Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	authority_n	church_n	pillar_n	1,970	5	10.4442	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27045	The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members I. defended against the opposition of Mr. William Johnson, II. proved by many arguments / by Richard Baxter ; whereunto is added 1. an account of my judgement to Mr. J. how far hereticks are or are not in the church, 2. Mr. Js. explication of the most used terms, with my queries thereupon, and his answer and my reply, 3. an appendix about successive ordination, 4. letters between me and T.S., a papist, with a narrative of the success.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Johnson, William, 1583-1663.	1660 (1660)	Wing B1418; ESTC R17445	166,900	438

the Christians in the world But when the Emperours became Christians their great favour and large endowments of the Church and the greatness and advantage of the Imperial City did give opportunity to the Bishop of Rome as having both riches and the Emperours and Commanders ears to do so many and great favours for most other Churches in preserving and vindicating them that it was very easie for the Bishop hereby to become the chief Patriarch which he was more beholden to the Emperour for then to any Title that he had from Christ or Peter And then the quarrel with Iohn of Constantinople occasioned the thoughts of an universal Headship which Gregory did disclaim and abominate but Boniface after him by the grant of a murdering trayterous Emperour did obtain But so as the See swelled before into a preparatory magnitude And if we could not tell you the time within two hundred years and more it were no great matter as long as we can prove that it was not so before For who knows not that even some Kings in Europe have come from being limited Monarchs to be absolute and that by such degrees that none can tell the certain time Nay I may give you a stranger instance The Parliaments of England have part in the legislative power And yet I do not think that any Lawyer in England is able to prove the just time yea or the age or within many ages when they first obtained it which yet in so narrow a spot of ground may be easilier done then the time of the Popes usurpation over all the world For it could not be all at once for one Country yeilded to his late claim in one age and another in another age and many a bloody battle was fought before he could bring the Germane Emperours and Christian Princes to submit to him fully 3. But let me tell you one thing more Though as to an arrogant claim the Pope is Head and Governour of all the Catholike Church and Rome their Mistris as the Pope makes Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Hierusalem that never come near the place or people yet as to any possession or acknowledgement on the Churches part he was never universal Head nor Rome the Mistris to this day For the greater half of the Christians did never subject themselves to him at all nor come under his power So that the Pope even now in his greatest height is only the head of the universal Church by his own claim and naming himself so without any Title given by God or acknowledged by men and without having ever been possessed of what he claims The King of France doth scarce believe that the King of England was King of France for all that he put it into his title nor do the Swedes take the Pole for their King because he so calls himself I am sure if the Turkish Emperour call himself the Emperour of the world that doth not prove that he is so Rainerius the Popes Inquisitor in catal post lib. cont Waldens saith plainly That the Churches that were planted by the Apostles themselves such as the Abassines 〈◊〉 are not subject to the Pope Once he 〈◊〉 the Government of no Church in the world but Rome it self After that he grew to have the government of the Patriarchate of the West since that he hath got some more and claimed all but never got neer half the Churches into his hands to this day Do I need then to say any more to disprove his universal Headship and that Rome is not the Catholike Ruling Church But having gone thus far in opening my thoughts to you I shall forbear the adjoyning the proof of my Assertions till I hear again from you If I understand it The Question between you and me to be debated must be this Whether the Roman Church was in the Apostles dayes the Mistris or Ruling Church which all other Churches were bound to obey and from it were to be called the Roman Catholike Church This I deny and you must maintain or else you must be no Papist The motion that I make is that by the next you will send me your Arguments to prove it for it belongs to you to prove it if you affirm it To which I will return you if they change not my judgement both my Answers and my Arguments for the Negative And if you do indeed make good but this one Assertion I do 〈◊〉 promise you that I will joyfully and resolvedly turn Papist and if you cannot make it good I may expect that you should no longer adhere to Rome as the Ruling or Catholike Church and the Pillar and Ground of Truth though charity should allow it to be a Catholike Church that is a member of the Catholike Church which is indeed the Pillar and Ground of Truth wherein Rome may have a part as it is part of the Church But I would it were not a most dangerously diseased part I crave your reply with what speed you can and remain An unfeigned lover of Truth and the friends of Truth Rich. Baxter Feb. 12. 1656 7. The two following Letters with the Narrative are annexed only to shew the effect of the former Sir THough the business in agitation betwixt your self and me be the one thing necessary and so to be preferred to all obligations and businesses of what concernment soever yet a resolution formerly taken up hath diverted me somewhat from the present earnest prosecution thereof as it deserves Temporal credit though it should give way to things of eternal moment yet it often sways the minds even of good men to neglect very important opportunities which though I cannot excuse my self of yet I desire it may be candidly interpreted and that this may be accepted as a pledge to an answer of what you have inserted And I desire your next may be directed to me to London to one Mr. T. S. who is a kinsman of mine and no small admirer of your self My thanks in the interim I return for the pains you have taken which I hope through the mercy of God will not prove successeless for the future one way or other the truth is I have not divulged my self or intentions as yet to any of my own way which I know will be very troublesome and I know I shall be beset with enemies from the ignorant that way affected as I doubt not of help from the learned Yet as I told you in my former without any carnal interest respecting or outward troubles regarding or inbred enemies combating I resolve by the grace and assistance of God to be guided by truth impartially where I shall find it lye clearest and shalt make it my work to implore the throne of mercy that my understanding may be so enlightned as to discern truth from heresie I desire Sir if it may be no prejudice to your more earnest occasions that I may have two or three lines from you by way of advice to meet me at London at the place

