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	patriarch_n	5,362	5	9.9527	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19220	The Catholike moderator: or A moderate examination of the doctrine of the Protestants Prouing against the too rigid Catholikes of these times, and against the arguments especially, of that booke called, The answer to the Catholike apologie, that we, who are members of the Catholike, apostolike, & Roman Church, ought not to condeme the Protestants for heretikes, vntill further proofe be made. First written in French by a Catholike gentleman, and now faithfully translated. See the occasion of the name of Huguenots, after the translaters epistle.; Examen pacifique de la doctrine des Huguenots. English	Constable, Henry, 1562-1613.; W. W., fl. 1623.	1623 (1623)	STC 5636.2; ESTC S109401	62,312	88

space the Pope neither once called any general Councell nor sat President in it The first of Nice was called by Constantine the great That of Constantinople by Theodosius Senior That of Ephesus by Theodosius Iunior That of Chalcedon by Marcianus the Emperour The same also may bee affirmed of those that sat President in them In the Councell of Nice was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine President In the Councell of Ephesus Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria And thus much may suffice for so euident a truth Secondly he answers That it is nothing repugnant to the equity of a great Prince to bee both Iudge and Partie In so much as a Soueraigne Prince is perpetually Iudge vntill hee bee lawfully declared to haue forfeited his principality although the suite bee commenced against himselfe But I say that there is still a third which arbitrates betwixt the Prince and his Subiects when there is a suit betweene them And although the Iudge bee the Princes Officer yet may he pronounce sentence against him which himselfe cannot repeal and there is no Prince but a Tyrant that would reuerse that iudgment as the Pope hath done in disanulling the decrees of the Councels of Basil Constance made against himselfe But admit I should confesse that a Prince might bee Iudge in his owne cause yet ought that to be vnderstood in a suit of mean consequence but when the controuersie be whether he be a lawfull King or not we may well assure our selues that he would neuer bee deposed if hee might bee his owne arbitrator and of this nature is the first Article of the processe against the Pope The Huguenots deny him to be head of the church How then I pray shall this Controuersie bee decided if there be no other Iudge besides himselfe Thirdly hee shewes by examples that Pope Marcelline Sixtus the third Symachus Leo Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria Cyril and Leo the first were Iudges in their owne causes As for S. Marcelline saith he when as hee had offered Incense vnto Idols hee went and accused himselfe in the Councell of Sinuessa and yet durst no man denounce Sentence against him but all the Bishops cried out with one consent Father iudge thy selfe with thine own mouth To which I answer That it is easie to discouer this to be but a forged Councell which brings in the Emperor Dioclesian talking with S. Marcelline at Rome and enticing him to Idolatry whereas Dioclesian was at the same time at Nicomedia a City of Bithinia Secondly there is a great deale of difference betweene a plaine case a right in question For S. Marcelline was accused of an act of which he was most apparantly guilty So that the Bishops perceiuing that the Pope denied not the fact and that hee was penitent for it offered to referre themselues to that sentence which hee would giue against himselfe lust as if a man should say to a Theefe that were taken in the manner Thou seest thy selfe openly guilty thou knowest likewise the punishment ordained by the law for such offences What thinkest thou that thou hast deserued Speake a Gods name and bee thine owne Iudge surely this would bee very acceptable to all malefactors to conclude thereupon that they should haue no other Iudges goe vpon them but themselues His second example is of Sixtus the third who being saith hee accused of adultery would haue a Synode called by th' Emperours authority But they would not nor indeed durst they saith hee meddle with his Cause before all the Bishops were met and that they vnderstood the Popes pleasure whether hee were willing to haue them so decide his businesse or not I answer that this was but a singular fauour shewne him by the Emperour Valentinian by reason of his innocency For the Pope himselfe was willing that other men should haue beene Iudges in his businesse But it followes not hereupon that euery Pope in euery cause ought to clayme the same priuiledge but the contrary rather viz. That Pope Sixtus the fift who would not suffer himselfe to bee indged by any other man ought to haue beene so because Sixtus the third who would haue been so was not What necessity is there in censuring him whose innocency is cleare and as it was a token of innocency in the one to submit himselfe vnto censure so to refuse all mens verdicts but his own is an euidence that hee findes himself guilty But I demand now whether that singular priuiledge granted vnto Sixtus must thenceforth be taken for a leading cause or not If he answers no then is this instance nothing to his purpose if yea The Catholikes will oppose it for Bellarmine confesseth that in case of heynous crymes a Councell may be called to sit vpon the Pope But the thinks not peraduenture that Sixtus was accused of any heinous crime which as I thinke is the reason that hee names not his fault because he barely intimates that he was accused of Adultery whereas indeed hee was accused for defiling of a Nunne which wee good Catholikes style not Adultery but Incest by reason of the spirituall consanguinity which is betwixt a Priest and a Nunne His third example is of Symachus whose consent saith hee was required euen for the calling of that Councell wherin himselfe was accused The Huguenots will desire no more at the Popes hands then to doe as Symachus did for albeit his consent went to the calling of the Councell yet when it was called hee tooke not vpon him the part of a Iudge in it but with all humblenesse purged himselfe before the Councel of those crimes which hee was charged withall The fourth example is of Leo the third of which passage the troath is this The Romans bearing a spleene to Leo for that Charlemaigne the Emperour had inforced them to sweare alleageance to him out of meere malice laid many slanders vpon him But Charlemaigne appearing at Rome they for feare of him durst not stand to it to prosecute their proofes against him but at the very first canuasse they all cryed out That the Apostolike Sea could not bee iudged by any man Which clamour testifies nothing else then That is the nature of the vulgar to fall from one extreame to another And therefore they hauing slandered the Pope before out of malice they afterwards thought to curry fauour againe by flattering him for feare But let vs heare what followes Did not Arrius saith hee heretofore dispute the case in a matter of faith with Alexander Notwithstanding was this Alexander iudge in the Councell of Nice Was not Cyril President in the Councell of Ephesus notwithstanding hee was one of the parties And who but Leo sat President at the Counsell of Chalcedon notwithstanding that all the difference then was betwixt him and Dioscorus I answer That the controuersies which then were betwixt Alexander Cyril Leo and the foresaid Heretiques concerned them no more then it did the rest of the Bishops of the Church whereas

the meanes So that albeit wee are not to examine the Decrees of that Councell which hath vsed these meanes yet may wee enquire whether it hath applied these meanes or no for that we cannot be otherwise assured that Gods Spirit did assist it The Huguenots I know well will require another manner of tryall not onely of the course in the proceedings but of the Articles also concluded vpon But that the Hugenots may not haue a twofold aduantage against vs we should doe well to shew them first That the Councell of Trent hath obserued these lawfull courses and then shall wee haue but one thing to doe which is To make good the Articles which are so difficult to be proued that it would be wisely done of vs to put it off as long as we can and first to decide all other differences CAP. 5. That the Councell of Trent hath not as yet been receiued in France EVen as the Kings of France ought to haue no one thing in greater recommendation then to be the inheritors of the vertues of their predecessors so should they not likewise bee more carefull of any thing then to eschew such occasions as might soile the reputation of this vertue and bewray them to haue cooled in the zeale and piety of their Ancestors who as all know haue euer beene accounted the eldest sonnes of the Church and the maine vpholders of the Sea Apostolique and for that one reason of this their zeale haue receiued more priuiledges and honors then any other Prince of Christendome whatsoeuer Now then seeing that the Councell of Trent hath established so many decrees so directly opposing the former priuiledges and honors what hath it done more by so doing then to proclaime to the world That the Kings at this day haue lesse zeale then their Ancestors had and are therefore vnworthy to enioy those honors bestowed vpon them So that the reason why our later Kings haue reiected the said Councell may bee for that they could not well approue of that without reprouing of themselues nor publish it without publishing also vnto the world a shamefull confession of their owne demerits But to come to the point I purpose onely to buckle to the obiections of the Catholike Apology which our Aduersary offers to confute and those be three 1 That the Kings of France haue euer refused that Councel 2 That it hath called in question the precedency and priority of place which was due vnto our Kings in all assemblies 3 That there be diuers things decreed in the said Councell flatly against the liberties of the French Church and the Maiesty of the King As for the first point namely that it hath neuer beene receiued by our Kings he answers to it in generall That this obiection touches not so much the Councell as it reproacheth the Kings of France For what else can this meane saith he then to perswade all men that our Kings haue beene Schismatikes and disobedient to the Vniuersall Church I answer That it is no newes to haue the Kings of France oppose themselues against the Councels of the Church of Rome seeing that not the Councell of Trent alone hath beene refused by King Henry the second and all his Sonnes who reigned after him but euen the generall Councell of Vienna also was neuer wholly receiued in France And euen as King Henry the second forbade his Bishops to be present at the Councell of Trent so would not King Charles the seuenth suffer his to