Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	church_n	err_v	1,649	5	9.6490	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

Church in this place neither a generall council nor the Pope is ment but the Gouernours of seuerall congregations or the whole congregations themselues whether they be more or fewer so they be a church that is of necessity more then one Therfore whatsoeuer can be gathered out of this text for the churches priuiledge and soueraignty belongs to the Pastors and Rulers of seuerall churches If then by this scripture it be proued that the church cannot erre it is proued that the pastors and gouernours of seuerall charges cannot erre How then is this the speciall priuiledge of the Pope But indeed this is a great question and I thinke not easie by any Papist to be decided whether the priuiledge of not erring belong to the Pope or to the church If it were giuen to Peter and his successors why is it made common to them with the rest of the church If it appertaine to the whole church why is it appropriated to the Pope If it rest in the Pope what becomes of it Sede vacante when there is no Pope At such times be like the church may erre yea and at other times too For if it be proper to the Pope not to erre then all beside the Pope may erre and so it may come to passe that there shal be no church in the world because the Pope alone if he be neuer so great a head is but a head whereas to the being of a church a body also is necessary and not a head only * The 2. part of the proofe of the principall proposition To the second part of the profe of the principal proposition The 2. proofe that the church cānot erre To the secōd proofe that the church can not erre They that doe not beleeue the Church cannot erre haue no meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe The truth of this Proposition wil be more fitly examined when we come to his Refutation of the scriptures sufficiency in the meane while let vs see what these other proofes are that follow If God ordained Pastors and Doctors least the Church should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine then the Church cannot erre What Church meane you not the Pope for he hath not this priuiledge as he is a Pastor or Doctor but as he is Peters successor nor the congregation for the people both may and doe erre What then These Pastors and Doctors But they are not all Popes I trow that they should be exempted from possibility of erring It was indeed Gods purpose in giuing Pastors and Doctors that his children which only are the Church should be instructed and established in all truth and accordingly it comes to passe in matters of substance and foundation but this is done by little and little as the Apostle witnesses in this place knowledge being not perfect all at once but first beginning as in children then by degrees receauing a continual increase till we come to the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ which is neuer found in any while we remaine 1. Cor. 13. 9. in this vale of ignorance where we do but see in part If this reason proue any thing it makes as well for euery Pastor and Doctor in his seuerall charge as for the Pope in his pretended generall For it cannot be doubted but that the whole succession of the ministery is here signified vnder the title of Pastors Doctors in seuerall Congregations such as this or these of the Ephesians were Neither can w● from Gods purpose conclude the necessitie of the euent since we finde the contrary in dayly experience and know by scripture that not these or those means but only in generall means of saluation are prouided for them whom God hath chosen to eternall life though ordinarily the word be the means The Princes end in making and appointing iudges is that true iustice may be administred to the people Nay more then that it is also Gods purpose in this his owne ordinance yet it doth not follow hereupon that the Iudges or Magistrats cannot or will not erre But if Christ haue promised the Church the assistance of the The 3. proofe that the church cānot erre To the 3. proofe that the church cānot erre holy Ghost in such sort that they that will not heare her will not heare him then the Church cannot erre If this promise of Christ be generall that whosoeuer will not heare the church in all points will not heare him then the consequence is good But that we deny because it is restrained to the scripture according to which if the church speake not we may not at any hand giue eare vnto her You will say she neuer speakes but agreeably to the Scriptures That is the question which we must see how you proue in your assumption Io● 14. 17. Luc. 10. 