Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	council_n	faith_n	trent_n	4,913	5	10.4664	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20986	The principall points of the faith of the Catholike Church Defended against a writing sent to the King by the 4. ministers of Charenton. By the most eminent. Armand Ihon de Plessis Cardinal Duke de Richelieu. Englished by M.C. confessor to the English nuns at Paris.; Principaux poincts de la foi de l'Eglise Catholique. English	Richelieu, Armand Jean de plessis, duc de, 1585-1642.; Carre, Thomas, 1599-1674, attributed name.	1635 (1635)	STC 7361; ESTC S121027	167,644	376

that since God doth promisse remission of sinns to conuerted sinners such as feele no remorse of conscience which may make them esteeme their repentance defectiue ought to haue peace of mynd and are morally certaine of their saluation And therfore it is not true simply to affirme that your doctrine is hated for teaching men to die with peace of conscience and assurance of saluation well might you auerre that it is worthy of hate for teaching that this certaintie of saluation which the faithfull may haue is not onely morall but euen infallible as proceeding from diuine faith which is the doctrine that the Church condemneth and you sustayne None can know saith the a Sess 6. c. 9. Councell of Trent by certaintie of Divine faith which is not subiect to decei●t that he hath obtayned the grace of God Behold sirs I pray the true reason for which we may say vnto you with b In Ezech. 11. Vae his haeresibus hisque doctrints quae requiem pollicentes omnem aetatem sexumque deci piuni S. Hierome accursed be the heresies and doctrine which promiseng repose deceaue all ages and sexes Aud with the c Ierem. 4. scripture that which it affirmes of false Prophetes that hauing peace in their mouth in effect they haue it not Peace Peace and there is no peace For one may truly say that you deceaue the people seeing you doe assure them that this certaintie is of Faith and yet following your owne principles it hath not in scripture sufficient groundes For tell me ô Miristers I beseech you to you Ispeake in your owne particular where doe you find in scripture in expresse termes that one of you for example Peter du Moulin is assured of his saluation If you find it not how doe you beleeue it as an article of faith since you doe not hold the word of God barely but the expresse word of God to be the fundation of Faith as appeares by the testimonies of many a Calu. Epist contra Pr●centorem Lugd. Nihil eredendum est quod non expressum sit in scripturi● Vvhital controu 1. quaest 4. c. 1. Omntae quae sunt ad salutem necessaria apertis verbis in scripturis pro. poni nostrum axioma est Luth. lib. cont Reg. Ang Nullum articulum sciat a me admitti nisi apertis scripturae verbis munitum The King of Eugland in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First Assure your conscience vpon the faundation of the most expressevuord of God Sadol desacrif c. ● Nos expressa seripturae sacrae testimonia efflagita mus of yours and particularly by the b The Ratification of the ffrench Confession All the ffrench harches approoue and ratifie the aboue mentioned Confession in all these heads and articles as being vuholy grounded vpon the pure and expresse vuord of God ratification of your confession of faith signed by the most famous men of your religion and the most learned Ministers that were then amongst you wherin you say that your faith is grounded intirly vpon the pure and expresse word of God You will easily grant that this which I demand is not expressy contayned in scripture but that you draw it thence by consequence This answere will appeare friuolous for diuers reasons First I aske you out of what passages of the scripture you proue that it is sufficient to make a thing to be beleeued by diuine faith that it be inferred out of scripture by discours and consequence as though forsoth faith were discursiue and not a simple habit like to that of Principles becausé as it giues present consent to its obiect by reason of the euidence therof so faith without reasoning doth forthwith imbrace the word of God which is its obiect by reason of infallible authotihe of him who doth reveale it If you find this supposition in scripture we are in the wrong if not you are ill grounded in your faith for it is euident that this Principle to witt that it is sufficient to make a proposition to be an Article of faith that it be inferred out of seripture is purely humaine and no● diuine Further put case it weretrue and made good by scripture that an inference were a valide fundation of faith yet according to your selues this would onely haue place in consequences drawen out of two diuine Principles which are both contayned in the scripture seeing it is euident that one of them being humane the certaintie of the cōclusion cannot be diuine seeing that euery conclusion is of the same nature with the more imperfect part of its cause and that that wherby a thing is knowen ought to be better knowen then the thing it selfe So that if