bee present at that of Basil and yet was not he any whit the more a Schismatike as our Aduersary concludes nor disobedient to the Church vniuersall But let vs see now how hee demonstrates the Councell of Trent to haue beene receiued by our Kings There be certaine Letters saith he of Charles the ninth yet to be seene in which he honoureth and reuerenceth that Councell and in the very same page to answer that obiection of K. Henrie the seconds forbidding his Bishops to repaire vnto that Councell he hauing nothing else to say then That it is not so necessary to looke so narrowly into what King Henry did at the beginning for that the admitting or receiuing of a Councell ought not to be taken from the beginning but from the ending of it According to which rule I also answer That the Letters sent by Charles the ninth before the Councel broke vp do not proue his approbation of the Councell because he refused to receiue it when it was fully ended For if the reiecting of it by King Henry the second before the end of it does not proue that hee did finally reiect it no more doth that honor which Charles the ninth did it before it broke vp proue that he did receiue it Secondly The King saith he shewed the reason why the Bishops of France came no sooner to the Councell which is one of the most pleasant Arguments that yet I euer heard For if this be a sufficient reason to proue that the King did receiue the Councell because he gaue a reason for the absence of his Bishops then haue the Protestant Princes of Germany also receiued it because they publisht a whole booke of the reasons that moued them to absent themselues from thence Thirdly The King sayes he sent his Orator and Ambassador the Sieur de Lansack Knight of his owne Order thither who in his Maiesties name was at the Councell with whom he ioyned in commission Reginald Ferrier President of the Parliament and Guy de Faur Iudge Maior of Tholouse A goodly proofe The King approued of the Councell because hee sent his Ambassador thither As though the Electors of Germany of the confession of Ausburgh sent not their Ambassadors thither also Where then lies the force of his Argument is it in this that Monseur de Lansacke was a Knight of the Order or in this That he was accompanied by Monseur du Ferrier de Pibrac For no other sense can I collect out of his words nor any other proofe for the receiuing of the Councell nor is there indeed any other For the King sent not his Ambassadors to the Councell to confirme it but to admonish it to reforme the abuses of the Church giuing expresse charge vnto his Ambassadors that they should sollicite the Fathers not to decree any thing against the Huguenots vntill they themselues had first of all reformed the abuses in the Ecclesiasticall Polity And in case that this were not done then that they should protest against the said Councel all which appears in the Letters which the King himselfe sent vnto Monseur du Ferrier See here then the briefe of the Kings Commission and of Monseur du Ferrier and de Pibrac their Orations in the Councell They both and Monseur du Ferrier especially often in the Kings name requiring the reformation of the abuses of the Church Which admonitions for that the Councell did reiect they according to their Kings command reiected the Councell and refused to

King the Bishops the Clergie and likewise of all the people of France Admit it were so yet for all this does it not follow that it is receiued in France vnlesse hee can shew withall that all the Estates doe receiue it that is The Church the Nobility and the People But hee makes no mention of the Nobility but onely of the Church and the third Estate so that at the most it is receiued but of two of the three Estates which may be the cause that our Aduersary to keep vp the number diuides the Church into two parts viz. Bishops and Clergie The Councell saith hee is receiued of the Bishops the Clergie and likewise of all the people of France Which is a new diuision of the Estates neuer as I perswade my selfe heard of before Iudge then what iust occasion the Nobilitie of France now haue to reiect this Councell when as those who would haue the Councell receiued doe reiect the Nobility CAP. 6. That the Huguenots may very rightly bee accounted members of the Catholike Apostolike and Romane Church THis Chapter at the first blush seemes to treat of the same Argument that the first does for hauing there proued it That the Huguenots are of the same religion with vs Catholikes it may follow also that they bee of the same Church too And yet to my thinking these two Chapters may very well bee parted not so much in regard of the difference of the nature of the subiect as of the humours of the persons For commonly when a Huguenot would draw a Catholike to his opinion he begins euermore with the particular Controuersies and so vpon the purity of his doctrine hee inferres the verity of his Church A Catholike on the other side when hee would winne a Huguenot beginnes still with the Church and so by the verity of the Church concludes the purity of his doctrine and commonly when either of them gets the other out of this tracke they are to seeke which is one of the reasons that they cannot satisfie the aduerse partie For he that would perswade another must not begin with that principle which to him seemes best though indeed it be so but with that which seemes best in his opinion whom hee desires to perswade otherwise hee shall but lose his labour For when a Huguenot shall