Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	particular_a	2,274	5	6.8998	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15734	A dangerous plot discovered By a discourse, wherein is proved, that, Mr: Richard Mountague, in his two bookes; the one, called A new gagg; the other, A iust appeale: laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome, and Arminius: vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England. A worke very necessary for all them which haue received the truth of God in loue, and desire to escape errour. The reader shall finde: 1. A catalogue of his erroneous poynts annexed to the epistle to the reader. 2. A demonstration of the danger of them. cap. 21. num. 7. &c. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the chapters contained in this booke.	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.	1626 (1626)	STC 26003; ESTC S120313	151,161	289

pretended Church which they doe not And againe Appeale p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop but without the Pope as head but they doe not so By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone To this I answer this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging and in the subject that receiveth it abstracted from particulars namely that Church and differs only in the assigning in particular which is the Church Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question and that is enough But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full which vnderstands by the word Church a true not a pretended Church and the Pastors of the Church not the Pope onely For it calls that Church in the words immediately going before the Mother of all beleevers Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church nor to the Pope alone Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church by the word Pope but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommodation as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is That office of teaching which belongs to the Church belongs to the Pope and his Councell But this office of teaching viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies belongs to the Church Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell The proposition they say is true because Teaching is formally in the Pastors otherwise then by them the Church cannot teach It must be a Councell because the Pastors singly may erre The Pope must be joynd with them because it belongs to him to gather direct and confirme Councels In the assumption of this reason he consenteth with the Church of Rome and that is the principall part of this Argument In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre That this ●●ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church vniversally and to the Pope as one of them and that in a Councell He onely denieth the Popes authoritie to call direct and confirme Councels which is the last and least part of this Argument All which being considered we may safely conclude that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies with the Church of Rome The third thing to be debated in this question he resolveth gagg p. 13. 14. 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England and doth alledge the 21. Article for it saying the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith But all this is vntrue I haue set downe that Article in the former Chapter the sight whereof will avow it Yea the Article is full for the contrary For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more Which it must haue done if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge to apply and interpret the Scriptures 3. It restraines the force of the sentence of the Church To examination and tryall by the Scriptures But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge which must be received as the dictates of the holy Spirit The Conclusion is He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England CHAP. IIII. M Mountague The Church representatiue cānot erre in points of faith gagg p. 48. Ch. of England Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God arti 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow I haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome because I find not the Councell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controversies as shall appeare in the particular passages following This being premised I proceed to examine 1. Whether this proposition the Church represensatiue cannot erre in points of faith be true or not 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England or not First the sence of these termes 1. Church representatiue 2. erre 3. points of faith must be set downe 1. By Church representatiue he vnderstands a Councell truely generall Appeale p. 121. 2. By error he meanes an abberration from a rule Appeale p. 6. viz. the Scriptures gagg p. 13. 3. By points of faith is meant every sentence to be assented to as true vpon the authoritie of God the reveale● thereof Not erring in points of faith supposeth a sentence to be given which is the subiect of not erring in delivering whereof they cannot erre According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words A Councell truely generall in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition cannot vary from the Scriptures That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition himselfe confesseth gagg p. 48. where of it he saith So say they so say we And Bellarmines words doth shew it Which writeth thus The Church representatiue cannot erre de eccle lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done Nostra c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word For he maketh that the first foundation of our faith and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof de verbi dei interpret lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc c. Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just Notwithstanding he denieth Appeale p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist that is as I conceiue that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point and giues this reason for it Points of faith be fundamentall or accessory gagg p. 48. Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as the reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man Appeale p. 123. In points accessory there may be error but none in points fundamentall gagg p. 48. Of points fundamentall onely doe I speake and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie Appeale p. 123. I answer this explication serues well to puzzell the Reader but hath no force to cleare Mr Mountague from agreeing with the Ch of Rome for many reasons The terme fundamentall is borrowed We shall then know the true sence of it when we know what a foundation is in proper speech A foundation is that part whervpon the rest of the building is placed Fundamentall points of faith must be like vnto this they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded which is borne vp and sustained by such points of faith Things accessory are such as are attendants not things principall in being or causalitie