the Principle wherby a conclusion is knowen be onely knowen by a humane knowledge the conclusion cannot be knowen by a more perfect knowledge Wherfore albeit that euen an inference of this nature and kind might serue for a valide fundation of our faith yet were it nothing to your pourpose since in the sillogisme by which you conclude the assurance of your saluation euen admitting of your owne ac count there is but one of the Premises diuine contayned in the scripture that who soeuer beleeues is iustified the other which affirmes that you beleeue being meerly humane as not being mentioned in all the scripture nether in expresse termes nor yet by consequence I adde that though it were granted which yet is false that a conclusion drawen out of two principles the one diuine the other humane might be a sufficient motiue to oblige vs to beleeue yet should not that be but in regarde it were drawen by a companie of wise and learned men no man being of so weake a discourse as to thinke a conclusion drawen by an ignorant person or an Idiote who knowes not what belonges to a good inference drawen I say from a Principle which he alone tinowes is a sufficient and valide fundakon of diuine and infallible faith And yet in these termes are you A poore plough man vpon his death-bed can not be sure of his saluation vnlesse he inferre it by consequence on t of a Principle knowen to himselfe alone sith none but himselfe knowes whether he haue truly faith Nor doth it suffice to say that in this behalfe he is interiourly guided by the holy Ghost who assures him of faith Because in that case we were to admitt of another word of God not written and giuen not to the Church but onely to euery particular man whō by that meanes you make solewittnes and Iudg in his owne cause Which you cannot with any appearance sustayne since contrarie to your owne principles you should admitt of another rule of saluation besids the scripture wheras also there is none but will confesse that though the expresse words of scripture were not necessarie to ground an article of faith yet in all reason should they be requisite to ground that by which you beleeue you haue faith since that is the onely fundation

and withall that he sustayned that the body of Iesus Christ would haue bene conceaued to haue bene an onely Phantome if it had not bene berd and borne after the manner of other children which belonges not to the Virginitie of the mynde but that of body onely Therfor my assertion stands firme that your beleife in this point was condemned in the primitiue Church in the person of Iouinian 4. Poini You hold and teach that the iust onely are in the true Church which is an errour condemned in the Donatists more then 1300. yeares agoe That you are of this opinion a 4. Instit c. 1 §. 7. In Ecclesiam quae reuera est coram Deo nulli recipiuntur nisi qui adoptionit gratia filij Dei sunt Caluine doth make manifest in these tearmes None is receaued into the Church which is truly the Church before the face of God but he onely who is the sonne of God by the grace of adoption And b Art 27. your confession doth beare the same saying we affirme then that the true Church following the word of God is the companie of the faithfull who vnanimously follow the same word and the pure religion depending therupon and who profit in the same all the dayes of their life That this opinion was condemned for heresie in the Donatists S. Aug. makes euident by the passages which he alleageth impugned by him and other Catholikes in the conferences had with them c In collat 3. die c 8. Zizania inter triticum non Ecclesia sed in trundo permixta dixerunt E●t c. 10. Non bene intelligi aiūt Ecclesiaem inquua simul triticū zizania iussa sunt crescere They say that the dernel is mixed amongst the wheate not in the Church but in the world they say that one can not well conceaue à Church in which wheate and cocle growe both together You will say here as in the formar points that there is a faire difference betweene the errour condemned in the Donatists and your beleife because they deneyed that the wicked were in the visible Church which yet you grant deneying onely that they are in the true Church To which I answere that though it were à visible Church from which the Donatists did exclud the wicked yet puts that no impediment why there may not be à cōformitie betwixt them and you in the point I speake of to witt in that both exclude the wicked from the true Church True it is there is this difference betweene them and you that they accnowledge the visible Church to be the true Church which you asscribe onely to the inuisible Church whence it is manifest that the difference betwixt you and the Donatists is whether the true Church be visible or inuisible not whether the wicked are in it or no whence you both equally exclude them Thence it is manifest that hauing shewen that that opinion was cōdemned of heresie in the person of the Donatists I haue shewen by consequence that it ought also to be condemned in you That it was from the true Church from which the Donatists excluded