haue vrged a thousand passages of holy Scripture to proue the truth of his owne particular assertion hee shall not bee a whit the nearer and why For that a Catholike will say instantly with himselfe What though I cannot answer him yet another may and if I am to beleeue nothing which I am not able to maintaine by disputation then should I not beleeue the proceeding of the holy Ghost the vnion of both Natures in Iesus Christ the mysteries of the holy Trinity all which I haue beleeued without being able to maintain them or so much as vnderstand them And euen so the authority of the same Church which makes mee beleeue these mysteries without being able to maintaine them makes me also to beleeue the holy sacrament of the Altar Purgatory c. without being able to maintaine them So that if a Hugu proceeds no further does not shew a reason how a man may be assured of these mysteries without the Churches authority or else which I hold more reasonable why wee ought wholly to relye vpon the authority of the Church in one point and not in another hee shall neuer say ought to the purpose Nor can the Catholikes haue any happier success in their perswasiues for when they talke to the Huguenots of the Church how the Church saies this and the Church saies that and the Church cannot erre They who are not brought vp to such kinde of phrases and who found their faith vpon this perswasion That the Scripture is cleere on their sides What care wee will they say what the Church saith so long as wee agree in opinion with the word of God So that a Catholike shall neuer bee able to perswade them to any thing if hee beginnes not at their foundation and proue that the Scripture makes not so clearely for them as they imagine it does and then when they once perceiue that they cannot confute the Catholikes by Scripture they will bee compelld to confesse That a man can haue no assurance of his faith without submitting his own iudgment to the iudgment of the Church which as wee say according to Christs owne promise is infallibly accompanied with the holy Spirit For mine own part although it bee not my intention to entice any man either to one Religion or the other but to qualifie onely the passions of men yet for feare that I should commit the same errour in this Treatise of Pacification which they often doe in the course of their perswasiues I thoght good to subioine this Chapter also to the end that my reasons might be drawne from the principles of both Religions And thus hauing proued in the first Chapter by examination of the particular questions according to the Huguenots method That they be no Heretikes I was also desirous to adde this Chapter that according to the Catholikes manner of proceeding that is as much to say as according to the Nature of the Church I might also proue them the Huguenots to be no Heretikes For it were but labour lost to tell many of our Catholikes that the Huguenots hold many of the fundamentall points of faith as well as we seeing they take not the skantling of an heretike by his opinions but only by this marke That he is out of the Church vnderstanding thereby no other Church then that which we call Catholike Apostolike and Romane excluding all those out of the Church to whom these three titles may not be giuen what opinion soeuer they be of For which reason I resolued to proue that these three titles doe belong vnto the Huguenots And first touching the title of Catholike the Church is called Catholike in three respects First in regard of it selfe 2. In regard of the Iewes 3. In regard of Heretikes Now the Church is called Catholike in regard of it selfe because in the vniuersalitie thereof it comprehends all times and all places viz the whole number of the Elect as well those who haue beene since the beginning of the world and are now departed and triumphant in heauen enioying euerlasting blisse as those that are ordained to the like blessednesse whether now aliue or to be borne hereafter Which definition is founded vpon the Scriptures for S. Pauls words are The Church of the first-borne which are written in Heauen and who are written in heauen but the Elect from whom the reprobates are in this specialty distinguished That their names are not written in the Booke of the Lambe The Church then consists of the Elect who are not restrained to any place or time For Iesus Christ hath redeemed with his bloud saith Saint Iohn Out of euery kinred and tongue and people

the reporters credit vnlesse he be confident withall that he who reported this would not report an vntruth and that he durst trust him in any thing But France now does not beleeue the Councell of Trent in all things for our Aduersarie himselfe confesses that it refused the Decrees of the Councel which touched vpon Reformation Wherupon it follows that though France doth agree in opinion with the Councel in what it decreed concerning matters of Faith yet does it not hold this opinion for any regard to the Councels authority but for some other respect else might he conclude as well That the Huguenots do receiue the said Councell for that they beleeue diuers Articles of it which are against the Anabaptists and other Heretikes of our time For euen as they refuse the authority of the said Councell in that very same part whereof they receiue the Articles so may we as well refuse the whole Councell and yet receiue all the Articles there being the same respect from the Articles of one part to the authority of the same part as from the authority of