submit themselues to the office of application and exposition of things already revealed this being inferior as the building that superior as the foundation that being performed without labour and industry this not without much of both that being an immediate continuation of Christs ministery this mediate none of which may be admitted without speciall direction in the Word of God wherein there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit Moreover although this exception were not taken yet the proposition is false These words may be spoken to such as haue not that office this leading into all truth and that office of applying and expounding things revealed doth not necessarily goe together The word leading may signifie no more but an act of doing so much as is required on Gods part which hath not alwayes the event accordingly but oftentimes is frustrate by mans default 2. The words all truth may import no more but that whole which is required vnto the salvation of every particular man so necessarily that without it that cannot be had The assumption is no better the Text alledged hath not one word touching a generall Councell If it be replyed that those words were spoken to the Apostles and from them to the Pastors of the Church which succeed them and because those Pastors cannot consult and giue sentence touching a thing in question except they meet together therefore these words were spoken of a generall Councell To this I rejoyne The Text thus explicated yeeldeth these questions 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church 2. In what respect those Pastors doe succeed the Apostles 3. Who hath the authoritie to gather the Pastors of the Church together 4. Whether all or some and what number of Pastors haue authoritie to determine 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength all which questions are no lesse doubtfull then the conclusion which the Text is brought to proue whereby it doth beg the question but proues it not His second proofe must be thus framed They with whom our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise M●t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures But with a Councell truly generall our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Councell truly generall c. I answer this place of Scripture doth yeeld these questions 1. What is meant by Christs presence 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting or the thing whereabout they meet 3. Whether that promise extend also vnto a greater number 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet Pastors or not Pastors Every one whereof is no lesse difficult to be determined by the word of God then the present question therefore he doth beg the question and not proue it Farther answer then this there needs none vnto this argument seeing that no proofe can be more base and impotent then that which depends vpon things equally or more doubtfull then the thing to be proved Other proofes then these two he hath not in this point and these two are vrged by Bellarmine de Concil cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. as his maine strength in this question and haue been answered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full but they were poore Divines Mr Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them CHAP. V. Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng There ever was and will be ever vpon earth a visible Church some-where or other with visible cognisances markes and signes to be discerned by viz. Gods Word preached Sacraments ministred Priesthood and ordination Appeale p. 135. Vnto which complaints may be made Gagg p. 49. I Haue nothing to set downe in this point vnder the name of the Church of England because I doe not find any thing decreed therein by our Church neither could it well for as much as in this point the Negatiue onely is defended against the Church of Rome That affirmeth a visibilitie which the Church of England denieth which Negation is implyed in the 19. Article wherein the visibilitie of the Church assigned by the Church of Rome is acknowledged in some things and it is silent for the rest which is as much as if it did say in these things we confesse the Church is alwayes visible and other visibilitie we doe deny According to order here must be inquired 1. Whether that proposition be true or not 2. Whether that proposition doe consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition do● dissent from the Church of England or not Before any of these can be disputed his sentence touching the visibilitie of the Church must be vnfolded that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question Which may be done thus It hath these two parts 1. The Church is visible 2. This visibilitie consisteth in the inioying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood ordination abilitie to heare complaints That the Church is visible in the injoying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood and ordination so farre as they are required of necessity vnto the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in question so much is granted on all sides The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19. Article in these words The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessitie are requisite to the same All the question is about the last branch viz. Whether the Church doe inioy all her officers with that freedome that it may be able and fit to determine every doubt that ariseth touching either faith or manners as appeares num 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition set downe by himselfe gagg p. 49. There ever was and will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made Now the question is truly put the next labour must be to inquire of it those 3. wayes which are set downe That it doth consent with the Church of Rome himselfe confesseth when he saith gaggp p. 50. This Controversie to wit of the visibilitie of the Church taught by the Church of Rome and denied by others may cease If he did not agree with them he would haue held it on foote there being so good reason for it they maintaine it as a ground of an Article of their faith and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it And Bellarmines doctrine doth shew it de Ecclesia lib. 3. where he writeth thus The true Church is visible cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subiected vnto lawfull Pastors in the profession of the Christian faith and the vse of Sacraments cap. 2. Nostra autem c. The Church is therefore visible because of this

ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls I answer this argument proues nothing but begs the question in that 1. It takes as granted some points of faith be fundamentall other some are not which is denied him 2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion The proposition is also false the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring without limitation either indefinite or assigned It saith Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God If this proposition be vnderstood to speake not of all but of some things pertaining to God then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie but that may not be granted for that is a delusion no decision The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not for that proposition is not a limitation of a Councels erring but a proofe that Councels may erre on this wise Councels haue erred Therefore Councels may erre If it be replyed that this reason is not good except erring in the consequent be taken in that sence wherein it is vsed in the Antecedent I rejoynd the argument is good although erring in the antecedent be taken for erring in some things and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith is not free at all The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus That which hath not erred hither to cannot erre hereafter c. But this proposition is manifestly false because freedome from error and infallibilitie in Iudgement is not made by not erring in time past but by a speciall peculiar providence of God which they may want at some other time who in the thing haue not erred in time foregoing His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God and those are not all fundamentalls then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall I answer this reason hath the fault that the former had it presumes that points of faith are some fundamentall some not fundamentall which is denied and therefore it begs the question 2. I will grant the distinction for this time and say further the word only must be added to the latter part of this reason otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose that being added I deny the consequence because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God as I haue proved in my answer And I proue further by your own testimony thus If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doe not meane all but some things then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct without far-fetched obscure interpretations casie even perspicuous of it selfe fitted for the vse capacitie instruction of the simple and ignorant who are not capable of obscurities But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine direct c as your selfe doth truly affirme Appeal p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doth meane vniversally all things pertaining to God His third reason is in the same p. 124 thus The Article speaketh of debating and discussing I speake of deciding and determining Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false Ordeining is deciding and determining The Article speaketh of ordaining Thus it argueth Councels may erre Therefore things ordained by them not taken out of Scripture haue no authoritie Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversie I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the words plainly delivered in Scripture must signifie things not in cōtroversie That being granted the second branch in the antecedent is false He himselfe other-where delivereth the contrary Those things whereof the Church must Iudge are the things where in according to him the Church is free from error But things in Controversie are those according to him whereof the Church must Iudge See what he saith gagg p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed more obscure and involved And p. 14. In controverted matters if a question be moved the Church must decide and settle that doubt In plain● cases no deciding Iudge shall need but such as are ambiguous must be determined by the Iudge c. Therefore according to him in things in Controversie the Church is free from error and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter he layeth downe in his Appeale p. 160. in these words There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it Things that are straight and direct and according to that rule confessedly need not application are not commonly brought to be applyed to that rule but things of different or doubtfull standing these need application and are applyed by the perpetuall practice of the Catholike Church And thus haue I ended all the reasons which he bringeth to excuse himselfe from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point which are too weake to excuse him therefore I may safely conclude He doth dissent from the Church of England touching the infallibilitie of the Church Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory and this it is A Councell truely generall in giving sentence of a divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures His proofes for it we find set downe in his Appeale p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture the former on this wise They to whom the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinitie question vary from the Scriptures But to a Councell truly generall the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore a Councell truly generall in giving sentence of a divinitte question cannot vary from the Scriptures I answer There is no whole part in this argument Not in the proposition which supposeth that These words Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge whether this or that sentence in Divinitie be agreeable to the Scriptures or not But this supposition is of his owne making and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before wherein it doth appeare by my answer to him That office was never committed to any Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg but not demonstrate the question For further refut●tion thereof I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office then the Apostles had it For those words were spoken to the Apostles I take as granted But the Apostles had it not for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand It cannot be imagined that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing and