16. The Father shall giue you saith Christ to his Apostles another comforter euen the spirit of truth which the world cannot receaue c. If Christ promised to his Apostles the spirit of truth then the church cannot erre First our Sauiour in this place enforces not vpon this guift of the spirit any necessitie of hearing whatsoeuer the Church shall deliuer but only makes this promise by way of comfort Secondly this promise is made not to the church in generall but to the Apostles in particular Thirdly is is made not onely to them all ioyntly but also to euery one of them seuerally So that if by this place any thing can be concluded for the Church at this daye euery particular Pastor or Minister may claime this priuilege of not erring and beyng heard whatsoeuer he teach which being most absurde and impious that charge to heare and penalty for not hearing belongs simply to the Apostles only and to euery one of them whom the spirit of God infalliblie kept from erring To all others so far forth as that which they teach is agreeable to the word which the Lord by his Apostles hath left and commended to his Church Therefore howsoeuer the perswasion that the Church cannot erre may sometimes breed an outward quietnesse in the Church yet it hath no force to establish men in the vnitie of true beleefe since it may both deceaue and be deceaued not to end controuersies because all beleeue it not nor to abolish Heresies which many times it may fauour But what is it that he addes concerning generall Councills and auncient Fathers Haue they some priuilege the Church hath not Or is it his meaning to exemplifie that in particular which before he wrote in generall of the impossibility that the church should erre If it be then all he sayes of these for he brings no new reason is already answered in trying the Churches title to that feigned prerogatiue But cannot generall Councils deliuer false doctrine How chaunce then that some wholly others in part haue bin and are at this daie reiected by the Pope what say you to the three Councilles that make

deuised and also refuse the doctrine of visible famousnes which they would thrust vpon the church This last point is altogeather of the same kinde which I note the rather because both this and that are deliuered in such a phrase as the scripture knowes not To beleeue the Catholick church to descend into hell are speeches with which the scriptures are not acquainted and this is another reason why learned Diuines the rather perswade themselues that this Creed was not of the Apostles penning Yet do not we deny the truth of either of these articles b●t only that erroneous interpretation which the Papists make of them Of the former I haue already spoken now let vs shortly examine the latter First we say the english word Hell doth not expresse the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Inferi though wee cannot rest vpon the Latine whatsoeuer it signifies since it is but a translation Hell in English is restrained to the place of the damned so that no english man vnderstands by Hell either purgatory or limbus patrum or infantum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Inferi do signifie indifferently the state and place of the dead as Maister Brough●on hath sufficiently proued Neither need it breed a doubt in any man that descending or going downe is mentioned because it is out of doubt that the heathen from whom this speech is taken place their elysium or paradise vnder the earth as well as their Tartarus or Hell that lying on the right hand this on the left as it appeares in Virgill Aen●id 6. Hac iter elysium nobis at laeua malorum Exercet poenas et ad impia tartara mittit Secondly it is to be known that diuers Creeds haue not this article in them which proues that it was thought either to be comprised in some of the other or els not to be any matter of faith Thirdly it must be obserued that some of the ancient writers haue vnderstood it of our Sauiours buryall as Ruffinus and Athanasius hee in plaine termes auouching that it was not to bee found in the Romane Creed and that the meaning of it seemed to be nothing els but that he was interred or laied in his graue Athanasius indeed hath the words but that hee takes them to signifie his buriall may appeare for that he leaues out all other mētion of that article of his buriall Fourthly it must be remembred that the maintayners of Christs going really into hell agree not about the matter whether he went into the place of the damned or only into the suburbes of it in limbum patrum or Infantum nor about the end Fiftely we haue great reason to refuse this sense which hath no ground of Scripture wherevpon it can be built as diuers of our writers haue plainely shewed and as I could and would prooue if it agreed with this course of writing Sixthly we affirme that if we shall follow the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot expound it of the place of the damned vnlesse it be apparant that the matter necessarilie requires it which also is to be said of the Hebrew Sheoll commonly in the Bible translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bucer Carlile and Broughton haue shewed by particular induction Seauenthly we must note this mans dealing that makes choise of the wo●st interpretation as he accompt it whereas he cannot be ignorant both that there are diuers other and that many Protestants do m●slike this which he brings as if he would make the world beleeue that we allow not of this peece of the Creed but onely in that sense howbeit many of our diuines do rather expound it of our Sauiours subiection to death or of the truth of his death fully signified not onely by his buriall but by his being altogether in the state of the dead his body and soule being seuered and seuerally so disposed of as all other dead mens bodies and s●ules are without any speciall signifying of the place whether his soule went But howsoeuer we dissent from our bretheren in the meaning of this Article