Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	bishop_n	church_n	succession_n	1,636	5	10.2155	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

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

there and there died as Papists doe suppose and If by the holy daies for Peters chaire at Antioch and Rome Papists shew their iudgement to be That it is of the essence of a Bishop to sit in the See whereof hee hath the title for otherwise they need not make such adoe to proue that Peter was at Rome seeing it were sufficient to proue if they could that he accepted the title then those 6. Popes howsoeuer they were in title Bishops of Rome yet in truth they were Bishops of Auignion and therefore no apparant successors of Peter and therefore no apparant heads of the Church and therefore for 70. yeeres the Church of Rome was not an apparant member of the Catholike Church according to the sense of the Papists themselues Fourthly Onuphrius a Popish writer telleth of 30. Schismes in the Church of Rome Of which the 29. lasted 50. yeeres together Wherin there were sometimes two Popes together and sometimes three All which three were remoued by the Councel of Constance Can any say that all this while there was an apparant head If not it must necessarily follow That the Church of Rome hath not been euer since the Apostles time an apparant member of the Catholique Church according to the sense of the Papists themselues 20 Lastly As when the eye is darke Matth. 6. 23 the whole body must needs be darke So if the head viz. the Pope be so corrupt as that it cannot be perceiued to be an apparāt member of the Catholike Church how can the Church of Rome whose being is altogether in that head be an apparant member But most of the Popes haue been such Ergo. For howsoeuer that cannot be verified of al the Popes which was said of Boniface 8. commonly called A diuell incarnat That he entered like a Fox raigned like a Lion and died like a Dog yet some of them entered by Coniuration or the diuels helpe as Siluester 2. and Gregory 7. first called Hildebrand or The brand of Hell Some by harlots as Christopher 1. and Iohn 11. Some by poysoning their predecessors as Damasus who also did drinke of the same cup and the said Hildebrand who besides his Coniuration made way to the Popedome by poysoning sixe of his predecessors and many by Simony or Violence Were they apparant members of the Catholique Church when they were Popes Nay sundry of them were heretiques As Liberius was an Arrian Honorius 1. a Monothelite Anastasius a Nestorian Iohn 2 2. denied the Life to come and the resurrection of the body and this was laid to his charge when he was deposed by the Councell of Constance and Eugenius 4. was condemned and deposed as an heretique in the Councell of Basil As for their Liues In respect of all it is no lesse truly than commonly said of Gregory 1. That he was the worst Bishop but best Pope of Rome But some of them Platina no Protestant called Beasts and Monsters and of Iohn 12. Cardinall Turrecremata writeth thus Because the life of this Pope was detestable therefore Christ himself gaue out the sentence of condemnation For while he was abusing a certaine mans wife the diuell stroke him sodainly and so he died without repentance To set downe in particular the monstrous offēces of most Popes is too large and too filthy a field for me to walke in I will therefore shut vp with the words of Genebrard a Popish Chronicler who writeth thus For the space almost of seuen-score yeeres and ten from Iohn 8. to Leo 9. about fiftie Popes did reuolt wholy frō the vertue of their auncestors and were Apostaticall rather than Apostolicall Yea some did get into the See by force or bribery Wherefore it is no maruell if they were monstrous sith they entered in not by the dore but by a posterne gate To conclude If the Church of Rome be not the Catholique Church because it is confined visible faileth in the faith without which faith personall succession is of no validitie If it haue no promise of perpetuity the words of Christ to Peter not seruing the turne and therefore may be ouercome as well as the Church of Israel whereunto the promises did appertaine If Papists cannot proue that Peter was at Rome nor that hee was Bishop there nor that he was Vniuersall Bishop nor that his authority was sufficiently cōueyed ouer to the Bishops of Rome vpon which succession standeth the being of that Church If the Pope vpon whom as their head the Church of Rome dependeth be Antichrist and sundry times yea many yeeres together there hath bin no apparant Pope at all and most Popes haue been no apparant members of the Catholike Church because of their heresies or monstrous liues it followeth euidently that the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church neither hath bin an apparant member of the same euer since the Apostles time And therefore it is to be wondered that any Christian man or woman should bee so simple as to hang their saluation vpon such a Synagogue as out of which God from heauen biddeth his people to depart Reuel 18. 4. THE THIRD POSITION PRIESTS ARE EXECVted not for Religion but for Treason IT is not to bee denied that Priests are executed for affirming the Popes Primacie and reconciling to the pretended Church of Rome c. which are points of their supposed religion But yet they are not executed for these or like points or parts as they be religious but as they bee trayterous or dangerous to the State in ciuill consideration 1 For if Priests were executed for these or like poynts as they be religious then the Church would proceed against them in Ecclesiasticall maner before the secular power execute ciuill punishment As against Anabaptistes and other in this Queenes raigne hath bene performed So that Priests their case differeth from Hackets only Secundum magis minus the one being more dangerous in ciuil consideration then the other 2 Secondly they should be executed as wel for affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling c. as Story for his misdemeanure though beyond seas For such affirming the primacie and reconciling c. are as damnable in religious consideration on one side of the seas as on the other but not so dangerous to our state in ciuill consideration 3 Thirdly they should be executed as well for other points of popery as giuing the glory of the Creator to wit prayer and praise to creatures Angels Saints stockes and stones c. being no lesse damnable then such affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling c. in religious consideration but not so dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration As may appeare by a like case propounded If Anabaptistes denying magistracy and that Christ tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary should swarme in England and if Magistrates should punish in a more ciuil manner of proceeding not the latter though no lesse damnable as it is religious but the former being more dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration