Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	kingdom_n	lord_n	sovereign_a	3,963	5	9.9093	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00601	A second parallel together with a vvrit of error sued against the appealer.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1626 (1626)	STC 10737; ESTC S101878	92,465	302

vtterly forsaken the catholike faith Therefore the present church of Rome is vndoubtedly diuerse from the ancient true church of Christ. The first proposition is most euident the second proposition is verbatim in the Apology of the Church of England part 5. ch 16. Diu. 1. and part 6. ch 22. Diuis 2. This Apology of the Church of England as it beareth the name so it hath euer beene accounted the Doctrine of the Church of England When it was first printed in the daies of Queene Elizabeth it was commanded to bee had in all Churches and since was reprinted with the like command to be had in euery Parish Church in this Kingdome in the yeare of our Lord 1611. by our late Soueraigne King Iames who gaue a most singular testimony and approbation of Bishop Iewels workes for the most rare and admirable that haue beene written in this last age of the world and also gaue speciall direction to the late Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop Bancroft to appoint some one to write his the said Bishops life in English and prefixe it to his workes which accordingly is done in the last edition Secondly I proue it thus Whatsoeuer Church is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The present church of Rome is fallen away from Christ his Kingdome and Doctrine Therefore the present church of Rome is not the same with but diuerse from the ancient vndoubted church of Christ. The first proposition cannot bee denied the assumption is the Appealers Appeale pag. 149. In Apostasie the Turke and Pope are both interessed both are departed away whether wee take that apostacie to bee a departing away from Christ and his Kingdome and his Doctrine or whether wee vnderstand apostacie and defection from the Romane Empire c. page 150. Thirdly I proue it thus No Church maintaining practising Idolatry can be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The present Church of Rome maintaineth and practiseth idolatry Therefore the present Church of Rome cannot be the same with the ancient Church that worshipped God in spirit and truth The first proposition is the Apostles 2 Cor. 6. 16. what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols The assumption is proued at large in the Homily against the perill of Idolatry confirmed to bee the Doctrine of the Church of England Artic. 35. The Homilies and by name the Homily the second against perill of idolatry containeth godly and wholesome doctrine If godly and wholesome Doctrine then certainely true Fourthly it is a dangerous error to affirme as the Appealer doth Answer to Gagge page 50. That the present Church of Rome remaineth Christi Ecclesia et Sponsa Christs Church and Spouse That God hath his Church euen in Rome we doe not deny but that the present Romane Church specially since the Councell of Trent holding the cursing and accursed Canons of that Conuenticle or that the Papacy that is the Pope with his Clergy and their adherents are Christs Church and Spouse the Appealer is the first Protestant that euer for ought I know affirmed it Iunius whom he alleadgeth Appeale pag. 113. to this purpose in his booke De Ecclesiâ is so farre from supporting his assertion that in the same booke hee quite ouerthroweth it his words are pag. 60. 61. Ecclesiamultis seculis fuit cùm Papatus non esset accessit ei Papatus contingenter sic ab ea separabilis ut hoc etiam tempore Ecclesiae sint ubi Papatus non est sine Papatu deinceps futurae sint Papatus igitur non est Ecclesia sed in Ecclesiâ est adnatum malu● pestis hydrops gangraena in corpore vitae atque saluti ejus insidians ideoque succum vitalem salutarémque Ecclesiae depascens quàm infestissimè The Church of God was many ages when there was no Papacy at all as at this day also there are Churches where there is no Papacy and will be hereafter without the Papacy The Papacy therefore is not the Church but a disease or botch growne to or in the Church a plague a dropsy a gangreene in the body indangering the health feeding vpon and infesting the healthfull moisture and vitall blood of the Church And within a few lines after in the same page follow the words on which the Appealer wholly relyeth Appeale page 113. The Papall Church saith Franciscus Iunius neither Papist nor Arminian quâ id habet in se quod ad Ecclesiae definitionem pertinet est Ecclesia As it hath that in it which belongs to the definition of a Church is a Church Why doth the Appealer stop in the middle of a sentence why doth he not goe on to the full period the sentence is yet but lame he hath put out but the left legge I will put out the right legge for him wherewith Iunius giues Popery a kicke and trips vp the Appealers heeles Qud vero habet in se adnatum malum quod Papalitatem dicimus eo respectu Ecclesia non est sed vitiata atque corrupta Ecclesia ad interitum tendens But the Church of Rome as it hath a disease or euill growne to it which we call the Papacy in that respect it is not the Church but a vitiate and corrupt church and tending to ruine Note here Reader in the Appealers defence of Popery a tricke of Popery to cite sentences by halfes alleadging onely that which in shew makes for them and concealing that which in truth makes against them The meaning of the whole sentence of Iunius is cleare enough for vs and against the Appealer to wit that the Church of Rome so farre as it is Protestant and holdeth some fundamentall truths agreeable to the Scriptures is a Church but as it is Popish and addeth many errors to those truths consequently subuerting those very truths it holdeth it is no Church Which I thus proue No Spouse or true church of Christ is in part or in whole that Antichrist or whore of Babylon The present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or Popish state thereof is in part as the Appealer confesseth Appeale pag. 149. or in whole as many Pillars of our Church haue taught that Antichrist or whore of Babylon Therefore the present church of Rome as it is taken for the Papacy or popish state thereof is no Spouse nor true church of christ I haue heard that the Appealer in a late conference wherein this passage on which I haue so long insisted was obiected against him should stand at this ward answering for himselfe that these words praesens Ecclesia Romana eodem fundamento doctrinae Sacramentorum firma semper constitit c. manet enim Christi Ecclesia Sponsa Answ. to Gag page 50. were not his owne words but the words of Cassander This his ward will not keepe off the blow For first