Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	church_n	prove_v	visible_a	2,396	5	9.1564	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12213	A reply to an ansvvere, made by a popish adversarie, to the two chapters in the first part of that booke, which is intituled a Friendly advertisement to the pretended Catholickes in Ireland Wherein, those two points; concerning his Majejesties [sic] supremacie, and the religion, established by the lawes and statutes of the kingdome, be further justified and defended against the vaine cavils and exceptions of that adversarie: by Christopher Sibthorp, Knight, one of His Majesties iustices of his Court of Chiefe Place within the same realme.	Sibthorp, Christopher, Sir, d. 1632.	1625 (1625)	STC 22524; ESTC S117400	88,953	134

booke not only in this second Chapter of the first part but chiefely and specially in the second Chapter of the second part of it where I have set downe this Position and proved it that the Church is not so visible as to be alwayes at all times openly seene knowne to the wicked and persecuting world And for proofe hereof Aug. in Psal 1● De Baptis contr Donat●st lib. 6. cap 4. I alledged S. Augustine who therefore compareth the Church to the M●one which is often obscured and hid yea he confesseth and teacheth That the Church may sometime be so hidden as that the verie members thereof shall not know one another It is true that the men whereof the Church consisteth are alwayes visible and may be seene as being men but the Faith and Religion they beleeve and hold is not so visible as to be alwayes seene discovered known to the wicked and malignant world although sometime it be which point you may see there further declared And therefore they be not Chymicall arguments as my Adversarie in his Chymericall and Alchymisticall Divinitie surmiseth but solide and sound proofes that I bring to declare that the true Church is sometimes visible and to be seene of this wicked world and sometimes invisible Revel 9.13 Revel 10.1.2.10.11 and not to be seene of it that is to say it is sometimes a Patent and sometimes a Latent Church of which sort because the Papists will not grant their Church to be but will have it alwayes visible evermore splendently appearing to the eyes of the world it is a plaine demonstrative argument against them that therefore theirs cannot be the true Church I further shewed in this second Chapter that the true Church planted by the Apostles was afterward by little and little and by degrees to grow corrupted and to continue in those her errors corruptions and deformities for a long time even till after the sixt Angell had begun to blow the Trumpet according to the prediction Prophecie thereof in the Revelation of S. Iohn which Prophecie because it is found to agree with our Church and that it cannot be made to agree with theirs which they will not grant to be capable of any corruption or error It thereupon also followeth that not theirs but ours must needs be the true Church planted by the Apostles These arguments I here the rather mention that my adversary might see That the blast of the sixt Angels trumpet did not blow away all the arguments which I should have brought for my purpose as he scoffingly speaketh being not able otherwise or in other then a scoffing sort to answere them For what better argument can there be to prove our Church and to disprove confute theirs then this that ours doth agree with the predictions prophecies contayned in the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures and theirs neyther doth nor can be made to agree with them And here also falleth to the ground that Paradoxe and untrue opinion which he holdeth that one error in the Church overthroweth the whole Church making it to be no true Church but onely an imaginarie Church It is true 1 Cor. 5.6 that S. Paul saith That a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe of dow But hee doth not say that it utterly overthroweth nullifieth and extinguisheth it yea even this Church of Corinth wherein this leaven was by reason of that wicked incestuous man permitted to remaine unseperated 2. Cor. 1.2 unexcommunicated amongst them to the indangering of others by his example was neverthelesse the Church of God and so doth S. Paul expressely call it notwithstanding that error amongst them Againe in the same Church of Corinth there were also Contentions amongst them 1. Cor. 15 12. 1. Cor. 1.11 1. Cor. 3.3 1. Cor. 11 18.19 1. Corinth 1.2 and envying and strife and divisions yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schismata haereses schismes heresies and yet was it a true Church of God all these errors and faults notwithstanding as S. Paul declareth The Church of Ephesus Rev. 1.2.2 ●4 5 was likewise a true Church of God for sundrie things much commended yet had God some thing against her because she had left her first love Remember therefore saith he from whence thou art fallen and repent Revel ●2 12.13.14.15 doe the first workes c. The Church of Pergamus was also a true Church of God Yet I have saith God a few things against thee because thou hast there them that maintaine the doctrine of Balaam c. And them that maintaine the doctrine of the Nicolaytans which thing I hate The Church of Thiatyra Rev. 2.18.19.20 was likewise a true Church of God and for many things also much commended Notwithstanding saith God I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest the woman Iesabell which calleth her selfe a Prophetesse to teach and deceave my servants c. By all which you see that one error or one fault in a Church doth not therefore prove it to be no Church or no true Church Yea it appeareth that a Church and a true Church may bee though divers defaults and errors bee in it which bee not fundamentall How much then doth mine Adversarie abuse that Text of S. Iames where hee saith Qui deficit in uno factus est omnium reus Iames. 