the whole to the authoritie of the whole But let vs now marke how he concludes that this Councell is receiued in France Our Aduersaries owne selfe confesseth saith hee That this Councell is receiued by the Bishops but what man can perswade himselfe that the Bishops haue another faith and religion from that professed by the King and all the Catholike people For how may the King bee styled The most Christian if hee were of a Faith singular from the Bishops And how should the people bee called The Lords Flocke vnlesse they acknowledged some Pastors See then this in briefe is his Argument The Bishops haue receiued the Councell The King and the people haue beleeued the Bishops Ergo The Councell hath beene receiued by the King the Bishops the Clergie and likewise of all the people of France I haue shewen already how he hath not made it good as yet that the Bishops which then were haue receiued it and for the Bishops and Clergie at this day though diuers of them for the aduancement of the Holy League haue endeauoured to cause the said Councell to bee receiued yet might the King and the people refuse it notwithstanding and yet not cease for all that to bee of the same faith with them in so much as the approbation of that Councell is not an Article of faith for the Councell of Ephesus hath expresly prohibited vs the addition of any other Article of faith vnto those which were then receiued in which number the receiuing of the Tridentine Councell is not But supposing that they were not of the same faith what danger could come of it The King saith he should not then bee most Christian nor the people Christ his flocke First as for the King for as much as this reason is drawne from his Title I say that if the King were the greatest Heretike in the world yet should hee not bee depriued of his Title Henry the eight King of England receiued the Title of Defender of the faith from Pope Leo the tenth for writing against Luther King Edward the sixt and the last Queene of famous memory and the now raigning KING who haue changed the Religion for defending of which King Henry receiued this Title doe still keep the same Style And by very good right too for Titles though personall and proper only to the first of the Race that receiue them as Catholike to Ferdinando King of Arragon Defender of the faith to Henry the eight King of England yet doe they descend vnto their successors as ornaments onely annexed to their State So that it is not Philip of Austria who is Catholike in that sense but the King of Spaine For if wee consider of Kings onely in point of Religion the King of France may be as good a Catholike as the King of Spaine and the King of Spaine as good a Christian as the King of France and yet the Title of Christian belongs onely vnto the one and the Title of Catholike to the other But aboue all is this reason ill applied against the King of France for that Christian is not a title to distinguish one Christian from another but to distinguish them all from Pagans and in this sense is it giuen to the King of France as to the first King of Europe that abolished Paganisme and who still had the most warres of all with the Sarazens enemies of the name of Christ. True it is that this title might incline him the more to imbrace that doctrine which is best but for that it hath not beene hitherto agreed vpon which of the two is the best wee must not proue one doubt by another For the Huguenots may as well conuert this reason to perswade the King to reforme the Church as the Catholikes vse it to incline him to maintaine the Romish Religion howbeit there is not any thing that the King can doe more worthy of this Title of his then to doe both that is to say to maintaine the Romane Church and to reforme it Neither is there any contradiction in these two seeing there is no better meanes to make the Iron endure long then to scowre away the rust nor to maintaine the Church of Rome then to reforme the abuses of it Neuerthelesse to establish such a course that any of the Iron bee not scraped away in stead of the rust and yet see that it bee bright scowred there is no safer meanes then to doe quite contrary to that which our Aduersay aduiseth viz. To let their Councell of Trent sleep and to call another wherein both parts may haue indifferent hearing by which meanes if so bee that there bee any corruption in the Church of Rome it may bee seene into and purged And if there be any error in the doctrine of the Huguenots they may bee evicted and instructed in a better faith And this were the way to reunite vs all in one faith and this would bee an act indeede well worthy a most Christian King 3 But descend wee now to the people How should they saith he bee the sheepe of Christs flocke if so bee they acknowledg not any Pastors I answer That they may well enough acknowledge their Pastors though they beleeue not iust as the Pastors of their Countrey doe For that no man is obliged to build his faith but vpon an infallible foundation and it is confessed by the Catholikes themselues that all the Bishops in a whole countrey may erre in point of faith So that the people are not alwaies obliged to ground their faith vpon that of their Bishops and consequently may bee of another faith and yet bee of the flocke of Iesus Christ As in very troath our Sauiour does not call them his Sheep which heard the Bishops but those that heare his voyce which is the word of God Let vs now looke vpon his conclusion And so saith hee is the Councell honoured of the