vse of the free facultie is in him which hath grace But in this sence he cannot vnderstand it for then mans actions cannot be so free as he pretendeth in the seventh and eighth propositions following In this sence free-will is meerly titular having a name without the thing as we vse to speake when a man inioyeth a thing but hath no vse of it and in this sence our Divines haue sayd true who affirme mans freewill is in title onely so also is it most truly affirmed of them that say mans will is a serving not a free-will The seventh and eight proposition containeth thus much He that assenteth c. assenteth freely and can deny his assent if he will c. The word can in this proposition doth signifie a power of vsing the free facultie with indifferency in the very instant in which a man doth worke and so Suarez doth vnderstand it opusc 1. lib. 1. cap. 1. num 8. And so must the Councell of Trent be vnderstood sess 6. cap. 5. For all other senses thereof are violent and extorted not agreeing with the phrase vsed by the Councell of Trent nor their intent in decreeing If Mr Mountague can proue this let him take all for me I will not oppose the Councell of Trent and himselfe a Disciple thereof in this question of free-will If he cannot proue it why doth he put himselfe into Gods seat by intruding and vrging Articles of faith I am out of doubt he cannot proue it for Suarez hath attempted many things and heau'd at it with both his shoulders but all in vaine it may be Suarez hath no old learning nor Logick so good as Ramus taught in Cambridge no Metaphysicks at all but is ignorant in this questiō He could Preach Lecture brawle and prattle a little in a Pulpit but dispute he could not set him to an argument and you breake his braines but be it knowne vnto you all these things are otherwise with Maister Mountague therefore what Suarez could not he can doe and that you shall see in his gagg p. 112. Thus he disputeth In Mathew 23. and 37. there is an opposition of mans wilfulnesse vnto Gods will God would Iudah would not Therefore freely men renounce the Calling of grace and freely runne I answer the last branch of the conclusion which speaketh of running with Gods grace cannot follow vpon the Antecedent because mans will in sinfull acts is an efficient after a different sort and in another manner then it is in supernaturall actions In them it is a principall efficient that is sinneth of it selfe in these it is a subordinate efficient as your selfe teach Appeal p. 94. therefore sinne doth flow from the will one wayes and supernaturall actions another The first branch in the conclusion doth not follow vpon the Antecedent which hath not a word of freedome libertie or dominion in resisting but barely chargeth them with the eliciated act of resisting If it be replyed that resisting is an act of the will and every act of the will hath that freedome and dominion I rejoynd this reply is refuted already num 14. Therefore it comes too late to take away my answer The Antecedent by the word Call doth vnderstand the Calling of God and the inward calling by grace otherwise there can be no shew of goodnesse in the consequence If you would haue vs beleeue that our Saviour did speake of that kind of calling you ought to haue proved it because it may be vnderstood of the outward calling by the Ministery of our Saviour but because you haue not proved it your argument at the vpshot is resolved into your owne authoritie and so is of no worth He saith in his gagg p. 112. that many other places of Scripture doe serue this purpose but he does not name nor vrge any in particular therefore they can receiue no answer He hath two other Arguments by collection and a third from Acts the 7. 51. the words wherof be these Appeal pag. 89. c. You resist the holy Ghost In this argument he raiseth his confidence because the very word resist is vsed there I answer a poore foundation for confidence It hath the same fault the former had it affirmeth of resisting simply our question is of freedome in resisting so it is nothing to the purpose You vnderstand it of the work of grace in the soule but you proue it not it may be vnderstood of their resisting of the outward Preaching of the Gospell therefore we haue your owne authoritie and no more we haue no reason to thinke that God inwardly enlightned c. all these persons that are sayd to resist the holy Ghost The next concludeth thus In whom there is concupiscence he may resist and rebell against the law of the spirit But in a man regenerate there is concupiscence Therefore a regenerate man may resist the spirit of God I answer This conclusion is nothing to the purpose for our question is of the preparation vnto the habit and freedome in resisting but this conclusion is of a man habituated and of resisting simply If it be vnderstood of resisting freely then the proposition is false For Concupiscence hath nothing to doe with freedome of will this is a perfection given by Creation that is a defection procured by sinne His last Argument is in these words If a man iustified may fall away from grace then he may resist the grace of God offered But the first is the doctrine of the Church of England Therefore a iustified man may resist the grace of God offered I answer this conclusion hath the very same fault which the former had Besides it sayth grace is offered to a justified man how that can be true himselfe must declare for a justified man hath grace already vnto such a man grace cannot be offered The consequence of the proposition is naught losing of grace hath no affinitie with resisting of grace that signifies the absence of a thing inioyed this the repelling thrusting backe of a thing offered but not received The assumption is also false as shall be proved cap. 12. His ninth proposition sayth Man being drawne c. By mans running he seems to vnderstand a running by the force of the created faculty for the words wil beare that sence and he sayth further in the same proposition man doth run as his owne agillitie is he sayth further gagg p. 108. the whole question in the point of free-will is concerning the force of the created facultie In this sence that ninth proposition is false and to be detested It seemes he perceived thus much therfore in his Appeal p. 91. 94. he labours to cure that vlcer by saying Supernaturall actions are true and reall operations of mans soule but the soule is elevated actuated to that height by grace of which it is that mans will is a subordinate agent vnto grace Which declaration comes very short therefore I will adde a passage in Suarez which doth expresse the same