2.10.11 Whosoever shall keepe the whole law and yet fayle in one point he is guilty of all For he that said thou shalt not commit adulterie said also thou shalt not kill now though thou commit no adultery yet if thou killest thou art a transgressor of the law For what S. Iames meaneth by this that he which faileth or offendeth in breaking though but one of Gods Commandements Galat. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 is guilty of all himselfe here sheweth when he saith that he is thereby become a transgressor of the law and consequently guiltie of the curse inflicted by the sentence of the Law upon every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them So that he is guiltie of all not that he hath broken all the Commandements by breaking only of one nor that he which breaketh onely one shall be punished in hell asmuch and with as great a measure of torments as hee that carelesly breaketh them all but that by this breaking but of one Commandement he hath offended the Majestie of the Law-giver incurred his displeasure and made himselfe aswell lyable to the curse of the law that is hath deserved to suffer eternall tormēts though not in so great high a degree and measure as if he had broken them all He therefore much wrongeth this Text when he applyeth it to prove that it cannot be a true Church which hath any error in it or that he that fayles in one point of Religion hath only an imaginarie Religion and no true Religion in him What was the Church wherein

rectores Kings and secular Governors S. Augustine also saith that hereby is taught Ecclesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus servituram esse sub Regibus seculi That the Church of Christ in all his Saints Lib. 2. dist 44. must serve under the Kings of this world The M. of the Sentences likewise saith that the Apostle speaketh of Princes and such like Aquinas also doth interprete them Aquinas in ●●lle locum to be Potestates terrenas carnales Dominos Terrestriall powers and temporall Governors Aug contr epist Parmen li. 1. c. 7 S. Augustine againe in another place yet more fully declareth the same What credit then is to be given to mine Adversarie when contrarie to the testimonie of all these and contrarie also to the testimonie of the Rhemists and contrarie also to the cleare evidence of the Text it selfe he saith That in these higher Powers is no more included the Temporall then the Spirituall Powers Yea S. Chrysostome also yet further sheweth that Apostles Prophets Evangelists and such like Ecclesiasticall Ministers are to be reckoned in the number of those Soules that are to bee subject to the higher powers and therefore can none of them no not the Bishop of Rome himselfe be comprised or intended under the name of the higher Powers there mentioned Chrysost in Rom homi● 23. S. Chrysostomes wordes be these Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet Sive quisquis tandem fueris c. Or whosoever you be My Adversarie is so captious as that because in my former Booke pag. 2. cap. 1. there is an c. after these wordes in Latin Quisquis tandem fueris hee would make his Reader beleeve that there is some abstruse meaning in that Enigmaticall ●●●se as he calleth it which if I would unfold would declare how little it made for my purpose But why doth not himselfe unfold that aenigma Is it because Davus est non Oedipus For if himselfe had read the place in Chrysostome as it seemeth he did not he might easily have unfolded the aenigma discovered the fallacy or deceit if any had lyen inclosed or hidden in it But my selfe did indeed sufficiently unfold it in the verie same place pag. 2. where after that c. I added out of Chrysostome that which I meant by that c. namely these words Neque enim pietatē subvertit ista subjectio For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse The whole clause and sentence then that being also added which was intended by the c. is this viz. Let everie Soule be subject to the Higher powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or vvhosoever you be For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse Now he hath it wholy intirely unfolded What can he make of it eyther to advantage himselfe or to disadvantage mee Yea this unfolding expressing of it rather maketh for me because it directly affirmeth that this subjection of Apostles Prophets Evangelists all other Ministers Ecclesiasticall To these Higher powers standeth well with Christian Religion and doth no way subvert or overthrow any part of pietie or godlinesse Wherefore S. Chrysostome saith there yet further that Omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quoque a● Monachis non solum secularibus These things be commanded to all even to the Priests also and to Monckes and not to secular-men onely I likewise alledged in that first Chapter of my Booke pag. 2. 3. Theodoret Theodoret. Theophil Oecumenius in Rom 13. Be●●ar Epist 42 Greg. Epist. li. 2 Epist. 62. 