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
A68474	Appello Cæsarem A iust appeale from two vniust informers· / By Richard Mountagu.	Montagu, Richard, 1577-1641.	1625 (1625)	STC 18031; ESTC S112844	144,688	352

think and speake and write otherwise or you eyther yet both of us may bee deceived But somewhat there was which these men intended and would have said if so bee they could have hit upon it It is a Conclusion of the Romane Schooles The Church cannot Erre which Proposition I may both affirme and deny as it is proposed The Church CANNOT Erre The Church CAN Erre For first it i● ambiguous subiectivè What the Church is which cannot Erre The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and must be distinguished And secondly we may consider it obiectivè In what things the Church cannot Erre and Quousque that Not erring doth reach forth Extensivè To this purpose I differenced Churches two wayes into Topicall or Particular Churches into Catholick or Vniversall I divided also the objects of erring or not erring two wayes into Fundamentalls or superstructives For Particular locall Churches such as Corinth Ephesus Smyrna Thyatyra Laodicea c. it is in Confesso on both sides that They may Erre for it is evident that they have Erred both in inferiour and in higher points of Faith And so have Erred oftentimes that through their Erring in Fundamentalls in that sort they have ceased to be Churches any more The Catholick or universall Church I considered two wayes conceiving it to be Diffusive or Representative and that diffusion to runne out two wayes into Vniversality of ALL both Time and Place or into Vniversality of Time alone The first is so ample that it fetcheth in the APOSTLES and all and so includeth within the Verge that part of the Catholick Church which is now regnant in heaven and free from all Error as partaking of that blisse which leadeth infallibly holdeth inseparably in all Truth In this sense and acceptation the proposition is not quarrelled The Church so hath not cannot Erre The second divided part stinted from so large an extent is yet enlarged respectively to all members to every member in particular of the Catholick Church living any where at any one time so that the whole aggregation of all Christian professors make and compose this Church And as yet I thinke the Informers doe not quarrell us for Popery Their whole stitch is against the Church Representative in a Generall Councell In which though I should resolve simply and punctually thus A Generall Councell cannot Erre yet could I not be counted a Papist For the Tenent of the Papists if you my Informers know it not in their Schooles is this A Generall Councell can no way Erre in the Decisions finall thereof which is allowed by the POPE By which they necessarily inferre as also they stick not to expresse that unlesse the POPE give ratification any Generall Councell whatsoever may erre in any point of Faith of what nature soever And therefore such is their Doctrine since the IESUITES have domineered in their Schooles all the validity and assurance of not Erring which a Generall Councell hath or can have either in fide or moribus is onely from that impossibility of Erring which the POPE hath as Haeres ex asse unto S. PETER to whom our SAVIOUR behighted that impossiblity alone So that pretend the IESUITES as long as they will that fair and specious shew and title of the CHURCH never so much have they nothing in their mouthes but The CHURCH the CHURCH the POPE is that Church and their conclusion heer is not for the Church but for HIM Now doth Mr. MOUNTAGU come up unto nay looketh he toward this Catholick Roman fancy and infallible madnes Nothing lesse Hee directly pitcheth upon the Church Representative in a generall Councell WITHOUT the Pope I meane without the Pope as Head or exceeding the bounds and limits of a Patriarchicall Bishop I go not unto all things discussed or determinable in a Councell but rest upon that which is Fundamentall Nor doe I resolve it as certum de fide or tender it unto others to be beleeved I say no more but I see no cause why I may not so resolve and that also but upon suppositions if the Councell be truely GENERALL indeed and of SUCH none yet ever erred that ever I yet read or observed in Points Fundamentall And therefore I saw and see no cause but a man may say Such a Councell shall never erre in Fundamentals But concerning Fundamentals if your stitch bee against them I answer with B. MORTON in his Appeale THE beleefe of some Articles is so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as a reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man In such as these are shew me an error Dr. REYNOLDS himself though maintaining the contrary was not able in his VI. Conclusions out of all his reading and yet therein was his excellency to afford us so much as a peece of an example in Antiquity for a Generall Councell erring in FUNDAMENTALS and I am perswaded no man living can instance it Of such onely doe I speak and in such onely do I conceive infallibility and so as I conceive it the promise of OUR SAVIOUR may and doth hold HEE shall leade you into ALL TRUTH as also that other to the same purpose Where two or three are gathered together in my Name I AM THERE in the MIDDEST of them The Church of England may seem to have been of a contrary minde in her determinations and to have taught and prescribed to be so taught that such Generall Councels true and lawfull not onely may erre for possibilitie but also have erred in reality For Artic. XXI we reade thus GENERALL Councels may not be gathered together without the commandement and will of Princes And when they be gathered together for as much as they bee an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD they MAYERRE and sometime HAVE ERRED even in things appertaining unto GOD. Which decision of the Article is not home to this purpose First the Article avoucheth that GENERALL Councels have erred which cannot be understood of my limitation Fundamentals because there is no such Extat of any Generall Councell true and lawfull Secondly things appertaining unto GOD are not all Fundamentals but points of Piety GOD'S Service and Religion which admit a very large interpretation For many things appertaine unto GOD that are not of necessity unto salvation both in practice and speculation In these haply Generall Councels have erred in those other none can erre The Councell of Nice determined the controversie of Easter it was not Fundamentall I put the case that in it they erred It was a thing appertaining unto GOD in his service this may come under the sense and censure of the Article but this toucheth not my opinion concerning only Fundamentals Thirdly the Article speaketh at large concerning Generall Councels both for debating and deciding I onely spake of the determination wherein it may be possible they nor can nor shall erre that may and have erred in the discussing In that very Councell of