Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	church_n	rome_n	2,941	5	6.6026	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44522	Four tracts by A. Horneck ...; with a preface by Mr. Edwards.; Selections. 1697	Horneck, Anthony, 1641-1697.	1697 (1697)	Wing H2831; ESTC R4616	55,346	154

4th For all the pretences of Infallibility in the Church of Rome they cannot decide the Controversies that are among their own Members 5th Both Popes and General Councils have contradicted one another and therefore neither of them can be infallible 6th The pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome is nothing but a device to uphold their Temporal Grandeur and Dominion Quest. 21. Why do you think the Church of Rome is in an Error in forbidding the reading of the Bible to the Common People Answ. 1. Because Christ commands all sorts of Men to read the Scriptures Joh. 5. 39. 2. The Berrhaeans are commended for searching the Scriptures Acts 17. 11. 3. The Fathers in the Primitive Church exhorted the People to the frequent reading of the Scriptures 4. St. Paul charges the Thessalonians to take care that his Epistle be read to all the holy Brethren 1 Thess. 5. 27. 5. In the Jewish Church every Family was to have the Law in their Houses and to teach it their Children diligently Deut. 6. 7. 6. The pretence of the Obscurity of the Scripture in many places is insignificant since the Scripture is plain enough in things necessary to Salvation 7. The Church of Rome in forbidding the Bible to the Laity discovers her fear and the weakness of her Cause least the People should see her Errors and forsake her Quest. 22. UUhy do not you believe that the Books call'd Apocrypha are Canonical Scripture Answ. 1. Because the Oracles of the Old Testament were delivered to the Jewish Church Rom. 3. 2. and these were not 2. The Christian Church receiv'd from the Jews no other Books of Canonical Scripture but what are own'd as such by the Church of England 3. The Apocrypha were not written by Men inspired by the Holy Ghost and what is Scripture must be by Inspiration 2 Tim. 3. 16. 4. Some of the Authors beg the Readers pardon for their Mistakes which is not the Language of the Holy Ghost 5. The Antient Councils have rejected these Apocrypha as not Canonical particularly the Council of Laodicea 6. In the Primitive Churches they read these Apocrypha only for the Instruction of Mens Manners but did not resolve their Faith into them no more do we Quest. 23. UUhy do you find fault with the Church of Rome for asserting that the Church of England once a Member of her Communion had no power to reform her self Answ. 1. Because every Church hath a natural right to shake off the Abuses and Corruptions which are contrary to the Word of God 2. It is God's Command to private Men not to suffer themselves to be deluded by the slight of Men and cunning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive and therefore much more is a National Church concern'd to do so 3. In vain was any Reformation hoped for from the Bishop and Clergy of the Roman Church 4. It 's the proper Office of the Bishops of a National Church to take notice what Errors creep into their Churches and oppose them 5. And that they have right to do so appears from the Examples the Church of Judah had in the times of Jehoshaphat or Hezekiah or Josiah 6. In throwing off the power of the Pope of Rome we did not throw off Obedience to a lawful Soveraign but Subjection to an Usurper 7. We did no more than what the Orthodox Churches did after the Arian Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia in setting up the Nicene Faith again which those powerful Councils had banish'd 8. We made no new Religion but restor'd the old and built no new House but only swept out of the old the Rubbish which made it unwholesom and uninhabitable The End An Account of the Conference betwixt a Jesuit of the Savoy and my Self the 2d of January Present Mr. Stephens on my side Mrs. Chamberlain and Mr. Chamberlain and the Book-binder about whom the Conference was held he having been six years of the Church of Rome but somewhat unsatisfied and Mr. Lamb. About Seven of the Clock at Night THE first thing Discoursed was about the Doctrine of Calvinists which the Jesuit said made God the Author of Sin I told him that there are several Expressions which if a favourable Construction be put upon them will appear to be otherwise Next he fell upon Luther who should say that no Man could be damned if he would but for his Infidelity I said it was true that God condemned no Man that professed himself a Christian but for his Infidelity The Jesuit asked whether if a Man committed Theft he may be call'd an Infidel I said he acted like an Infidel and in that Act was so because he acted contrary to his Belief Mr. Chamberlain putting in something about that place 1 Tim. 2. about one Mediator The Jesuit argued he wonderd we should talk of one Mediator when every Man that pray'd for the other was a Mediator I told him in a large Sense he might be called so but in the Controversie before us were meant Mediators which are religiously worshipped Here happened a great rambling Discourse about Faith As distinguished from all good Works but I told them that by Faith I did not mean the bare Assent to the Doctrine but a practical Belief as it takes in the whole Word of God and living according to it The Book-binder was gone to call Mrs. Chamberlain and coming again by this time The Jesuit said they were come to satisfie Persons under some Doubts and therefore must fall upon some more material Points and since we Protestants sent people to the Scripture it was necessary we should begin to talk of the Rule of Faith and therefore he desired to know how we knew the Scripture to be the Word of God and from whom we had received our Bible I told him we had received it from the Catholick Church whose Testimony was very considerable in this Case He ask'd hereupon when we went off from the Church From what Church we did immediately receive it I answered him both from the Western or Roman and from the Churches of the East However I told him I would fairly grant him that we had received it immediately from the Church of Rome and I desired him to make the best of it Here he asked how we could receive the true Bible from a corrupt Church I asked him whether I might not receive a Pearl from a Chimney Sweeper He said we looked upon them for Rogues and Rascals Whereupon I told him we give them no such Language However sinc he used these Names whether a Man might not receive a 100 l. in very good Money from Rogues and Rascals He then argued That we look'd upon the Church of Rome as a corrupt Church and how can we be sure that we have the true Bible since we cannot be sure that a corrupt Church had not corrupted it I told him that they confessed themselves they had not corrupted it and besides they could not corrupt it for the Cheat