65. Paris 1605. Theophila●● Oecumenius Aeneas Silvius Gregory and Bernard who all declare aswell as Chrysostome that even Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men and not Secular or Lay-men onely be in the number of those Soules that are to be subject to these higher Powers In somuch that Aeneas Silvius Aene●● Silvius lib. 1 de Ge●●● Basil Concil who was himselfe sometime a Pope of Rome affirmeth that S. Paul saith Omnis anima potestatibus subli mioribus subdita fit nec excipit animam Papae Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Neyther saith he doth S. Paul here except the soule of the Pope himselfe but that he also ought to be subject And for further proofe hereof Ortat contr Parmen lib 3. I alledged also the testimonie of Optatus who saith that super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem Above the Emperor is not any but God onely that made the Emperor I cited also the testimonie of Tertullian Tertul ad S●apul cap. 2. writing thus Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem We Christians doe honour the Emperor as the man next unto God inferior onely unto God Agreeably whereunto he saith againe of the Emperors Ters Apolog. cap. ●0 that they be under the power of God onely à quo sunt secundi post quem primi from whom they be the second after whom they be the first And pag. 30. I alledged the testimonie Chrysost ad popul Antioch homil 2. once more of S. Chrysostome who saith of the Christian Emperor in his time that Non habet parem super terram He hath no peere or equall upon earth Yea he saith further of him that hee was Summitas caput omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth To all which my Adversarie according to his wonted wise and learned manner of answering thought it best to answere nothing Thus farre then have I proved against him that by the higher powers in this Text of S. Paul be meant Emperors Kings Princes such like temporall Magistrates and that by everie Soule in this Text which is to be subject to the higher Powers is meant all manner of persons whatsoever Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall and consequently that the Bishop of Rome was then clearely subject to the Emperor of Rome and so ought still to have continued But my Adversary at last granteth That Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men be subject to the King and to his Lawes but with this distinction namely according to the directive power of them but not according to the coactive And this distinction he learned Bellar. de Clericis cap 28. not onely of Suarez but of Bellarmine also For thus likewise writeth Bellarmine Non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores proinde non tenentur Iure divino nec humano eis parere nisi quantū ad leges directivas Kings are not any longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men and therefore are they not bound to obey them by Gods Law or Mans law unlesse it be in respect of lawes directive What Bellarmine meaneth by lawes directive himselfe declareth when he saith That Princes have no coactive

Phocas was but a declaratiō of that which was ever before belonging to the Bishops of Rome What Had the former Bishops of Rome all the predecessors to Gregorie this title of universall Bishop peculiarized appropriated unto them Why then did Gregorie himselfe say Greg. lib. 4 Epist 32.36 38.39 None of my predecessors Bishops of Rome ever consented to use this so ungodly a name or why did he say That no Bishop of Rome ever tooke upō him this name of singularitie Yea he saith We the Bishops of Rome will not receave this honour being offered unto us Wherefore it is apparant that neyther before the times of Gregorie nor in the times of this Gregory any of the Bishops of Rome had this title Yea you see this title detested and rejected even by and in the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as in any other Bishops So that they did not onely condemne it in Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whatsoever as being injurious not onely to other Bishops but especially to CRIST IESVS the onely right and true Vniversall Bishop and the sole and onely Head of the Vniversall Church Vniversa sibi tentat ascribere saith Gregory Greg libr. 4. Epist 36. omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studet membra subjugare He goeth about to ascribe all to himselfe saith he and endevoureth by the loftinesse of his pompous title to subjugate unto himselfe all the members of Christ which of right are to cleave to one onely head which is Christ This title then of Vniversall Bishop or head of the whole Church upon earth appeareth to be as wicked and as unlawfull in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople and his successors if it had rested in them For that which Boniface the third obtayned of Phocas the Emperor is the very same thing which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople sought to get and obtaine This if any make a doubt of it is apparant For first Paulus Diaconus saith Hic Phocas rogante Papa Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae ut caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum Paul warnefrid Phoca quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat This Emperor Phocas at the suite of Pope Boniface ordayned that the Sea of Rome should be the head of all Churches because the Church of Constantinople wrote her selfe the chiefe of all Churches Vspergens Chronic In like sort speaketh Abbas Vspergensis Post Sabintanū Bonifacius eligitur ad Pontificatum cujus rogata Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse ommium Ecclesiarum nam antea Constantinopolitana se scribebat primam omnium After Sabinian saith he was Boniface chosen to the Popedome at whose request Phocas ordayned that the Sea of the Romane and Apostolicke Church should be the head of all Churches for formerly the Church of Constantinople had written her selfe the chiefe of all Platin Bonifac. 