we allow the doctrine as good and sound For we beleeue that our Sauiour Christ being by imputation a sinner though of himselfe most holy and pure suffred in his soule the wrath of God due to vs sinners and for our sinnes in such sort and measure as God had appointed and as without sinne in a finite time it could be suffred As for those horrible plasphemies which are sayde to be included in the paines of hell we neither auouch them all of our Sauiour Christ nor acknowledge that they nessarily accompany the wrath of God as in handling the particulars it will appeare Christ saith he bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation The consequence is false for he knew that God loued his person being his sonne and therefore that this wrath should not be perpetuall though the present sense of it wrung from him that lamentable exclamation My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and also that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from continuing in death which but for these reasons he must needs haue indured and which for a time he did taste the Godhead as it were withdrawing it selfe that the manhood might suffer Christ saith he suffred the wrath of God therefore God hated him and he God Of the latter clause I shall need to say nothing hauing before restrained Christs sufferings to that maner of torment which is without sinne Neither is that hatred of God an effect of his wrath in the damned in whom it is naturall but by his wrath against them that malice of theirs accidentally is increased Which I speake vpon this supposition that the damned shall continue in sinne as well as in punishment The former point if we hold the former distinction aduisedly contaynes at all no blasphemy against our sauiour his person was of it selfe most tenderly beloued of God his father though beeing considered as a sinner such as by imputation hee was in the sight of God for a time in that respect hee was to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Christ suffered saith he the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which c. The consequence should haue bin Therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for those offences for which he suffered the wrath of God But those were not his but ours Ours I say truly and properly h●s only by imputation And it is no blasphemy to hold that Christ so as he was a sinner and punished for sinne had also anguish of minde for sinne not for his owne there was no suspicion or likenesse of sinne in him but for ours which by his consent was charged on him for the time he saw the angry countenance of God against him and hee knewe that our sinnes had deserued the continuance of it for euer But the

the Pope subiect to the Councills Pisa Constance and Basill What to that of Florence vnder Charlemaigne which condemned worshipping of Images and the second Councill of Nice for allowing it Bellarmine saies they are not simply necessary and that more heresies haue bene abolisht without them then by them Nazianzen wholy mislikt them the Councill of Trent and that of Nice ended not the Controuersies Now if neither the Church haue it in generall nor especially Generall Councills how should the Pastors and ancient Fathers come by it For that which is added of their teaching on truth with ioynt consent is but to bleare the eyes of the ignorant Can there bee more ioynt consent then in generall Councills may they erre when they seeke the truth with graue and serious aduise in great multitudes and can they not be deceaued when they enquire after it priuately in their seuerall studies who knowes not that the error of some one man renowned for learning and Godlines drawes whole Churches after it many times especially since custome like a tyrant rules ouer the witts and wills euen of learned men who oft-times thinke it more discretion to retaine a small error with quietnes then to restore the truth with great trouble and hazard But where shall a man finde this ioynt consent you imagine I dare bee bould to say in very few points of controuersie at this day if in any Yet say it were ea●ilie to be found in the writinges that now are extant Alas what a small number of bookes haue wee in respect of those that haue bin written What gappes are there in the course of succession What maymes in often copying out bookes by writing What mistaking in translations many greeke copies being lost and the latine translation of them onely remaining And who can tell what Indices Purgatori● haue bene deuised enioyned before this last assemblie of Trent especially since Canons haue bene foisted into ancient Councills by Popes of Rome for the establishing of their lawlesse tyranny Therefore though we refuse not to make triall of our doctrine by the Fathers writings namely those that are indeed auntient in the first 600. yeeres before the kingdome of Anthichrist Yet we receaue them as witnesses of the truth not Iudges and vse them as we vse old Coines not for an assay to trye by them the purenes of met●all but for a standard to shew what moneis were currant in seuerall ages and places Where they speake according to Scripture we acknowledge the good graces of God in them to their deserued Commendation Where they write of themselues we obserue examples of mans frailety and ignorance to which we make