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
A64356	The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods in answer to a book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant's plea for a Socinian.	Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.	1687 (1687)	Wing T694; ESTC R10714	38,420	66

would fail 3. This Article of the Divinity of the Son of God was originally in the Creed for that the Fathers meant when in the Apostolical Creed they confessed Christ to be Gods only Son. And this they grounded on the Gospel of S. Iohn who wrote his Gospel which begins with Christs Divinity with this intention that Men should beleive Jesus to be the Son of God. 4. Protestants admit of no Article of Faith which is not grounded on the Scripture which was never known before and never oblig'd before yet in the mean time they see no reason why an Article assaulted by Hereticks and Sophists may not be explained or why the form of Confession design'd for Baptism might not be enlarged for the benefit of the Church and made a Sum of the Necessaries to be believ'd It sufficed at the first Incorporation of Persons to be Baptiz'd that they profess'd to believe the Religion which owneth Father Son and Holy Ghost 5. A particular Church may put an Article of Faith into a Creed without pretending to Infallibility She has Ability to do it because she has an Infallible Rule by which she can go But she ought not to say it is impossible any Church should do otherwise because a Party of Men may do that which they ought not to do and to which they were not constrain'd Prejudice Mis-attention Corruption may so prevail as to clap a false Byass upon Makers of Creeds Else how came we by those of Sirmium and Rimini And for instance sake in the Infallible Science of the Mathematicks the perverseness of the Temper of the Leviathan would not permit him to agree with a Learned Professor of that Science even in the first Elements of Geometry and a Controversie was maintain'd not only about the squaring of the Circle but about the Dimensions of a Point and a Line The Force of the Third Conference may be set down on this manner A Protestant submits to the Decrees of a Council no further than he is convinc'd that the same Council is rightly constituted and that her Definitions are founded on the Word of God. He believes that it may err in things not Necessary and in Necessaries too if it be not a truly General Council He can scarce give to it the Obedience of silence in that which he believes contrary to the Scripture The Socinian says the same things and denies the Council of Nice to be constituted rightly Therefore the Protestant justifies the Socinian Our Author should have gone on and said for so a Romanist is by the Tenor of his Faith oblig'd to say That the Protestant with reference to the Council of Nice has the Reason on his side A Son of the Church of England reverenceth the Four General Councils of which Nice is the First He believes its Faith to be bottom'd on the Scriptures and so did the Council itself and so does the Church of Rome He receives it as a General Council rightly Constituted though no Pope call'd it or otherwise confirm'd it than the rest of the Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops He believes its D●…ctrine to be in the Phrase of Vincentius 〈◊〉 well-founded Antiquity and he offers to prove it A Socinian therefore if he has retain'd him will as soon as he hears such a Plea as this desire him to return his Fee. But what if a Socinian be found perverse and being a Disputer of this World will have his own way of arguing May not the Protestant wave the Council of Nice and enter the Lists with Reason and Scripture He that will not have him do it is not of the same mind either with the Fathers of Nice on with the Celebrated Latin Doctor S. Austin The Council of Nice disputed with the Arians out of the Scripture and confuted them by it The Bishops of it by Eusebius cite against them the words of St. Iohn In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. They argue from the words themselves as words clear and plain in their signification They take notice of the Word was as contrary to was not and was God as contrary to was not God. S. Austin observing the perverseness of Maximine lays aside Councils not as useless but as of lesser Authority than the Holy Scripture the force of which his Adversary could not with the same ease and readiness have avoided Neither ought I saith S. Austin to alledge the Council of Nice nor you that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor you to that of the other Let us both dispute with the Authorities of Scripture which are Witnesses common to us both Our Author puts this Citation into the Socinians Mouth and takes it from Dr. Taylor 's Diss●…asive from Popery but seeing it is the Method of S. Austin why does he not justifie a Protestant in using of it The Sum of the Fourth Conference is this A Protestant excuseth himself from Heresie by saying A Heretick is what he himself is not an Obstinate Maintainer of a Fundamental Error None can be such Hereticks to whom the Truth is not sufficiently proposed Councils may not always rightly distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and not Fundamentals He is not oblig'd to receive their Definitions till he is convinc'd of the truth of them He himself is Judge whether the Article be sufficiently propos'd and whether he is convinc'd by that which is offer'd to him The Socinian says the same thing for himself Our Author should have added that he says it with equal Reason if he would have made the one plead for the other But the Protestant in this point of the Divinity of the Son of Gon which is the Authors Instance does acknowledge that the Doctrine is sufficiently propos'd does receive the Council of Nice does own that he is convinc'd And the Romanist confesseth that thus far he is in the right and the Socinian in the wrong This comes to the same thing which was said before and the Answer is repeated because the Objection is brought again And indeed there is but one Argument strictly so call'd in all the Five Conferences which turn upon the same Hinge and one Answer suffices viz. That when Two say the same things concerning contrary Doctrines one of them only can have Truth on his side And that if both be equally confident the Confidence of the Persons does not make the Contradiction true The Plea is his not who barely offers it but who can make it good In this Point of the Divinity the Protestant makes his Plea good by the Scripture and the Council of Nice as a true General Council And if his Plea be true surely it does not cease to be so because he has not had it allow'd before a Roman Judge A Man is sure that all the Articles in the New Covenant are genuine though they be not confirm'd under the Lead of the Fisher. I come