3 Plātina also saith that Bonifacius a Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione Boniface obtayned this of Phocas the Empe●●or but with great contending for it quem quidem loct●m Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur Which place saith he the Church of Constantinople endevoured to challenge to her selfe Blondus Blondus also saith Ad hu●us Bonif●●● petitionem Phocas Antistitem Romanum principem Episcoporum omniū dixit Nauclerus vol 2 Generat 21. At the suite of this Boniface did Phocas affirme the Bishop of Rome to be the Prince of all Bishops And Nauclerus likewise saith that Bonifacium insolentiam Patriarchae Constantinopolitani 〈…〉 appellantis compes●●t Phocas cuim Pontificis suasione publica a● ad unt●ersum orbem dimissa sanctione constituit ut Romanae Ecclesiae Romanoque Pontifici omnes orbis Ecclesiae obedirent Boniface repressed the insolencie of the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himselfe Oecumenicall or universall Bishop For Phoca● by the perswasion of the Pope ordayned by a publicke Decree sent to the whole world that all the Churches of the world should be obedient to the Church of Rome By all these testimonies then you perceave that what Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople did formerly desire and seeke after that did Boniface the third Bishop of Rome obtaine of Phocas the Emperor and consequently that title of universall Bishop must needes be as hatefull and damnable in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene by the judgement of Pelagius and Gregorie in Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople and his successors As also I trust you now sufficiently great how fond and false an evasion that is which my Adversarie and Bellarmine also useth For if this granting of the title of the universall Bishop to Boniface the third had beene as they say nothing else but a declaration of the thing ever before acknowledged to belong to the Bishops of Rome What cause or neede was there for Boniface the third Bishop of Rome to have beene such an earnest and importunate surer for the obtayning of it at this time Or why did those two Patriarches the one of Constantinople the other of Rome strive and contend at this time so much for it Or why was Phocas himselfe so hardly and not without much a doe induced to yeeld it to Rome rather then to Constantinople which was then the seate of the Emperors Or if it were a thing ever before acknowledged to be due to the Bishops of Rome why did those two Bishops of Rome so hotely and eagerly oppose themselves against it utterly detesting and condemning it not onely in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whosoever as their speeches arguments and reasons doe declare Yea how can it be true that the Bishops of Rome had evermore this title when Gregorie the great Bishop of Rome himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie saying as you heard before that none of his predecessors Bishops of Rome did at any time consent to use so ungodly a name and that no Bishop of Rome at any time tooke upon him this name of singularitie and that they the Bishops of Rome could not take it though it were offered to them Is it not then a point of grosse impudencie in Papists still to denie such apparant and manifest truths But afterward againe in a scoffing manner hee saith that I give notice that I am a Logician by affirming in the 11. pag. of the first part of my Booke that the effect of the negative clause in the Oath of Supremacie is included in the former affirmative clause of the same Oath The affirmative clause saith he of the Oath is that the King is the Supreme Governor in his owne Dominions The negative clause is that no forraine Prince Person Prelate c. And so he goeth on mispending his time

soone as this life is ended everie one without delay goeth eyther to Abrahams bos●me or to the place of torment and in this place is reserved till the day of judgement S. Ambrose also teachech That death is a certaine haven to them Ambros de bono mortis cap. 4. who being tossed in the great sea of this world desire the station of a safe rest And therefore he saith further That whereas fooles doe feare death as the chiefe of evills Wise men doe desire it as a rest after labours and an end of their evills S Basil saith Basil procem in regular fusius disputat This present world is the time of repentance the other of retribution this of working that of rewarding this of patient suffering that of receaving comfort Gregory Nazianzen also in his Funeral orations hath many sayings to this purpose Greg. N●z Orat. 9. ad Iustanum orat 42 in Pasch orat 15 in ●lagam grandinis and was so farre from supposing any Purgatorie or purging prepared for men after their death that hee plainely denieth That after the night of this present life there is any purging to be expected And therefore he giveth us all good counsell telling us That it is better to be corrected and purged now then to be sent unto torments there where the time of punishing is and not of purging