the wicked S. Aug. makes it cleare a lib. 2. cont Caudent c. 2. in vera germanaque Catholica Ecclesia saying in expresse words that they deneyed that the wicked were in the true and lawfull Catholike Church and againe b lib. de vnit Eccles c. 2. in corpore Christi cuius Christus est Saluator that they were in the body of Iesus-Chrst wherof Iesus-Christ is the Sauiour Which are a Whitak controu 2. q. 1. c. 7. In Eccles Cath. quae est corpus Cristi Item possunt esse in visibili Ecclesia reprobi sed non in Ecclesia Catholica the verie words in which you expresse the true Church And therfor it is à thinge not to be called in doubt that this article of your faith was condemned in the primitiue Church in the person of the Donatists You will say perhappes that wellingly you will ioyne hands if we can conuince you that these 4. points of your faith were condemned by any generall Councell in the primitiue Church but that the authoritie of one or two Fathers is of smale consideration and consequently that you suffer no preiudice for being condemned by them To this I answere that it is not alwayes necessarie to interpose the authoritie of à generall councell for the condemnation of an heresie which is euident by this that when the Pelagians would not esteeme themselues condemned because it was not performed in à generall councell S. Augustine laughes at such friuolous euasions As though saith b Aug. l. 4. cone duas Epist Pelagii c. vltimo Quasi nulla haeresis aliquando esset nisi Synod● congregatione damnata sit cū potius rarissime inueniantur propter quas damnandas nesessitas talis extiterit mulioque sint incomparabiliter plures quae vbi extiterunt illic improbari damnarique meruerunt atque inde per caeteras terras deuitandae in nolescere potuerunt he neuer heresie had bene cōdemned but by à Synode seeing verie few such haue bene found as that it was requisite for the condemnation of them to assemble à Councell and that there were incomparably more in number which deserued to be reproued and condemned in the same place wher they were hatched whence they might be diuulged through out all the world to the end they might be shunned Secondly I say that I doe not produce the authoritie of one or two Fathers against our aduersaries as reputing their authoritie sufficient to condemne their opinion but as esteeming it sufficient to declare what was the beleife of the Church in their tyme wherby we iustly iudge such condemned of heresie as by their relation appeare so to be Being à thing most reasonable and agreeable euen to iudgements of least capacitie rather to giue credit to those auncients in the relation of things which they affirme to haue past in their tymes then to you who fall far short of them especially seeing S. Augustine teacheth us Lib. cont Iul. c. 10. Quod inuenerunt in Eccles tenuerunt quod didiscerunt docuerunt quod à Patribus acceptrunt hoc filijs tradiderunt that they held what they found in the Church that they taught what they had learnt and left to their children what they had receaued from their Fathers Finding this answere no armour of proofe you will flie for refuge to another saying that S. August S. Epiphanius Theodoret and others who had made à catalogue of heresies did not propose vnto themselues to put onely into it heresies properly speaking whence it appeares that to shew that an opinion is related therin is not à sufficient proofe that it was condemned as hereticall To which I replie 1. that this answere is without grownd or proofe 2. that the Fathers ayme and end in reducing into à certaine order and framing as it were à list of all the heresies doe

by the authoritie of Scripture So saith the b August l. de natura grat c. 39. Credamus quod legimus quod non legimus nefas credamus ad struere quod de cunctis etiā dixisse sufficiut Pelagians in the same Authour Let vs beleeue saith Pelagius vvhat vve reade and vvhat vve reade not let vs beleeue it vnlavvfull to be established Let this suffice in all other matters So the c Aug l. post Collationem Nos sola portamus Euig lia Item concio 1. in Psal 32. Nos sola offerimus Euangelia Donatists in the same Authour saying vve bring vvith vs and present the Ghospells onely This was that which Eranistes aymed at whom a Apud Theod. in Dialog immutabilis Ego enim soli diuinae scripturae fidem habeo Theodoret brings in in his Dialogues where condemning all reasons he saith For I beleeue in the Ghospell onely So b Lib. 2. cont ipsum cap. 1. Fratribus nobiscum constitutisin sancto Euangelio Petilianus writing to his brethren vnder this title to our brethren constituted together vvith vs in the holy Ghospell So the Maximianists expressing them selues in these termes fighting with vs in the truth of the Ghospell Finally so the Arians Apud S. Aug. In veritate Euangelij nobiscum militantibus who were so wedded to the Scripture that they would not onely admit no sense but euen no word which was not comprised therin reiecting this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not found there Concil Nicenum All these auncient Heresiarkes