to the last Conference where our Author reasons to this effect THE Protestants imagine they excuse themselves from Schism by alledging that they left a Corrupt part of the Church meaning the Roman and Reform'd themselves That the Schism is theirs who caus'd it that they are united to all Churches in Charity and in the unity of the Catholick Church being with them in all things in which they are obliged to be with them And in the rest they are hindred from external Communion by the sinful Conditions which a particular Church puts upon them The Socinians say the same thing for themselves with reference to other Communions besides the Roman therefore the Protestant justifies the Plea of the Socinian in Relation to Schism The same Answer serves for the same Objection Socinians say as Protestants do but the reason is on the side of the latter and not on the former And our Author himself with respect to his Instance of the Divinity of the Son of God will by no means say that the Soci●…ians who make that Article where impos'd a sinful condition of Communion can by saying so excuse themselves from Schism whilst they any where refuse external Communion upon the pretence of that Article as not Christian. A Romanist cannot say that it is not sufficiently propos'd to the Socinians and that it was never in their power to be convinc'd If they will turn this upon us with reference to our not separating from them but standing where we were after having in Christian and Legal manner also thrown off the Corruptions which were unagreeable to the Primitive Christianity we will try it over again with them by Scripture Antiquity and Reason and the Impartial World shall judge if it pleases Whether the Additional Articles in the Creed of Pope Pius are of God or Men. For this point of Schism as here manag'd the reasoning of this Fifth Conference was long ago confuted by Mr. Chillingworth But our Author did not condescend to take notice of it though he cites many other Words of Mr. Chillingworth not far from these But a Cunning Marks-Man will not put that into his Gun which may make it Recoil However I shall be bold to produce the Words which he in all probability did studiously omit Whereas D. Potter says there is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of ourselves This you say is a quaint Subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your Judgment that Thieves and Adulterers and Murtherers and Traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they do no hurt to others but only Reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism And that to this day never any Thief or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the Peace of the Church presently upon the Intercession of the Confessors whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not Excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the Sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to Tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Error in Doctrine neither pernicious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches Unity and Obedience because their Opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious Conversation they are impatient of their Churches Censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any Face or without extream Impudency put in this Plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own Defence falsly doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to employ'd by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a Reformation of ourselves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same Words as any Rebel that makes Conscience the Cloak of his impious Disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn We must obey God rather than Men But then the Question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this Question you say just nothing But conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should have said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an Answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion against the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority The Conclusion AFter all this causeless finding fault with the Plea of the Protestant what is it that the Romanists aim at and after what manner would they mend this Plea They will tell you This seems to be the Consequence of the late way taken up by many Protestants viz. That in stead of the Roman Church her setting up some Men the Church-Governors as Infallible in Necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both Infallible in all Necessaries and certain that he is so They will endeavour to persuade you that the Great Ends they aim at are Truth and Peace And that these Blessed Ends are never to be universally attain'd without an Infallible Church to which all may submit their Judgments in Religion and by such submission preserve Unity They will continue their discourse and say Without such a Judge every Mans Reason is Reason and every Mans Scripture is Scripture and he is left to run wild after his own Imaginations And though a Man is not in the right he will not yield he is so till it is given against him by an Infallible Judge But Men must first be satisfi'd that there is such a Judge and who he is and where and how to be found and how far Men will follow him When there was such a Judge on Earth the most Infallible High-Priest the Blessed IESUS prejudic'd and perverse Men would neither be of One Faith nor of One Heart The Wisdom of God will