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 preach_v 2,713 5 7.2406 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A66370 An answer to a late printed paper given about by some of the Church of Rome in a letter to a gentleman. Williams, John, 1636?-1709. 1688 (1688) Wing W2679; ESTC R24560 12,966 22

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the Church to be because the Church is constituted per unitatem fidei by the unity of the Faith So that according to these the respect which Heresie hath to the Church is onely from the respect which the Church hath to the Faith And to find out what Heresie is we must enquire not what the Church is but what is the Faith. And if so a Church even that of Rome may fall by Heresie though she may hold the general approved Doctrine of the Church But I doubt if we should admit the whole and yet take it in any sense but one viz. for the general approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the last Ages of it that we shall find her guilty in this point also Shall the Church be taken for the primitive Church three or four hundred years after our Saviour then they are guilty of Heresie who will have the Pope to be Christ's Vicar and to have Jurisdiction over all Churches that do maintain worshipping of Images Angels and Saints to be lawful and necessary c. contrary to the general approved Doctrine of those Ages Should we take the Church for the Church Catholick in any Age as Cassander doth Consult Artic. 22. that is the Congregation of Christ's faithful people all over the World then still Rome would fall into the same condemnation since that she is but a little part in comparison of the whole Should we take Church again for the Romish Church in the first Ages of Christianity it would then also condemn it self as I have before shewed And I see no way for them even according to this definition which is perfectly one of their own making to avoid this imputation but by stifly maintaining that they thereby understand the Church of Rome for some Ages last past if that will doe and then we know where to find them and what to understand when they talk of the Church 4. Schism he saith is a departure from the Vnity of the Church whereby the Band and Communion held with some former Church is broken This is as lame and fallacious a definition as any of the rest For by foisting in that word Former which he after runs upon he restrains it to one particular Branch of Schism and it 's just as if he should say A Church is an Assembly of Christians that join in Communion with each other in the City of Rome which none will allow to be a sufficient definition of a Church For that term added In the City of Rome doth no more than prove that the Assembly of Christians there met is a Church but is no definition of a Church for then no Church could be out of the City of Rome and every Church if it be a Church must be in that City and no where else if that be a true definition of it So it is here the word Former added to the definition of Schism here given doth prove no more than that a departure from the Unity of a Former Church is a species and sort of Schism but is no adequate definition of it For if it is then no Church can be guilty of Schism that doth how unwarrantably soever refuse to hold Communion with or doth break off from the Communion of a Church that was not a Church before it And consequently though the Church of Jerusalem had denied to hold Communion with any Church whatsoever though it were even with the Church of Rome it self she could not be guilty of Schism because she was the first Church and none was prior to her And we also should be quit of that blame if we had nothing else to say for our selves forasmuch as a Church was founded here in Britain two years before that of Antioch and St. Peter was seven years at Antioch before he presided at Rome as Baronius saith An. 35. Num. 5. and An. 39. Numb 23. from whom and from which time they pretend alone to derive their Supremacy And now this will hold although the Church thus separated from had given no reason or colour at all for it For according to the definition of our Authour it must be a Former Church which the departure must be from to make it Schism We may indeed say that Schism is when the Band or Communion held with any Church is without just reason broken and dissolved because all Christian Churches ought to maintain Communion with each other where it may be had But if so then the Church of Rome is the most Schismatical in the World that denies Communion with all Churches that are not in all Tridentine points one with her If you now Sir reflect upon his Scheme and frame of Arguments you will see that they hold in nothing which he produceth them for For what will it signifie if it be granted that the Church of Rome was once a most pure flourishing Church if she be now abominably corrupted What if she was a mother-Mother-Church planted by the Apostles and watered with their Doctrine and their Bloud when she now preacheth another Doctrine than she was taught by them and hath grosly corrupted that Faith which they did there establish What if she was a mother-Mother-Church to some other Churches yet that as it gives her no Authority over those whom she was not in any sense a Mother to so even not over such as she might pretend that Relation to when she is now not to be approached to or held Communion with without apparent hazard of Salvation and is faln from those Principles and that Faith which she at their first conversion instructed them in When she is faln by Apostasie Heresie and Schism By Apostasie as she hath forsaken the Primitive Church and is not now what she originally was either in Faith or Manners By Heresie as she hath received new Articles of Faith that were not such before and so obstinately persisted therein that she hath turned the Anathema upon all Dissenters in those points from her Such Articles she hath embraced and doth now hold as have been condemned by Councils wrote against by Fathers and reproved by Authority Some of these she was particularly charged with and reproved for and in others she is as much concerned as if particularly charged because she hath embraced those things which were by them condemned For if the things and principles were condemned whoever holds them is as much so condemned by that Authority as if particularly named As they will acknowledge that if a Church now in Communion with them should fall off from them she is thereby as much under the Anathema of the Council of Trent as if she had at the meeting of that Council been so far faulty and thereby been particularly condemned By Schism she is faln as she denies Communion with all other Churches in the World whether they were so before she was a Church or were Churches converted and established at the same time with her or that have embraced the Christian Faith since she did The company of such she hath left From these Bodies she is gone forth And these were the true Churches which she forsook So that she will be found as often guilty of Apostasie as there are particulars of Faith Doctrine Worship and Manners which she is fallen from the Primitive Church in As often of Heresie as she hath new Principles of Faith and which the Church was not then acquainted with As often of Schism as there are Churches in the World that she will not hold Communion with onely because they will not embrace those Principles or join with her in those practices which she holds contrary to them and with them to the Primitive Church And thus Sir I have made good I hope what I first undertook and if thereby any service can be done to you or our Religion it will be a great satisfaction to SIR Your Servant FINIS * Rom. 1. 8. * Rom. 16. * Rom. 6. * White defence of his Way p. 435. * King Jam. in his Speech to the Parliament * Whitaker in his Answer to D. Sand. * 2 Demonst. * Fulk in c. 22 Thes. Sect. 7. * Reynolds in his 5th Conclusion ‖ L. 2. de Rom. Pon. cap. 24. * Can. 31. * Comment in 4. Sent. Scoti l. 4. Dist. 11. Q. 3. disp 42. Sect. 1. ‖ Com. in 4. Sent. p. 101. col 1. Ven. 1607. and p. 142. col 1. * In 4 Sent. dist 11. q. 3. SS ad argument pro prima dist 10. q. 1. SS quantum ergo ‖ Bellarmin l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2● ‖ Sess. 4. d●cr 1. * C●m in Joh. 6. p 317. ‖ In I●a c 6. c. 8. * De Verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 16. ‖ Consult Artic 21. sect 4. * Defens Eccl. cont Whitaker l. 1. c. 2. Tom. 1. p. 868. ‖ Sent. l. 4. dist 45. * In 4. dist 45. Q 4. ‖ Sess. 25. de Invocat ‖ Haeres 79. * Sess. 13. ‖ Artic. 22.