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	succession_n	1,709	5	10.1649	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03221	Carpenters chippes, or, Simple tokens of vnfeined good will to the Christian friends of Iames Balmford ...	Balmford, James, b. 1556.	1607 (1607)	STC 1334; ESTC S1169	25,047	71

that one Church professeth But the Church of Rome professeth not indeed the Catholike faith as shal be in part shewed hereafter therefore in no sense it can be truly called Catholique But suppose it held the Catholique faith yet were it not for that cause an obiect of faith according to the Apostles Creed more than a particular man or any other particular Church holding the faith Here it is to be vnderstood that howsoeuer we may say This man or that Church is Catholique yet we may not say and speake properly This is the Catholique man or That is the Catholique Church 4 That the Church of Rome holdeth not the Catholike faith neither yet hath done for many yeeres may be demonstrated in sundry fundamentall points Let it be sufficient to produce though but one yet that most fundamental sith it is called by an excellency The Word of faith preached Rom. 10. 6 8. by all the Apostles And the rather that One because it is the principall argument of that worthy Epistle which Paul wrote Cap. 1. 8. to the Romans whose faith was then published throughout the whole world So that if the Church of Rome swarue from this truth it is manifest that it is the ofspring not of the true members of the Primitiue Church of Rome but of the troublers of that Church of whom Paul thus writeth Now I beseech you brethren Cap. 16. 17. 18. marke them diligently which cause diuision and auoid them For they that are such serue not the Lord Iesus but their owne bellies and with faire speech and flattering deceiue the hearts of the simple But what is that most fundamentall point Euen that same which Paul after a large and learned disputatiō setteth downe as his peremptory iudgement in these words Therefore Rom. 3. 28. we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law But the Church of Rome that now is holdeth and for many yeeres hath held That a man is iustified both by faith and works contrary to the conclusion therefore the Church of Rome is not Catholique but Antichristian 5 I say Antichristiā because it may be proued such by many reasons and that because it erreth in this point but I only propound to wise and religious consideration this deduction That Antichristian Apostasy or Antichrist is called The Mystery 2. Thess 2. 7 of iniquitie that is a mysticall iniquity that is an iniquity which is indeed iniquity but not perceiued as Christ is called The Mystery of godlinesse that is a 1. Tim. 3. 16. mystical godlinesse that is godlinesse indeed but not perceiued But wherefore is Antichrist a mysticall iniquitie Because his Righteousnesse though glorious in shew is iniquity indeed because he attributeth Gal. 5. 4. Rom. 3. 27. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Rom. 1. 16. 17. 4. 5. Iustification thereunto Now this is a mysterie to flesh and blood which would faine reioyce in it selfe that Righteousnes should be Iniquitie Euen so is the Gospell a mysterie for by it the Righteousnes of God is reueiled which otherwise could not be perceiued of flesh and blood For is it not a mysticall paradox to carnall reason to say God iustifieth the vngodly which yet is cleere to him who vnderstanding the Scriptures doth not only abhorre his foule iniquitie but also Phil. 3. 9. Esa 64. 6. disclaimeth his owne defiled righteousnes and by faith layeth hold on the righteousnes of God which is only by Christ or Who trusteth not to his righteousnes inherent which tasteth of the caske but to righteousnes imputed which maketh vs blessed These things well considered It may appeare that as Christ is the mystery of godlines not only because he is very God though in the shape of a seruant but also because the Word of Christ viz. the Gospell teacheth a mystical righteousteousnes So the Pope is Antichrist not only because he is an aduersarie in exalting himself aboue all that is called God though he pretend to be the seruant of seruants but also because his doctrine is a mysticall iniquitie Heere it is to be remembred that on the forehead of the Reuel 17. 5. 9. 18. Whore of Babylon to wit Rome was written this word A mysterie and it is also to bee vnderstood that on the Popes Mitre is the same word set with precious stones If then for the doctrine of Iustification and merit by workes the Church of Rome bee Antichristian it followeth that it is not Catholique and therefore hath not continued an apparant member of the Catholique Church euer since the Apostles time 6 The later point inferred may be the rather admitted if wee marke well that Paul saith That the Mystery of iniquitie 2. Thess 2. 7 was working in his time So that it is likely that those troublers of whom mētion is made in the 4. section ouergrew as weeds the good corne in time and preuailed still vntill that mysterie of iniquity was reuealed and consumed by the Spirit of God in the mouth of Luther and other the seruants of Christ Iesus 7 For the better manifestation of this point let vs seriously consider that howsoeuer the Church of Rome were now an apparant member of the Catholique Church which indeed is not to bee imagined yet sith it is not the Catholique and inuisible Church but a visible and particular Church and hath not any speciall promise that it should continue the same from the first constitution how can we be assured but that in so many hundreds of yeeres there haue been some alterations and innouations as well as in the Church of God among the Israelites Rom. 9. 4. to whom pertained the adoption glory couenants giuing of the Law seruice of God and the promises And yet it is written 2. Chro. 15. 3 of the Church Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God and without Priest to teach and without Law 8 As for that promise of Christ Thou Mat. 16. 18. art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shal not ouercome it it appertaineth to the Catholique Church as builded vpon Christ the 1. Cor. 3. 11. only foundation of his Church and not to the Church of Rome more than to the Churches of Asia which are ouercome or any other particular Church which may be ouercome yet that promise remaineth Gen. 9. 13. inuiolable as the couenant whereof the Raine-bow is a signe is inuiolable notwithstanding sundrie particular countries be ouerflowen 9 Indeed Augustine did once take that Rocke to bee Peter the Apostle and his successors the Bishops of Rome but hee after altered that his opinion and vnderstood Rocke to signifie Christ by Peter confessed For that Christ did not say to Peter I will build me vpon thee But his words were so Augustine conceiued them as if hee had said I will build thee vpon me and not me vpon thee His meaning Col. 1. 24. is