no doubt but all writers since the Apostles and except them haue bin are and shal be subiect To what tryall then shall we be take our cause To what else but to the Scriptures of God Would a man thinke there should be any professed Christian found that would mislike of this course And yet our Papistes doe They cannot abide to heare that the sole Scripture should be vmpere and iudge in matters of controuersie Belike they haue found a better Euen the Pope to whome they attribute more whatsoeuer they talke of the Church Councills and Fathers then to all three together saue that by Church perhaps they meane the Pope Whom they make the head and husband of it being not afraide blasphemously to write that all the names that are giuen to Christ as he is ouer the Church belong to the Pope as well as to Christ though at the second hand as beeing Christs or rather as they say Gods vicar Perhaps they will say as good do so as remit all to euery mans priuat spirit and singular exposition Surely much about one yet by this later it may come to passe that though many erre yet many also may hold the truth Whereas by the former if one bee deceaued all must lie in ignorance and error since no man may so much as say vnto him why d●st thou so But that we permit not the interpretation of scripture to euery mans priuate fancy I shewed in handling the 2. Article Yet this inconuenience lyes vpon vs that we can not possiblie winde our selues out of the labirinth of so many controuersies wherewith wee are now inueigled and intricated When we lacke helpe we will send for their Pope or if neede bee make one of our owne As yet things are not in so desperat an estate that we should be enforced to seeke any such remedie For the Irreconciliable iarres betwixt vs are neither as he slanders vs in any essentiall point of faith nor such as hinder vs from agreeing in that doctrine which is according to the word of God established amongst vs and published in the Booke of Articles 1562. That the Protestants and the Puritans as the Papists B. terme them differ in essentiall points of faith he vndertakes to proue by this reason They that differ about the Kings supremacie the Bishops authoritie the obseruation of feasts c. differ in essentiall points of faith But the Protestants and Puritans differ in these Therefore they differ in essentiall points of faith If by essentiall points of faith all matters of truth in diuinitie be signified we graunt his conclusion adding further that the church was neuer yet so happy as to be without difference of opinions amongst diuines in any one age since the beginning of christian Religion If he meane by these words such things as are necessarilie to be beleeued to saluation or to the profession of christianitie I deny his Proposition in all or the most part of it as in handling the particulars it shall appeare That the Protestants hold the kings supremacie to be an essentiall point of faith so that he which doubteth of it cannot be either in truth or in profession a christian neither the confession of our church no the writings of any of our diuines prooue Indeed seditious Papists would beare the world in hand that their traiterous Priests and Iesuits haue beene executed for religion and not for treason in denying the Kings supremacie but neither Protestant nor Puritan euer yet beleeued them Both which doe constantly and ioyntly auowe that although it be not a heresie of so high a nature yet it is a wicked error against the truth of Gods word and an opinion not to be tollerated in any Christian or ciuill state There is no dissent betwixt the Protestant and the Puritan about the Kings supremacie but the difference that is ariseth from the diuers conceit each part hath of the things by his Maiestie enioyned as it shall appeare in due place Caluin doth not so much as charge Henrie the eight with assuming the Soueraignety he speakes of but onely layes the fault vpon certaine men who in an vnconsiderate zeale as he saith ascribed such a power to him as by the word of God is not warrantable Wherein these two points made him mislike the matter First that he was called

euen of as many as are indeed true Christians according to the practise of our doctrine But to come neerer to the point we are to vnderstand that the Protestants Doctrine of free wil is that no man hath power by nature either without the grace of Gods spirit to do any thing acceptable vnto God or to procure this grace to himselfe or to receaue it when it is offered For our present purpose it shal be ynough to speake a word or two of the last point not by way of proofe but declaration Whereas then we deny a man po●er to receaue the grace of God being offred we do not meane that this grace workes vpon him as on a stone or block but as on a reasonable creature No man beleeues but willingly onely the question is how it comes to pasle that when two men haue grace offred them the one beleeues the other doth n●t The Papist in this case fetcheth the difference fr● the good vse of his free will that beleeues we ascribe it to the diuers working of Gods spirit in his heart not denying that he vseth his free will to speake as they doe better then the other but acknowledging that therefore he so vseth it because the spirit of God teacheth and inclines and ineuitably brings him so to vse it that