are Eutychians and Jacobites and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria c. See more of the Chofti Jacobites Maronites c. p. 493 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope and have renounced their old errors See Nilus on this subject (a) (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. (b (b Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon (c) (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. (d) (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. (e) (e) St. Cyprian Epist. 67. (f) (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4. cited by St. Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 753. (g) (g) St. Basil. Epist. 74. (h) (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent (i) (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. (k) (k) St. Athanas ad Solit. Epist. Julius in lit ad Arian ap Athan Apolog 1. pag. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it Tom. 2. l. 13. c. g. p. 498. and the whole Council of Calcedon acknowledged the right of that Appeal restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick by force of an order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope Chamier cit p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Which had it been so yet it shews a true power of judging in the Pope though then unduly executed otherwise Saint Athanasius would never have made use of it neither can it be condemned of injustice unless Saint Athanasius be also condemed as unjust in consenting to it Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. sayes other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope Which though it were so yet never was there any single Bishop save the Pope who restored any who were out of their respective Diocess or Patriarchates but always collected together in a Synod by common voice and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops whereas the Bishop of Rome his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over (m) (m) Concil Chalced. Action 1. (n) (n) Concil Chalced. Action 3. * * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Libera● in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same St. Greg. C. 7. Ep. 63. declares that both th● Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounces that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome (o) (o) St. Augustin Tom 1 Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum Epist. Concil ad I. con Pap. Act. 1. sequ For the age 600. See St. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30. where Hereticks and Shismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publike protestation that they would never any more separate from but alwaies remain in the unity of the Catholike Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome

all the rest are perhaps too much honoured R. B. Quest. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastors that depend on none Mr. J. Answ. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Hierom does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Repl. ad Resp. ad Quest. 4. How unconstant are you among your selves in the use of terms How frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergy But remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations and Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not only the Pastors in Council much less the Pope alone Mr. J. Heresie Is an intellectual obstinate opposition against divine authority revealing when it is sufficiently propounded R. B. Of Heresie Is the opposition and obstinacy that makes Heresie in the Intellect or will Mr. J. In the will by an imperate Act restraining the understanding to that errour R. B. Reply Of Heresie Qu. 1. Reply 1. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing You describe Heresie to be An Intellectual obstinate Opposition and yet say that this is in the will And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act No Imperate act is in the will though it be from the will It is voluntary but not in voluntate An Imperant act may be in the will but not Imperate All Imperate acts are in or immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the Imperate act is in the Intellect though the Velle intelligere which is an Elicite act be in the will 2. From hence its plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willful in opposing it which are things that you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready to be sworn that they would fain know the truth R. B. Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the Formal object of Faith is he no Heretick that denieth the matter revealed without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing Mr. J. Answ. Yes Nor is he a Formal but only a Material Heretick who opposes a revealed Truth which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Reply 2. Every man that believeth that there is a God indeed believeth that he is true For if he be not True he is not God If therefore no man be Formally an Heretick that doth not obstinately oppose the Veracity of God which is the formal object then as there are I hope but few Hereticks in the world so those few cannot by ordinary means be known to you unless they will say that they take God to be a lyar so that you make none Hereticks indeed but Atheists What if a man deny that there is a Christ a Heaven a Hell or a Resurrection and also deny the Revelation it self by which he should discern these truths and yet deny not the Veracity of God no nor of the Church is this no Heretick I would your party that have murdered so many thousands as Hereticks had so judged if a falshood may be wished as a thing permitted to have prevented such a mischief It is not Gods Veracity that is commonly denyed by Hereticks but the thing revealed and the Revelation of that thing And your Turnebul against Baronius hath told you that the Revelation is no part of the Formal object of faith but as it were the Copula or a condition sine qua non If he that obstinately refuseth to believe that the Godhead of Christ or the Holy Ghost is any where by God revealed and so denyeth it be no Heretick unless he also obstinately deny or resist the Veracity of God then there are few that you can prove Hereticks For forma dat nomen and he that is not a Heretick Formally but materially only is no Heretick at all Lastly many a truth is sinfully neglected by the members of the Church that have a proposal sufficient and yet not effectual through their own fault and yet they are no Hereticks Millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed and therefore their ignorance is their sin but it followeth not that it is their Heresie But if it be then Hereticks constitute your Church and then your Church is a thing unknown because the Hereticks cannot be known the sufficiency of each mans revelation being much unknown to others R. B. Qu. 3. What mean you by a sufficient proposal Mr. J. Answ. I mean such a proposal as is sufficient in humanis to oblige one to take notice that a King or chief Magistrate have enacted such or such Laws c. that is a publick Testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest Tribunal of Gods Church or by notorius and universal Tradition R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Reply 〈…〉 there lieth not so much at the stake as a mans salvation and man is not so able as God to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all and therefore the proportion holds not 2. But if it did either you think the sufficiency varieth according to the variety of advantages opportunities and capacities of the persons or else that it consisteth only in the act of common publication and so is the same to all the subjects If the first be your sense as I suppose it is then still you are uncertain who are Hereticks as being uncertain of mens various capacities and so of the sufficiency in question Unless you will conclude with me that thus you make all Hereticks as aforesaid because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus far sufficient If the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover that some of obscure education are unavoidably Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to the Majority are of publick testimony or universal Tradition Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition And yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your selves for Hereticks Your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Mr. J. Pope By Pope I mean St. Peter or any of his lawful Successors in the See of Rome having authority by the Institution of Christ to govern all particular Christian Churches next under Christ. R. B. Of the Pope Qu. 1. I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successors may be known to me What personal qualification is necessary ad esse Mr. J. Answ. Such as is necessary ad esse for other Bishops which I suppose you know R. B. Reply Of the Pope Qu. 1.