Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	catholic_n	church_n	communion_n	2,927	5	9.4030	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64702	The church-papist (so-called), his religion and tenets fully discovered in a serious dispute ... whereby the common ... arguments of pretended visibility, succession, universality, &c., of the Roman Church ... are briefly confuted : whereunto is added, a short discourse proving episcopacy to be of divine institution, kingly government of Gods setting up, and the religion of the Church of England, to be the best in the world / by one of the children of the late captivity, 1680.	Underwood, John, fl. 1680.	1680 (1680)	Wing U46; ESTC R7367	28,086	42

from Heaven hath Rome above the former and above other particular Churches that it shall there remain to the end of the World Nay they that most stand for it even the greatest Champion Rome hath can only say 'T is a pious and probable Opinion to think Cathedram Petri non posse seperari a Roma proinde Romanam Ecclesiam non posse errare vel deficere Bellar. de Ro. Pont. cap. 4. so 't is but pretended probality and that is no proof able to convince However he that thinks the contrary viz. that the particular Church of Rome can err and fall away from the Faith which the true Church can never do I mean the Catholick Church before described can never fall away from the Faith and St. Peters Chair be severed from Rome is by Bellarmines own confession no Heretick for he adds Contraria sententia nec est Haeretica nec manifesta erronia Bellarm. ibid. And if the Apostolick Chair can be removed from Rome and the Roman Church fall away from the Faith then it is so far being the only Catholick that it ceaseth to be a part of the Catholick Church where it appeareth that Rome never was is or can be The only Catholick Church of Christ Your fourth Argument from Universality of the Roman Church hath its Answer already in a great measure But something more I shall particularly answer to the same which you propound thus Arg. 4. That Church is only Catholick which is dispersed through all Nations But only the Roman is dispersed through all Nations Ergo the Roman only is the Catholick Church And how comes the denomination of the Church to be changed from Christian to Roman certainly 't is no small fellony to rob the Church of the more honourable Appellation and give it your own name Men were first called Christians at Antioch and yet the Universal Church was never stiled Antiochian If you make a difference between the Christian Faith and the Roman speak out and confess it If you mean the Christian Faith why do you not say so alter your Minor Proposition and the conclusion will follow for the Church of Christ and I 'le assent to it without more ado for then your Proposition will be true and you will contend without an Adversary But have you any other Doctrine can parallel this Sacriledge in taking away the Christian Name from the universal Church of Christ As though the Spouse of Christ could become Anabaptist forget her Virgin Name and change her Beloved Is Christ and Rome convertible Is the Gospel of Christ become the Gospel of the Pope or hath the Pope a Gospel of his own that is spread over the World was there not a true Church that had Radix Essentiae and is the Root Essence and Being to Rome and other particular Churches before Rome received the Faith And what was that Church called not Roman surely And why did you not say the Church of Jerusalem or the Church of Antioch c. where the first Plantation was is dispersed through all Nations Ergo the Church of Jerusalem Antioch c. only is the Catholick Church it had been more tollerable though as little to sence The first Appellation before ever Rome was a Church viz. Christian shall stand with me for ever I dare not change from Christian to Roman in as much as Christian Religion is elder and was before ever Rome was converted therefore Christian not Roman is the primitive and right term and name of the universal Church Besides How the Roman or any particular Church can be the Catholick for at best she was but a Catholick Church is no ways apparent St. Cyril tells us Catholica est illa quae diffusa est per universum Orbem Rome is not the universal but the Christian Church is so not Catholick in extent Romana Ecclesia particularis confesseth Bellarmin lib. 4. de R. Pont. c. 4. so not the Catholick Church Rome it self must be judged by Scripture and the Catholick Church and is right no further than it agrees with the Catholick and not the Catholick Church by it Our fierce Adversary Stapleton pours out his Reason why Roman is esteemed Catholick Quia ejus Communio erat evidenter certissimè cum tota Catholica So you see the Communion of the Roman was with the Catholick not of the Catholick with it And St. Cyprian in the rent and open Schism between Cornelius and Novatian employed his Legates c. Elaborarent ut ad Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem scissi sorpor is membra componerent Now the members of this torn Body were they of Rome then in open Schism between Cornelius and Novatian St. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 10. And St. Cyprian endeavoured to bring Rome to the Unity of the Catholick so Rome then was not The Catholick nor is the Radix c. or can she be her own Original There is a double Root as one learnedly observes Radix Essentiae which gives Essence and Being to Rome and all other particular Churches and there is Radix Existentiae as Rome with all other particular Churches and no more than other Patriarchal Churches which was and is the Root of the Churches Existence agreeable to that known and received Rule in Art that Universals give Essence to their Particulars and Particulars supply their Universals with Existence But to shut up and confine the Universal Church of Christ as it is now spread in the narrow compass of Rome only is ridiculous Nonsence Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit saith St. Jerom in Psal 133. The Church is every where ubi fides vera c. You bring in St. Paul to say Rom. 1.8 that the Roman Faith was preached in all the World But you abuse St. Paul for 't is not said preached nor is it said Roman Faith Their Faith was spoken of as his course was to commend and encourage the faithful in every place St. Paul intending to impart to them some spiritual gift for they were not then established He only commended then the Faith of the Saints then in Rome which they had newly received viz. the Christian Faith never called it the Roman Faith and so much he spake and more of the Faith of other Nations and Persons to whom he wrote and yet never any Nation or Person usurped a Stile was never given them St. Paul Thess 1.8 witnesseth that From the Church of Thessalonica sounded out the Word of the Lord and in every place the Faith of the Thessalonians was spread abroad and were ensamples to all that believe c. ver 7. ibid. which was a true Faith and yet they never nick-named the Universal Christian Church Thessalonian nor did they ever arrogantly and audaciously adopt the Universal Church of Christ as their own Off-spring and Issue or that they only were the Catholick as Rome doth in your Position St. Paul did commend the Faith then in Rome but now 't is changed and not worthy commendation You say that is

which is true many great men have turned Hereticks Judas chang'd from an Apostle to a Devil so 't is the easie for others to change from Shepherds into Wolves Nor can the Roman Prelates pretend they have only this veràm et sanam Doctrinam or claim a lawful succession of Pastors continually holding entire the Unity and the Eaith for they have not kept the Unity of the Church but have had more Schisms among them than any other Church above thirty acknowledged by their own Chronologer Onuphrius Even Popes themselves have many of them by confession of several Romish Authors who have written of their Lives been very vile erroneous Heretical c. So 't is clear Rome hath no lawful Succession by confession they have only a Succession of gross Superstitions and Errors for a bout a thousand years for which they can shew no Practice on Warrant from the Apostles You further say That our English Bishops had no Succession from Roman Catholick for immediately after Conscoration Stapleton Harding c. your own men told them to their faces they were no Bishops Ergo only the Roman Church have lawful Succession I see you are put to hard straits for proof that seeing the Fathers will not speak for you you are forced to be your own Testimony which with me is less than nothing for who will or can take an Adversary's bare objections for a sufficient confutation of a matter in question for by this your Argument and Rule of proof should I tell you that any of our Party say Stapleton Harding c. were no Scholars though indeed they were great Clarks and should I say they were damnable Hereticks and forsakers of the Truth as in truth they are you ought to admit it as a convincing Testimony else why do you obtrude your sayings for proof but let that pass You confess English Bishops had Consecration from the Roman and so enabled and qualified for the service of the Church If then the Roman had any lawful power to consecrate which I deny not I do not question but their Consecration is valid enough and hold good notwithstanding Stapleton and Hardings