Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	age_n	church_n	time_n	2,142	5	3.6322	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61802	A discourse concerning the necessity of reformation with respect to the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome : the first part.	Stratford, Nicholas, 1633-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing S5930; ESTC R10160	55,727	60

A DISCOURSE Concerning the NECESSITY OF REFORMATION With Respect to the Errors and Corruptions OF THE Church of Rome AMONG the many Errors of the Church of Rome there is one especially that puts a ba● not only to the Reformation of her self but of all other Churches which depend upon her and that is the Doctrine of her Infallibility If she cannot err neither she nor any other Church that follows her conduct can stand in need of being reform'd for where there can be no Error there can be nothing amiss and where there can be nothing amiss there can be no need of Reformation 'T is therefore needful to remove this Prejudice in order to the clearing of the way to the ensuing Discourse When the Romanists assert that their Church is Infallible and theirs only we may in reason expect that they should produce good Proof that their Church is so highly privileged above all other Churches This they say they do and their Proofs they tell us are so convincing that they may pass for no less than Demonstrations But alas when we come to examine them we find our selves strangely disappointed instead of Demonstrations we meet with nothing that amounts to so much as Probability Their pretended Proofs are taken from Scripture from Reason and from the Authority of the ancient Church I. Those from Scripture are many but all of them as impertinent as that of their Angelical Doctor to prove that all men are not equally bound to have an explicite Faith because 't is said Job 1. 14. that the Oxen were plowing and the Asses were feeding besides them For First They do not prove that any Church now in being is Infallible Secondly Much less that the Church of Rome is First They do not prove that any Church now in being is Infallible I say now in being because we grant that there was a time when even particular Churches were in their Guides Infallible viz. while the Apostles liv'd and took upon them the Government of particular Churches And many of those Scriptures which the Romanists produce for the Infallibility of their present Church peculiarly relate to that time and to those Persons For instance these Promises The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things John 1● 26. and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you I have many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he shall guide you into all Truth for the shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall Joh. 16. 12 13. hear that shall ●e speak and he shall shew you things to come 'T is plain that these Promises are to be limited to the Apostles and those Disciples only who personally convers'd with our Saviour because they were made to those to whom he himself had spoken and to whose remembrance the Holy Ghost was to bring those things he had before told them to those to whom he had many more things to say which they were not yet able to bear to those who had been with Christ from the beginning to those from whom Christ was now going away and whom he had before told of his departure to those to whom the Holy Ghost was to shew things to come a Privilege which the present Roman Church does not I think so much as pretend to And for those other Scriptures which extend to succeeding Ages tho they do for the most part concern the Catholick only and not any particular Church yet they neither assert nor promise any such thing as absolute Infallibility Let it be supposed that St. Paul calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth for these words may as well be connected with 1 Tim. 3. 1● and apply'd to that Summary of Christian Doctrine which follows must the meaning needs be that the Church cannot err May it not justly lay claim to this Title 1. If it do not actually err tho it is fallible and may err If nothing may be call'd a Pillar that is capable of any defect St. Peters Church in Rome will have no Pillar left to support it Or 2. If it doth not err in things necessary to Salvation That may be truly call'd a Pillar that upholds all that is needful to the being of the House tho it do not support every little part but suffers here and there a Tile or a Stone to fall to the ground Or 3. If together with all necessary Truths it gives support to some Errors As we frequently see those Pillars that uphold the Building together with it they also support other things that are laid upon it and are no better than a nusance and incumbrance to it And such a Pillar of Truth the Romanists must be forc'd to grant the Universal Church hath sometimes been for has it not for some ages maintain'd those Doctrines which the present Church of Rome condemns as erroneous Tho the truth is the Church here spoken of was that in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself and that was the Church of Ephesus or in the largest sense that of Asia of Mr. Ryca●t's present State of the Greek Church p. 54. which Ephesus was the Metropolis and that this Church hath fundamentally err'd must needs be granted there being not one family of Christians now to be found in Ephesus From that Promise of our Saviour that the gates of Hell shall Matth. 16 18. not prevail against his Church They can by no means infer Infallibility till they have first prov'd that the gates of Hell prevail against every society yea against every person that is not infallible And when that shall be once prov'd the gates of Hell will be so largely extended and those who enter in at them so numerous that 't is to be fear'd St. Peter will never more be put to the trouble of opening the gates of Heaven for any man 'T is true Christ hath promised to be with his Church always even Matt. 28. 20. to the end of the World But if all those with whom Christ is present are infallible then every sincere Christian in the world is so and then what will become of the Popes Prerogative When the poorest Mechanick in case he be but an honest Christian will be as infallible a Guide of Controversies as he is now by his Flatterers pretended to be And as little to this purpose is that other Promise of our Saviour Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them For if Christ's being in the midst of Matt. 18. 20. them does make them infallible since 't is sure he will never be worse than his word 't is also certain that if but two or three only shall meet together in his name in London they will be when so met together infallible And if Infallibility may be had at home and at

