Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	church_n	doctrine_n	invocation_n	1,848	5	11.0599	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61458	The church of Rome not sufficiently defended from her apostacy, heresie, and schisme as appears by an answer to certain quæries, printed in a book entituled Fiat Lux, and sent transcribed (as 'tis suppos'd) from thence by a Romanist to a priest of the Church of England. Whereunto are annexed the Romanist's reply to the Protestant's Answer, and the Protestant's rejoynder to that reply. By P.S. D.D.	Samways, Peter, 1615-1693.	1663 (1663)	Wing S545B; ESTC R222361	39,609	116

Apostacy Heresy or Schisme But first not by apostacy for Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to christianity none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus But notwithstanding this the Doctor by a new definition of apostacy will prove she fell thus for saith he Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christian Faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the Profession which we have formerly made But the Church of Rome hath thus withdrawn ergo he proves the minor because she embraces particular Doctrines there mention'd which formerly she did not Reply The minor is deny'd and the probation concerning particular Doctrines as Worshipping of Images invocation of Saints c. is likewise deny'd because assum'd without proof and the definition he gives of Apostacy is invalid because it confounds Apostacy with heresy but the other definition is good because it clearly distinguishes them and if so then the D● hath not prov'd as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresie This done the paper proceeds to prove that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy and to effect this it puts the definition of heresy see it in the paper then it goes o● thus If the Church of Rome did eve● adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receive● Doctrine of the Christian-world I pray satisfy me in these particulars viz. 1. By what generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever w 〈…〉 against her 3. By what authority was sh● otherwise reproved Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues Certain Popes Bishops of the Church of Rome as Liberius Anastasius secundus and Honorius have fallen by heresie ergo the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresie Reply The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Popes infallibility ex Cathedrâ which is to be wav'd because the paper doth not meddle with it and I deny the consequence which he no wayes goes about to prove But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy let us see at least what he sayes to the Quaeries To the first then which demands By what generall Councell was she ever condemned he answers by the sixt Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which condemns the usurpation of unlimited power challenged by the Pope and gives like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts Reply This unlimmited power challenged by the Pope is his supremacy alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine institution and therefore onely said not prov'd in which he is stil like himself to be an Usurpation As for the sixt Canon of the Nicene Councell it is so farr from condemning or limiting the universall jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it to evince this we will cite the words of the Canon which the Dr. least they should discover his bold assertion untrue omitred the words are these Let the ancient custome be kept in Aegypt Lybia Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexand 〈…〉 have power over all these because the Roman-Bishop also hath such a custome these last words because the B●shop of Rome c. evince the thing to be a● I have said for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government to wit because as the Councell sayes it is the Bishop of Rome his custome to have it so If you say that the Popes custome is not referr'd to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West I reply that you speak against the Text because this not another thing but this here spoken off viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power over these Provinces this is accustomed and to whom to the Bishop of Rome it is his custome to have it so wherefore we like of it well and confirme it Out of which it is clear they do not condemne or limit his Universall jurisdiction but confirme it I know the Dr. would have the sence of the Canon to be this Let the Bishop of Alexandria governe in the places specified because the Bishop of Rome hath a custome to governe in other places to wit in the West Reply This is against the fence of the Canon for those words because the Bishop of Rome c. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government whereas a Bishop's governing Churches in the West were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should governe the Churches here mentioned As for the Councell of Eliberis it being but a particular one and the Quaeries demanding a generall one we need not reply unto it Nay if it be look'd into it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome the words are Placu't picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church least that which is adored be painted on walls In which Decree these words that which is adored are manifestly against the Doctor for they suppose a due reverence constantly given to pictures and lest that things reverenced might be abus'd the Councell forbad pictures in those times of persecution to be painted on the Church-walls for fear the Infidells should deface them Now if you bring the Authority of the second generall Councell of Nice Act 7. desining that we must exhibit to Pictures contrary to what Dr. Samwaies holds Honorariam adorationens non veram ●at●iam An honorary adoration not true latria that is an inferiour adoration but not the supream due to Almighty God only Hethinks to evade by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those 300. Bishops there convened Reply It is barely said not prov'd that the Nicene Canons were not universally received but I expect proof as for the Councell of Frankford it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicene Canons but only defines that vera latria is not to be given to Images which the Councell of Nice likewise affirms If then these two Councells agree how could the Dr. truly say that the Frankford councell rejected the Nicene Thus you see that the Dr. hath not at all prov'd the church of Rome condemned by any generall Councell But since he cannot prove it by Authority he will by reason thus The want saith he of the sentence of a generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists

Sonns of the Church of England shall fail to attain that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine and that is no lesse than the certain salvation of your soul I rest Sir Your most humble servant P. Samwaies ERRATA Read c. but insert what is thus marked In the Epist amused page 3. line 6. in p. 10. l. 5. from ibid. l. 25. obstinate p. 16. l. 24. Latin p. 17. l. 8. condemned p. 18. l. 5. unlimited p. 23. l. 21. of Rome p. 29. l. 10. Reply p. 37. l. 7. debeitam in marg p. 38. spec alia ibid. recesse p. 41. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. reasoning p. 42. l. 9. Bishops p. 45. l. 12. the ib. l. 20. Antecessores ī mar p. 48. Jacobasius ib. l. 16. vim in marg p. 51. diminish p. 52. l. 1. thought ib. l. 21. in marg ib. magnopere in mar p. 53. cred tum ib. Photius ib. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Franofurdiensi ī m. p. 55 Hinemarus ib. l. 25. Pithaeus p. 56. habita in marg ib. dele ib. Germancrū Apostolici ibid. a p. 57. l. 20. Ex. 20.4 5. p. 58. l. 17 martyrib in marg p. 62. Quoniam in m. p. 63. Dominico ib. plebi ib. Chrysost p. 67. l. 8. Nyssen ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. quia in marg p. 76. duodececim in mar p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 17. ancient p. 80. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. sometimes p. 84. l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. any jurisdiction p. 89. lin 23. What other Errors of the Presse besides these here noted the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostacy Heresy Schisme as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUAERIES c. The Romanist's Quaeries IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and mother-Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostacy Heresy or Schisme First Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title of Christianity White defence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus Secondly Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars viz. 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemne her Thirdly Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion hel● with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians or brake communion or went forth the society of any elder Church I pray you satissie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her which from age to age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whom she departed The Protestants Answer WE deny not the honour reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition we deny her no title of commendation proper for her Such was the Church of Jerusalem of which notwithstāding you may hear the Lord making this cōplaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah Isa 1.21 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot it was full of judgement righteousnesse lodged in it but now murtherers Thy silven is become drosse thy wine mixed with water We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her in any one instance of time for we believe generally of all Churches 1 Cor. 3.9 that they were God's Husbandry and God's Building as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church and that salvation was to be found in them but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church that embraced and taught damnable errors 1 Cor. 15.12 some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrection some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision Gal. 6.12 and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereticall errors why those particular Churchs in respect of such a prevailing party might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy Heresy and schisme I see no reason When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men became the Sanctions and Lawes of the roman-Roman-Church as the worshipping of Images the invocation of Saints and Angells the Doctrines of justification by workes Purgatory halfe-Communion Co●po●eall-reall presence merit of good workes c. then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy heresy Schisme 1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught for Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only nor a departing from the whole Christian faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the profession which men have formerly made it hath a latitude in it which admits of degrees one may apostatize from a portion as well as from the whole Truth 2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points at least grating upon the foundations if not fundamentall and to maintain them pertinaciously be heresy How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it concerns them especially to consider who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only but of the whole Catholique Church but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit her selfe frō this charge til she can prove