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	infallibility_n	infallible_a	4,066	5	9.7915	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

an Evidence of the Churches Sanctity but is indeed a meer invention of Men but our Sanctity we will prove by the Word of God because we teach the same Doctrine which that contains Pa. 32. Luther and Calvin and the rest of your Reformers confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles or they did not Pro. What if they did not Pa. If they did not they were not true Apostles Pro. The Doctrine they Preached was not theirs but that which Christ and his Apostles taught and confirm'd by Miracles so that it needed no more Confirmation except we had received it upon their Authority which we did not We acknowledge they were not Apostles as the twelve were and therefore no need of their working Miracles Pa. 33. The Signs which Christ said in Scripture followed your pretended Reformers or they did not Pro. All the Signs which Christ said should always accompany the true Preachers of the Gospel did follow them Pa. If they did shew one Man they dispossessed or one sick that they restored to Health for if these Signs did not follow them they are not true Believers Pro. That doth not follow for Christ never made that a Sign of True Believers nay you must confess that many never worked any of these Miracles who are yet true Believers If indeed they had Preached any new Doctrine you might call for Miracles but seeing they Preached none new but the Doctrine that was taught by Christ his Apostles and the Ancient Fathers there is no need to confirm that by Miracles seeing all the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought were for that end However we can shew many certain instances of Mens being dispossessed by the Prayers of the Faithful in our Church and many among us who have had their Health restored them in answer to their own and the Churches Prayers but for all that we have better grounds for our Faith which we rest upon Pa. 34. Your Reformers were either famous for their virtuous Lives or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why did they break their Vows made to God and teach Men so to do Pro. The Vows which they broke were unlawful Vows and your own Canons expresly say that an unlawful Vow ought to be broken C. 22. qu. 4. c. in malis by breaking then their Vow of single Life that is by repenting of it and not observing it they did no more than what they were in duty bound to do and therefore were holy Men for all that Pa. 35. The Catholick Roman Church and no other stands firm and infallible against all the Tempests of Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pro. The Roman Church is not firm nor infallible but as to the visible part of it is fallen both by Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pa. 36. The Romans had once the true Church or they had not Pro. The question is Ambiguous if you mean by it that the Roman Church was the true Church as the Mother of all other I deny it if you mean that the Roman Church was a true Church and had the true Faith I answer that she had the true Faith. Pa. If the Romans had the true Faith they retain the same still infallibly or do not Pro. They do not Pa. 37. If they do not then they must have their fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism Pro. She hath fallen by them all Pa. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church fell by Apostasie or it did not Pro. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Church fell not at all Nay the Ancient Roman Church fell not but the present Roman Church is fallen Pa. If she is fallen by Apostasie what prudent man will say that she ever renounced the sweet Name of Jesus which she ever hath in so great Veneration Pro. She may have fallen by Apostasie and yet not have renounced the Name of Jesus so that her having it in so great Veneration is no Argument that she is not fallen by Apostasie Pa. 38. The Roman Church fell by Heresie or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did by what General Council was she ever Condemn'd which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Or by what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd Pro. If nothing be an Heresy but what a General Council condemns then those Heresies which sprang up in the first three hundred years were wrongfully esteemed such in those times seeing there was then no General Council If a Doctrine may be Heretical which was never Condemned by a general Council then the Dostrines of the Church of Rome may be Heretical though never Condemned by a General Council so that question doth not vindicate her from being guilty of Heresie Pa. But which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Pro. All the Ancient Fathers disclaim those Doctrines which the Roman Church now holds but they could not write purposely against her because she did not then profess those Doctrines But if it be a good Argument the Church of Rome fell not into Heresy because no Father wrote purposely against her then the same Argument will vindicate us seeing no Father hath writ against us but if no Father had writ against the Church of Rome she might be Heretical for all that so that this question and the former are both impertinent Pa. But by what Authority was she reproved Pro. By the Authority of the Scriptures by the Authority of the Testimony of the Antient Church and the Authority of right Reason Pa. 39. The Ancient Roman Church fell by Schism and by dividing herself from some other Church or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did whose company did she leave from what Body did she go forth Where was the true Church she forsook Pro. She forsook the Primitive Church the Eastern Church and all those Christians who always maintained their Freedom from the Roman Yoke Pa. 40. The true Holy Apostolick Catholick Church is fallible and can err or it cannot Pro. Remember by the Church I mean the Faithful throughout the World and of these I say they all cannot err in any point of Faith. Pa. Why do you then falsly condemn her Pro. We do not condemn her we are part of her but for the Roman Church we condemn her Pa. 41. The Church of God is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faith or she is not Pro. All Definitions made by the whole Church of Christ are infallibly true Pa. If she be why do you deny infallibility Pro. The Infallibility we deny is that of a Pope or Council and this we deny because they are not the whole Church and therefore though the Church of Christ be infallible yet they are not Pa. 42. Christ being the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost the Soul of the Church guiding and directing the Church in all Truth she can err or she cannot Pro. She cannot Pa. Then she is not fallible Pro. The Church of Christ is not fallible but the Roman Church is 43. Christ is either a

IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham Jan. 26. 1686 7. A Plain DEFENCE OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION Fitted to the Meanest Capacity Being a Full CONFUTATION OF THE NET FOR THE Fishers of Men Published by two Gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome Wherein is evidently made appear that their departure from the Protestant Religion was without Cause or Reason Written for publick good by L. E. a Son of the Church of England as by Law Established Be not tossed too and fro with every Wind of Doctrine by the sleight of Men and cunning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive Eph. 4. 14. London Printed by S. L. and are to be sold by R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. To Mr. J. C. and Mr. J. M. C. The Authors of the Net for the Fishers of Men. Gentlemen I Hope that your design in publishing your little Treatise was a zealous desire to bring others of your Country-men into the same Church which you have made your selves Members of out of pure Love to their Souls which you I suppose think cannot be safe out of its Communion and I am the rather induced to believe it because you seem so confident of the strength of your Arguments that in the Epistle Dedicatory you reckon them unanswerable and in that to the Reader you express your Sence of them to be very high This I take to be an effect of your Zeal for I am sure it is not of your Knowledg and I would charitably perswade my self that you love the Truth too well to pretend a defence of what you know is Erroneous or endeavour to promote the Progress of delusions but out of a sincere Heart offer the Reasons which prevailed with you to a Change not seeing their weakness which is indeed so very notorious that I never thought to have seen them published though I have often known them vigorously pressed in private Discourses where heat and unwariness may let them pass without discovering that there is nothing of Force in them it being generally the Practice of the Romanists but especially the Jesuits to have a Set of Arguments for private unstudied Adversaries with which they catch too many who because they carry a specious Shew at first examine but little farther and without consulting others suffer themselves to be led Captive I have in the following Treatise according to your Desire in the Preface annexed my Answers to your Queries for which reason I have done it by way of Dialogue that so I might be the more brief and omit nothing of what you offered I don't doubt but I have shewn the weakness of every particular Argument but to save you and my self a great deal of Trouble if you reply I shall here take notice of several gross faults in your Arguing which if they be not remedied will create endless difficulties You never tell us what you mean by the word Church in some places you take it for the Congregation of the Faithful in others for a Council and in others for a particular Church In your Allegations out of Scripture you bring many Texts which indeed prove nothing to your purpose Thus in a question of the universal Church you bring a Text that speaks of a particular one or of every private Minister And in the question about Confirmation in defence of Oyl and Balm you cite places which mention only Imposition of Hands You suppose the Roman Church to be the only Church of Christ without any Proof which is plain begging the question and not arguing So in other places you beg the question And you take it for granted that Peter had the chief Charge over the Apostles committed to him that all oral Tradition is Apostolical that God hath commanded nothing concerning a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue and that because Reliques have been the Instruments by which Miracles were wrought therefore they must be Worshipped You mistake the Question and run on upon a Point not contested which is arguing to no purpose nothing but making a Puppet and knocking him down Thus when the Question is about Praying in an unknown Tongue you argue for the lawfullness of speaking with Tongues in the point of Free Will you plead for Free Will in Moral actions which we acknowledge when the question is about those Actions that are Spiritual again you argue against Faith without Works when the question is whether Faith alone justifies not whether Faith can be without Works for that we deny as well as you So in the point of Religious Vows you argue for the lawfullness of Vows in general when the Controversy is about those particular Vows which we Condemn You quote several Scriptures famous not only as to the particular references of which there are a Multitude so many that I am afraid you took them up upon Trust but also the very Texts Thus you make St. Paul call Marriage a Sacrament when he calls it only a Mystery so you have falsified Heb. 12 11. and several other places as I have proved in the Book it self I might add several Instances of these and other Particulars such as your taking the word Universal in three several Sences and yet applying all one way but these shall suffice and I am in hopes will let you see how wretchedly your Pretended Fathers have dealt with you by putting such Arguments upon you and founding your Faith upon such weak Grounds I desire you would not take it ill that I attribute this work to some of them and do so freely tax you with not seeing the Vanity of it for I suppose you are Gentlemen whose Education hath engrossed your time to other Matters and cannot therefore be reasonably supposed to have sufficient Experience in these Points to make you able to discern their Sophisms and unconcluding Arguments which they have shamm'd upon you for convincing Reasons If you are convinc'd by this answer I shall bless God for it if not I desire you would satisfy the World why you are not But don 't follow tht Methods of some late Writers who have wisely withdrawn from the main Business and only cavilled at a word or two as being Improper or something of that Nature when they could not answer the Reasons of their Adversaries nor defend their own I might easily have done so by you but as I have dealt seriously and plainly I expect the same and I pray God send us his Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth I am Gentlemen Your very humble Servant L. E. TO THE Reader Courteous Reader A Serious Enquiry and search after Truth is the Duty of every rational Creature and he that hath an unfeigned desire to find it and happiness in it will not neglect any lawful means to arrive at the knowledge of it seeing by it the Mind is enlightened our Faith regulated and fixed and our actions guided to that true felicity which Crowns the Soul with