words to the contrary for such sayings do not unordain and so we have your Succession and Consecration to boot But whether ordinary Mission or Ordination be so absolutely necessary to the being of Truth as though Truth could nor be without it is with me a question seeing Christ encouraged the Faithful that did wonders in Christ's name and was not sent St. Mark 9.39 40. forbid him not he is on our part c. nor did I ever conceive a necessity lay on the English Church to receive Orders from Rome more than on the Roman to receive Orders from it seeing we were a Church Apostolick assoon yea were a Church before any settlement of a Church in Rome The Religion of Christ was received in Brittain tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris in the latter time of Tiberius Caesar as saith St. Gildas de excid Brit. the same is acknowledged by your own man Baronius whereas St. Peter kept in Jury long after Tiberius his death And as Theodoret and Sophronimus Patriarchs of Jerusalem affirm the Apostle St. Paul first taught in Britain Also Aristobulus mentioned Romans 16. came to this Isle and discharged the Office of a Bishop as Dorotheus witnesseth and in his Synopsis also averreth Simon Zelotes Christum praedicavit in Britannia ubi crucifixus occisus et sepultus est The same also affirmeth Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. Simon Zelotes Evangelii Doctrinam ad occidentalem Oceanum Insulasque Britannicas perfert And Joseph of Arimathea An. Dom. 53. taught the Gospel in Britain as Baleus Flemingus and others affirm likewise Tertullian who lived An. Christi 200 saith Britanorum loca Romanis inapoessa Christo subdita sunt advers Judaeos cap. 7.8 After him Origin An. Christi 260. witnesseth Britanniam in Christianam consentire Religionem So it is evident and most clear that Apostles and Apostolick men delivered over the Faith to us and were the first Planters we had many Waterers after of this Plantation and a succession of Doctrine by confession on all sides St. Jerom also Anno 405. records Gallia Britanniá Africa c. unum Christum adorant unam observant Regulam veritatis In which time Bellarmine confesseth the Church was a true Apostolick Church Antiqua Ecclesia primis quingentis Annis vera Ecclesia fuit c. Bel. l. 4. de notab Eccl. cap. 9. and then viz. the first four hundred years we and Rome were of one joint Belief and Faith from one Fountain Christ Jesus and his Apostles and the same faith we had then the same we have now we hold to the old Foundation the Scripture Creed and ractice of the general Church in those times so are we a true Church and a right Member of the Catholick having lawful succession of Doctrine convey'd to us as before is proved from Apostles and Apostolick men whereby it 's evident we are no Novelists nor any of our Profession the Antiquity whereof our very Enemies do acknowledge Reinerus a Roman Inquisitor above three hundred years since speaking of the Professors at Lyons calling them Valdensae Leonistae c. in contempt saith they are more pernitious to the Church of Rome than all other Sects for three causes First being of longer continuance than any other the Sect enduring ever since the Apostles Secondly It is general creeping into all Lands Thirdly It hath a great shew of Godliness they live justly believe all things well concerning God and all the Articles contained in the Creed only they Blaspheme in hating the Church of Rome c. He calls us indeed a Sect as of old the Priests of the Jews called the Church of Christians a Sect of Nazarites Acts 24.5 but you see by Confession we had our Doctrine in former Ages and were a Church from the Beginning and are not estranged from the Church of Rome where she holds the Truth but she from us and the true Catholick Church of Christ nor do we depart from her as they charge us or are any further remote from her than she her self is from her primitive Purity antient Principles from Scripture Reason Charity Antiouity and from what she was in her best of times our present Church of England though often have been under clouds and heavy persecutions still retaining the primitive verity to this day So your second Argument is invalid in that you have not proved nor can prove that the Church of Rome hath this lawful Succession of uncorrupted Doctrine and Principles or that succession of Pastors is necessarily tied to one particular place for ever to make the being of the Catholick Church as though the universal Church of Christ could cease to be if Rome and her Prelates were extinct and turn'd to Ashes Your third Argument from pretended Privileges belonging to the Roman Church viz. 3. That Church only that have confuted and anathematized