Bible among prohibited Books for should the People have liberty freely to peruse it the Church of Rome would grow very thin and despicable I am sensible your Priests find fault with our Translation of the Bible and cry out that there are great defects in it but when they talk so they had need talk to Women not to Men of Learning and that undestand Greek and Hebrew the Languages in which the Word was originally written The Honesty of our Translators appears sufficiently from hence because if any Sentence in the Bible be capable of a double Sense they express the one in the Text and the other in the Margin and where they do but in the least vary from the Original they either discover it by the Italick Character or give you notice of it in the Margin than which there can be nothing more honest And let any Papist of you all shew us wherein any thing in our Bibles is ill translated out of Malice or Design or expressed in words which the Original will not bear If we examine Translations by the Original then sure I am there is few Translations go further from it than the Vulgar Latin or the Rhemist Testament as were an easie matter to prove if I intended more than a Letter You are much taken with their Mortifications and Penances which you say we have not in our Church But it 's a sign Madam you did not rightly understand our Religion We are so far from condemning Mortification and Severity of Life that we do commend it provided it be in order to subdue the body of Sin and to raise our selves to a greater pitch of Vertue provided these Severities be separated from all opinion of Merit and from an opinion of their being satisfactory and expiatory and used only as helps to work in us a perfect Detestation of Sin And I will assure you there are more in the Church of England that use Severities in this humble holy way than you are aware of We indeed do not ordinarily inflict them on all persons because we know not there Constitution nor what their nature will bear nor have we any command for it in the Word of God but these things we leave to every Man's Discretion urging that where Sins require stronger Remedies there Men ought to make use of them and if their Corruptions will not be gone by Reasonings and Arguments that there they must inflict Mulcts and Penalties on themselves to drive the Unclean Spirit out Though I must say still that Religious Severities and Austerities are not certain signs of a true Religion for Heathens do use them as much as Christians nay more than Christians witness the Brahmanes in the Indies and the Religious Pagans dispersed through all the Eastern parts and if you conclude that therefore the Church of Rome must be in the right because they inflict great Pennances and Severities and make daily use of them I am afraid you only forbear turning Turk or Heathen because you never saw their far greater Severities in Religion than the Church of Rome can boast of But still the Protestant Church hath not the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Sacrament which the Church of Rome hath And are you sure the Church of Rome hath it I am perswaded you did never taste it nor see it nor feel it nor smell it and how do you know it What because the Priests of that Church do tell you so No say you it is because Christ saith in express terms this is my Body And here I confess I stand amazed that Men with Learning and Reason about them can sink into an opinion so contradictory that if all the consequences of it be considered there is nothing in nature can be more absurd or irrational and the Church of Rome had need oblige Men to deny both their Reason and Senses to believe a Transubstantiation Here indeed a Faith is necessary strong enough to remove Mountains and though never any Miracles were wrought but were wrought on purpose to convince our Senses yet here we must believe one which neither Sense nor Reason can discover When Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples saith the Apostle 1 Corinth 11. 24. He brake the Bread and said Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you It is a wonderful thing that the word is in the first Sentence this is my Body should have a literal Sense and in the very next Sentence pronounced with the same breath cannot admit of a literal Sense for the word is in the second Sentence must necessarily stand for shall be because Christ's Body when he gave the Bread was not yet broken If it will not admit of a literal Sense in the very next Sentence because of the Absurdity that would follow that Christ was crucified before he was crucified why should we understand it in the first Sentence literally when the Absurdity is far greater Nay that the word is should not be capable of being understood literally in the second essential part of the Sacrament This Cup is the New Testament that here I say it should import and can import nothing else but signifies or is a sign of the New Testament and yet must not be understood so in the first part of the Sacrament is a thing we cannot comprehend And when the Apostle speaking of Lord's Supper or Eucharist 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ and the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Let the rigidest Papist that hath not quite banished his Reason tell me how he will make Sense of the word is here except he understand it figuratively most certainly it cannot be understood literally for the Cup is not that Communion but is a sign of it One would admire how Men can be so obstinate in a thing as clear as the Sun and you might as well conclude that Christ is a Door made of Boards and Nails because the Scripture saith he is a Door and that he is a real Vine with green Leaves and Grapes about him because the Scripture saith he is a Vine But suppose the word is in these words This is my Body must be understood literally how doth this make for Transubstantiation Are the words is and is transubstantiated all one A thing may be said to be a thousand ways and yet without Transubstantiation so that if by the word is you understand Transubstantiation you your selves must go from the literal sense and assume a sense which is not expressed in that saying All the Jews are so well versed in the sense of Sacramental Expressions that by the word is they understand nothing but signifies or represents and therefore it 's a horrid shame that Christians meerly for fear of being laughed at for departing from an absurd opinion and losing the credit of a pretended Infallibility should make themselves ignorant in that