And concerning the third point wherein he objecteth heresie It is true that Popish Priests cannot forgive sinnes because they be not the Ministers of Christ but of Antichrist and therefore for any to resort or to goe unto them for absolution or forgivenesse of sinnes must needs rather increase their sinnes then take away any The authoritie neverthelesse of Christ his Ministers to binde and loose and to remitte and retaine sinnes we denie not but affirme and maintaine against the Novatians or whatsoever other heretickes and therefore most injurious is my Adversarie other Papists in charging us with the heresie of the Novatians Micah 7.18 Esai 43. ●5 Mar. 2.7 Luk. 5.21 Revel 3.7 in that point Howbeit it is not an absolute but a Ministeriall limited power and authoritie which the Ministers of Christ have herein received For to forgive sinnes properly and absolutely is a priviledge prerogative proper unto God And therefore did Gregory the great Greg exposit 2. Psalm Poenit. Bishop of Rome say Quis enim potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus For who can forgive sinnes but God alone The power of releasing sins saith also Radulphus Ardens Radulph Ard. homil Dominic 1 post Pasch belongeth to God alone But the Ministerie which is also improperly called a power hee hath granted to his substitutes who after their manner doe binde and absolve that is doe declare that men are bound or absolved For God doth first inwardly absolve the sinner by compunction then the Priest outwardly by giving the sentence doth declare that he is absolved Peter Lombard also Master of the Sentences Pet. Lombard lib. 4. Sentent distinct 18. E.F. saith That God alone doth forgive and retayne sinnes and yet hath he given power of binding loosing unto his Church But he bindeth and looseth one way and the Church another For he onely by himselfe forgiveth sinnes who both clenseth the soule from inward blot looseth it from the debt of everlasting death this he hath not granted unto Priests to whom notwithstanding he hath given the power of binding and loosing that is to say of declaring men to be bound or loosed Est ergo in universis servientibus non dominium Optat. libr. 5. sed ministerium There is therefore saith Optatus in all the officers or servants not a dominion but a ministerie Behold Ambr de Spir. Sanct. 〈◊〉 ● c. 10 saith S. Ambrose that by the holy Ghost sinnes are forgiven men to the forgivenesse of sinnes bring but their Ministerie they exercise not any authoritie or power The power of forgiving sinnes saith S. Basil is not given to Christs Ministers absolutely Basil regul Brevior quast 25. but upon the obedience of the penitent his consent with him that hath the care of his foule Yea saith S. Ambrose neyther Angell nor Archangell can Ambros Epist. 28 ad Theod. Imp. nor the Lord himselfe when we have sinned doth release us unlesse we bring repentance with us Christ his Ministers therefore doe not nor ought to declare or pronounce remission and forgivenesse of sinnes to any but to such as Christ their Lord Master by the Tenor of his word hath warranted remission of sinnes unto For if they doe otherwise it is not ratified in heaven which they doe upon earth But all these three points have I handled in my former Booke where aswell as here they appeare to be Apostolicall and Orthodoxe truths and not hereticall or erroneous opinions Now then let all equall men judge how well and wisely this Quidam homo or quoddam animal Anomolon Pseudonymon this Adversarie of mine dealeth with me whilst he termeth me as he pleaseth and resembleth me to a Phripiers Prentice whose office is saith he speaking like a man of skil in that arte or occupation to goe from one Corner unto another searching old Ragges to line new clothes For I have borrowed saith he the shreds of my Religion from Simon Magus the Novatians and other heretickes How much this man is deceaved and mistaken doth now I hope more then sufficiently appeare by that which is before spoken Neyther indeed is it ours but his the Popish Religion that is thus patched and pieced of many and sundrie errors and heresies being therein like a beggars cloake consisting of many ragges and shreds sowed together as diverse Protestants and amongst the rest Doctor Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi and that learned and Reverend Bishop Doctor Morton in his Catholicke Appeale for the Protestants being an Answere to Brerely the Priest have declared at large and in the many and sundrie particulars thereof Notwithstanding therefore whatsoever mine Adversarie hath said or can say to the contrarie it is apparant by the consanguinitie and agreement in Faith and doctrine which our Church hath with the Apostolicall writings that it was in the Apostles times and by them approved And this being the undoubted true Church and builded upon that inuincible and unruinable Rocke Christ Iesus against which the gates of Hell shall never prevaile must it not needes be supposed to have also a continuance in all succeeding times and ages even to the worlds end notwithstanding that Poperie or whatsoever other errors or heresies did grow up with it like Tares among the good Corne Yea that our Church that is people beleeving and professing the Faith and Religion that we doe was in the times and ages succeeding the Apostles even untill the dayes of the grand Antichrist and during all the time also even of the grand antichrist his raigne is likewise declared in my former