Votes substituted in the room of those three Popes which were deposed by the said Council is to be accounted for the true Pope who succeeded in the Room of the last that deceased lawfull Pope the Apostolical Sea being in the Interim vacant and usurped by Force he will fall into a new Labyrinth for that many of the Popish Doctors and Bellarmine by Name and all the Jesuits do determine and urge that this Council is so far to be judged for not lawful in that it decreed that the Council was above the Pope because it was not approved of either by the Pope that is that most impious Knave and Villain John the twentie fourth or twentie third who had called that Council and was by the Sentence of the same degraded or by the Pope whom this Council constituted in his stead For if this Council in that Respect be not to be counted for lawful how then shall a lawful Succession be proved Had then this Council been in this Respect lawful if that Knave and Varlot had approved of the same This is shameful to be spoken and more shameful to affirm that therefore this Council was not lawful because it was nor approved of by him Or had it then been