Adrian II. So that if the Pope confirming a Council be infallible 't is certain that the Pope hath not only err'd but hath been a Heretick that is 't is certain that he hath damnably err'd and that 't is impossible he should err I shall propose two or three questions to the Romanists the answers to which one would think might put an end to this controversie because whether they be in the affirmative or negative they must of necessity grant That either the ancient or modern Popes have err'd The questions are these First Whether Pope Gelasius did not err when he forbad communicating in one kind only as a grand Sacrilege (q) Comperimus antem quidam sumptâ tantummodo sacri corporis portione à calici sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. 12. Secondly Whether Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great did not err when they condemn'd the title of universal Bishop as prophane and Antichristian (r) Pelagii epist ad Constanstantinopol Synod Episcopos Greg. M. lib. 6. Epist 30. Thirdly Whether Pope Martin V. did not err when he confirm'd the Council of Constance which determin'd that a general Council was the Popes Superiour (s) Concil Constant sess 4 5. Now what Arts have the Romanists to reconcile these palpable contradictions They have a notable invention by which Statuimus and Abrogamus do signifie the same thing as the Gloss upon Gratian informs us they do (t) Statuimus i. e. abrogamus dist 4. cap. Statuimus For that the Pope may err and that he cannot err may both be true He may err as a private Doctor he cannot err as Pope Hildebrand may quite fall from the Faith Gregory the Seventh cannot so much as trip His Errors whatsoever they are are ever personal never judicial Much like that distinction in the late times of Rebellion between the King 's personal and politick Capacity by the help of which they fought for the King who fought against Charles Stuart But when the Pope determines judicially does he follow his private judgment or does he not If not he defines against his Conscience he really believes one thing and professes to believe another If he does then in case it happens that he err personally he must of necessity err judicially But when may the Pope be said to err judicially if not when he errs in making his Decrees And so of necessity must one of those Popes do whose Decrees thwart and oppose each other If ever the Pope cannot err 't is as Bellarmine asserts when he teaches the Universal Church in Matters concerning Faith (u) Summ●s Pontifex cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad Fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 3. and so did Pope Vigilius when he publish'd his Definition concerning the three Chapters (w) Baron an 553. n. 208. which he himself afterward retracted In brief if the Pope could not sin we might then be perswaded to grant that he could not err since a Holy Heart and Life are the best Dispositions to a right Belief but since the Popes are such great Strangers to Holiness as they have commonly been for a long time who can imagine that they above all other men should be so intimately acquainted with Truth 2. That Councils as general as any that have ever been have err'd the Romanists will be forc'd to grant because there are many such Councils which are by themselves reprobated (x) Bell. ●e Concil l. 1. c. 6. 'T is to no purpose to tell us that those are such as were never confirm'd or approv'd by the Pope for if a General Council as such is Infallible it is so whether the Pope confirm it or not Besides the Council hath done its work and therefore hath err'd or not err'd before it is confirm'd by him In case therefore it hath err'd his Confirmation cannot make it not to have err'd if it hath not err'd there is no need of it to that purpose But some will say the Popes Confirmation doth not make the Council not to have err'd but declare it and thereby gives assurance to all Persons that it hath not err'd It seems then that a General Council may err or else what need the Pope to declare that it hath not err'd But if the Pope himself be not Infallible how can I be e're the more sure that a Council hath not err'd because the Pope approves it And what if the Pope be an Heretick as Honorius was can a Council be thought the moreor less Orthodox for being confirm'd by him Should the Council condemn his Heresie and vindicate the Truth can it be supposed that he would confirm it But that the Popes rejecting or approving is no certain Argument that a Council hath err'd or not err'd is certain because if it were that which is Truth to day may be Error to morrow because the same Council which hath at one time been condemn'd by the Pope hath at another time been confirm'd by him For instance the Fifth General Council which was first condemn'd and afterward approved by Pope Vigilius (y) Pet. de Marca Dissert de Epist Vigilii 3. That General Councils confirm'd by the Pope have actually err'd is no less manifest For 1. They have made Decrees so apparently contradictory to the plain Words and Sense of Holy Scripture that no impartial Person can any more question it than he can whether Theft be forbidden by the Eighth Commandment So did the Council of Constance confirm'd by Pope Martin V. and the Council of Trent confirm'd by Pope Pius IV. The former in the Decree for Laicks communicating in one kind only notwithstanding as themselves acknowledge that Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds and deliver'd it in both to his Disciples (z) Concil Constant Sess 13. The latter in decreeing that the Divine Service should not be in the vulgar Tongue (a) Concil Trident Sess 22. c. 8. in plain contradiction to what St. Paul prescribes in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians 2. General Councils confirm'd by Popes have made Definitions and Decrees plainly contradictory one to the other The sixth General Council was confirm'd by Pope Adrian I. the Council of Trent by Pope Pius IV. The former defin'd that Marriage was dissolv'd by Heresie (b) Canon ●2 The latter that it was not (c) Concil Trident Sess 24. Can. 5. The Council of Constance confirm'd by Pope Martin V. decreed that a General Council was superior to the Pope (d) Sess 4. 5. the last Lateran Council condemn'd this Decree (e) Co●c●l Lateran Sess 11. 3. A General Council confirm'd by one Pope hath been condemn'd by