condemned by the Church and by your selues had the Scripture as frequently in their mouthes as you They tearmed themselues Euangelicall men like you They made the Scripture the onely rule of their Faith as you doe yet wheras they did it in words not in deede as was fitting but in publishing its name they abused the authoritie therof they were cōdemned by the Church their doctrine was iudged worthy of hatred as yours also is and will be I am confident by the iudgement of the whole world when I shall haue made manifest that you abuse the scriptutes to your owne ends It is truly worthy of hatred because vnder pretext of scripture the writen word of God almightie 1. it doth reiect his word not written 2. a great part of the written word 3. it clearely contradicts in many passages that which it doth admitt 4. corrupts it in diuers parts 5. and lastly it makes the word of men passe for the word of God yea euen the word of euery Idiot establishing vpon them the principall articles of your Faith 1. Vvorthy of hatred because it reiecteth the vvord of God not vvritten If he be worthy of hatred who in establishing a thinge destroyes that without which it cannot subsiste and which is also commanded by it your doctrine is by a iust title hatefull for the Scripture which whilsts it extolls it destroyes the Traditions commanded by the same Scripture and without which it can in no sort subsiste That holy writ cānot subsiste without Traditions it is most cleare since by them onely we know that the bookes of Scripture which we haue came vnto our hands pure and intire such as they proceeded from the mouth of the holy Ghost You beleeue as an article of Faith that you haue those bookes pure and intire wherfore ether the written word affirmethit which indeede is not so or not affirming it it followes that some other word not written doth teach it vs or els we beleeue that with a diuine Faith which God neuer spoke a thing most absurde seeing that the word of God is the onely fundation of our Faith That Traditions are commanded by the Scripture the second to the a Cap. 2. Tenete traditiones quas didicistis siue per sermonem siue per Epistolam nostram Thessalonians makes manifest where the Apostle speakes so clearely of Traditions of Faith not written that euen b Vvhitat controu 1. q. 6. c. 10. Respondeo Noui Testamenti Canonē non fuisse tune editū at que constitutū cum Paulus hanc Epistolā scriberet .... nō sequitut ergo quando Apostolus scripsit ad Thessalon tum omnia necessaria non sunt scriptae ergo nec postea your owne men confesse that at he tyme when S. Paule wrote there were such like traditions which since are inserted in holy Vvrite A thing indeede easily said but hardly persuaded especially to such as consider that it is not to be found in all holy scripture that those things which were not yet written while S. Paule wrote that Epistle were afterwards put downe in writing 2. Vvorthy of hadted because it reiects part of the Vvrittē vvorde of God Conc. Carthag 3. Can. 47. Trullan can 2. Rom. sub Gelaesio Trident By what authoritie doe you reiect many of the bookes of Scripture which the Church at diuerse tymes in diuerse Councells in diuers parts of the world in Greece Italie Afrique and Germanie defines to be canonicall and diuine Vvhat a senselesse thing is it that you of your owne head should establish canons hauing nether Father who doth declare nor Councell that doth define which is to be noted the Canon of the bookes of holy scripture according to your way The presumption which you vse in opposing your iudgement against the iudgement of the auncient Fathers and the authoritie of the Church is truly worthy to be hated 3. Vvorthy of hatted because it contradicts the scripture He that opposeth what he ought religiously to follow is he not worthy of hatred And ought not all men to follow the scripture You make profession of doing so and yet directly to deney what it affirmes and beleeue the contrarie to that which it teacheth in expresse termes as I haue proued in the precedent Chapter is not this to contradict it If a man can be said to esteeme him whom he often belyes you esteeme the scripture and if one can hold that for a Rule to which he frequently opposeth his iudgement you doe vndoutedly hold the scripture for the rule of your saluation For plainely to affirme that a thingis not wheras the scripture saith it is what other thing is it then to giue the lye to the scripture and to haue a iudgement opposite to the iudgement therof 4 Your corruptions in the scripture are so perfp cuous Vvorthy of hatred because it corrupis the Scripture that euen your owne men doe reprehend them Did not Charles du Mullin who is famous amongst you for this cause say that a Molinaesus in suatranslatione Noni Testaementi Caluinus in sua Harmonia textum Euangelicum desutare facit sursum versum vt res ipsaindicat vim infert literae Euangelicae illam multis in locis transponit in super additlitterae Caluin in his Harmonie puts the text of the Ghospell topsie turuie as the thing it selfe makes manifest violates the letter of