It is absurd that the Church which is Christs bodie and is therefore called 1. Cor. 12. 12. Christ because it cannot consist without the head therof which is Christ himselfe should be builded vpon Peter who is but a member of the body It is therfore conuenient that Peter being but a member should be builded vpon the body considered together with the head 10 Surely Augustine had reason to fly 1. Pet. 2. 6. to the true Rocke of saluation For howsoeuer the succession of the Bishops of Rome till his time was an excellent testimony to the truth because they successiuely maintained the faith touching the fundamentall points therof yet he might well consider that Personall succession without succession in faith is not a sufficient confirmation or authenticall note of a true Church For at Cōstantinople there hath bin an interrupted succession of Bishops til this day And yet the Papists wil deny that to bee any part of Christ his Church because it reteineth not the true faith of Christ 11 But because there is such adoe about the succeeding of Peter and it is made a matter of so great importance it is necessary to bee proued that the Bishops of Rome bee Peters successors Which how possibly Papists can performe I cannot see sith there is such a disagreement about his supposed immediate successor the Decrees affirming Clement and writers of good regard as Ireneus and other placing Linus next after Peter 12 That this doubt whether the Bishops of Rome be Peters successors may be put out of all doubt the Papists must necessarily proue foure things 1. That Peter was at Rome 2. That he sate Bishop there 25. yeeres 3. That he was vniuersal Bishop And 4. That his vniuersal authoritie was sufficiently conueyed ouer to all that should lawfully succeed him in that See In any of which if they faile the Popes authority falleth to the ground For if Peter were neuer at Rome how could he be Bishop there If not Bishop at all how vniuersall Bishop If he had no such authority himselfe how could it be conueyed ouer to his pretended successors And if there were not sufficient conueyance how frustrate is the Popes claime But that there be such doubts in euery of these points as the Papists cannot cleerely resolue consider well the foure next articles 13 None doth simply deny but that Peter might haue been at Rome as a passenger or for some short abode although so much be not manifest But that he sate Bishop there and that so many yeeres is altogether vnlikely For it not very likely that Paul saluting so many by name as he doth in his Epistle to the Romans but that hee would make some honorable mention of Peter And wheras sixe of his Epistles were dated at Rome Is it not likly but that in some of them hee would speake of Peter if he had been there so long and in such authority as he doth of Timothy whose authoritie was lesse that thereby his exhortations and reprouings might better preuaile To say nothing that the Scriptures doe not in any place signify that Peter was at Rome Which in likelihood should haue bin done if God had seene succession of Bishops at Rome from Peter to be a matter of so great importance as now it is made 14 But say that he was at Rome it will helpe the Papists nothing except they can proue that hee was also Bishop of Rome Whereof there is small likelihood if wee take this word Bishop not in the large sense which comprehendeth Apostles and all Ministers hauing authoritie but in the strict sense which signifieth a Minister intituled to a certaine place For is it likely that Peter descended from the highest degree in the Church of which al Apostles were next to Christ the head to the inferiour degree of a Bishop or Is Matth. 18. 18. 28. 18. 19. 20. it likely that hee who had authoritie throughout the whole world as hee was an Apostle was tied to a particular charge as he was Bishop 15 But they say He was Vniuersall Bishop and therefore his authority was not restreined They must needs say so for else his supposed being Bishop at Rome will stand them in no stead But was his authoritie inlarged hereby If no for how could hee haue a larger iurisdiction thā Apostolical authority throughout the world what reason then can they giue why he should enioy that Vniuersall authoritie rather by the name of a Bishop and that of a particular place than by the name of an Apostle Againe Is it not strange that they cannot by any Scripture proue this point sith it is of such consequence with them as that it bindeth their consciences to the See of Rome Nay rather the Scriptures shew the contrarie For it is recorded in holy Writ That the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. 8. that is of the Iewes was committed to Peter and the Apostleship of the vncircumcision that is of the Gentiles such were the Romans was committed to Paul Againe Is it likely that Paul who Rom. 15. 20. inforced himselfe to preach the Gospell not where Christ was named lest hee should haue built on another mans foundation would so intrude himselfe into Peters office as to meddle with the affaires of so many Churches as he doth and that with all authoritie in his Epistle to the Romans and other his Epistles from Rome and al this without any mention of Peter if Peter had been at Rome and had such an Vniuersal authoritie Sith Paul as is said ioyned with himselfe for the more authorie of some of his Epistles Timothy one of lesse authority than Peter and writeth to the Philippians That he Phil. 2. 20. had none like minded to Timothy that would faithfully care for their matters Lastly It is vtterly vnlikely That Paul Gal. 2. 11. c. would haue reproued Peter to his face and that openly for withdrawing himselfe from the Gentiles if Peter had had such authoritie as the Papists dreame of 16 But suppose that Peter was at Rome and had such authoritie what is the Pope better for it if it were not made ouer to Peters successors by sufficient conueyance But in this poynt which chiefely concernes the Pope the Papists seeme vtterly to faile For Gregorie the first reprooued Iohn Bishop of Constantinople for indeuouring to obtaine the title of Vniuersall Bishop and to haue his Church called the head of all Churches telling him that none of the Bishops of Rome durst take such a title though the Emperours began in Rome were wont to abide there only and did then intitle themselues Emperours of Rome Nay he told him yet more plainely That whosoeuer aspired to bee Vniuersall Bishop was a fore-runner of Antichrist Whereby it is euident that in Gregories time there was no knowledge of any conueyance of Peters supposed authority made ouer to the Bishops of Rome But for al this peremptory iudgement of Gregory surnamed The