the difference may be from God and not from man To what end saith he tends this doctrine If it be possible that any man should be so blinde as not to see I will venture the losse of so much time and labour as may serue to shew him You aske vs why we say that men are saued by Gods grace not by their owne freewill Forsooth because we would haue God reape the glory of their saluation the pride of mans nature beaten down thē more beholding to God then to themselues None of which can be if a man by his owne free will make difference betwixt himselfe and another to the receauing of faith For he may truly say to God that he is no more beholding to him then many a one that is euerlastingly damned nay then euery one might haue bene if he would For what did God for him that he was not as ready to doe for another how many haue had as much grace offred them as he and yet are not iustified No more had he bene if he had not by his owne free-will helpt himselfe in speciall maner wheras God failed him leauing all to his choise to be saued or not to be saued Is this to teach carnall libertie you will say yea because it maketh a man negligent in disposing and preparing his soule How so for the difference is made by God What then to what purpose is it forme to prepare my selfe I maruell you aske not to what purpose it is for you to beleeue Are you yet to learne that although the cause of all goodnesse be grace yet God requires our endeuours as meanes to the receauing of this grace Did you neuer heare that we holde it for a monstrous absurditie to promise our selues any thing from God without vsing the meanes to obtaine it The same also I answere to the doing of good workes after sanctification the successe and euent proceeds onely and certainly from the spirit of God who Phil. 2. 13. workes in vs both to will and to doe Yet are we bound to vse all good meanes for the stirring our selues vp to holynesse and freely and willingly doe we whatsoeuer good worke we do by the grace of Gods spirit Therefore this similitude of the sicke Asse sheweth the Authors dangerous sicknesse eyther of ignorance if he know not the truth we holde or of malice if against this knowledge he wilfully peruert it They defend say you that men are iustified by faith alone That is we defend that God requireth nothing of man to his iustification but only that by faith he rest vpon Iesus Christ to be iustified by his suffrings The generall ground of this opinion is the end of all things created viz. the glory of God that man may haue nothing to boast of but simply ascribe the praise of his iustification to God that iustified him Neither doth this doctrine scorne God in reiecting it as much as you list eyther flatly ouerthrow or in any part diminish true repentance sorrowe for sinnes mortification of passions and all other vertues which will plainely appeare both before and after iustification for what though we be iustified onely by faith who knowes not that it is vnpossible for any man ordinarily to cast of this naturall and Popish confidence which he hath in his owne righteousnesse and to feele necessitie of being iustified by Christ If first he discerne not his damnable estate and being moued with horror thereof she from himselfe to Christ for iustification by pardon of sinne Now after a man is iustified can the knowledge of the meanes by which he is iustified kill these vertues in him Let the meanes and cause of his iustification be what you will If he may beleeue he is iustified and the Papists graunt some men haue knowne and more may know it at least by reuelation by your reason this effect must ensue So that it ariseth not from the doctrine of the meanes but from that of knowledge or assurance But how should these vertues be abolisht by iustification by faith only when as euerie man that is iustified is also sanctified Whosoeuer hath his sinnes forgiuen him hath withall the power of sinne abated in him How shall we that are dead Rom. 6. 2. to sinne liue any longer therein No man hath any incouragement by free iustification through faith to continue in sinne For if he be not sanctified he is not iustified If he be sanctified he is dead to sinne and aliue to righteousnesse True it is that prophane wretches will obiect against the Gospell now as they did in the Apostles time But this was not then nor is now any sufficient reason why the truth of God should be denyed or supprest for wicked mens abusing it to their owne damnation Yet perhaps you will reply that it is a more likly meanes to stir mē vp to repentance mortification and the practise of all vertues to teach them that they must deserue the first iustification of congruitie by their good preparation and fully make vp the measure of their second iustification by deseruing of condignitie for their good workes euerlasting life First let vs suppose it be likely in our corrupt iudgment yet may we not gratifie God with a lye nor doe euill that good may come of it And why should not we follow the practise of the Apostles whose course is in all their Epistles still to vrge grace in iustification and good workes for thankfulnesse not for merit yet we deny not but it is both warranted by the Scriptures and most conuenient to adde an edge to the workes of sanctification by threatning condemnation to sinners and promising reward to the