Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canonical_a	church_n	scripture_n	11,364	5	6.3973	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

Church you mean those who in opposition to the Roman are termed the Reformed I answer that it doth not follow that they are either the true Church or not for they may be and are a part of it and thus in the name of all Protestants I affirm we are a part of the true Church Pa. If yours is the true Christian Church then it must have these following Marks Visibility Unity Universality Sanctity Pro. I told you before we are not the whole but a part of the true Church for we dare not as you do exclude all from Salvation who are not in all things of our Profession and therefore to find whether we be a part of it or no we are not to look for these Marks but for the Conformity of our Doctrines with the Word of God or if we should allow these for Marks of the true Church the way to know whether we be part of the true Church or no is to enquire whether we teach the same Doctrine which we are to prove by the Holy Scriptures according to that of St. Austin De Unit. Eccl. c. 16. Let them shew whether they have the Church only by the Canonical Books of the divine Scriptures But we deny these to be the Marks of the true Church Of Visibility a Mark of the Church PA. 2. The House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of Mountains or it shall not Pro. It shall Isa. 2. 2. Pa. Why then do you deny that the Church shall be always visible Pro. Because that Text Isai. 2. 2. is no Promise of a Perpetual visibility but only of a time when it shall be so and so it was in the Primitive times but it doth not say it shall never cease to be so visible Where by visible I mean that the true Church shall be always in sight so as by its external Glory to be known to be the true Church and this that Text doth not promise for it will not follow that because the Church shall be so therefore it shall be always so and if it be not always so it can be no mark Pa. 3. A City seated on an Hill can be hid or not Pro. It cannot Pa. Then the Church cannot be invisible Mat. 5. 14. Pro. That doth not follow for in the Judgment of divers Fathers this place is not spoken of the Church but the Apostles or the good Works of Christians But if it be understood of the Church all that it proves is that it cannot be hid as long as it is seated upon an Hill but it doth not follow that it shall be always seated there Pa. 4. Christ either founded a Church on Earth that all Nations may be edified therein or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you say the Church may be invisible since all Nations cannot be edified in a Church unseen Isai. 2. 2. All Nations shall flow unto her Psal. 86. 9. All Nations whatsoever thou hast made shall come and adore before thee Pro. Because there is no Promise that the Church shall be evident to all Nations at all times but that there shall come a time when it shall be so but it doth not say it shall be so always but it shall be evident so as to edify all Nations in God's time Pa. 5. A Man for not hearing the Church is termed in Scripture an Heathen and a Publican or not Pro. He is Mat. 18. 18. He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican Pa. How then shall a Man be termed an Heathen or Publican for not hearing a Church that was not visible or yet extant in the World Pro. This Text is nothing to the purpose and that upon two accounts 1. Because the question is Whether the true Church be always visible to those who are not Members of it as Heathens Infidels c. Now this Text speaks only of those who are Members of it to these it is always visible but not to those 2. Because the question is whether the Universal Church be always visible but this Text speaks of a particular Congregation and therefore is not to the purpose seeing if it proves any Church always visible it proves every particular Congregation to be so but as it is plain that these Arguments do not prove that the Church is to be always visible so neither do you at all prove that if it were so it would be a Mark of the true Church seeing Pagan and Jewish Churches can plead Visibility and yet it doth not follow they are the true Church because they have it Of Unity as a Mark of the true Church PA. 6. A natural Unity and Connection of the parts among themselves and to the Head is necessary for the Conservation of the Body or it is not Pro. It is Pa. If it be Why is that natural Connection proper to a natural Body and not a Spiritual Connection proper to a Spiritual Body Pro. A Spiritual Connection is proper to a Spiritual Body but this is nothing to the Purpose as a proof that Unity is a Mark of the true Church for this Connection of the Spiritual Body must be an Union and Connection of each part in sound Doctrine now we must know what Doctrine is sound before we can know whether the Parts be united in it Pa. 7. Christ promised that there should be Unity in his Church John 10. 16. or he did not Pro. He did Pa. If he did why do you deny Unity Pro. We do not deny it we maintain it but we deny it to be a Mark of the Church which it cannot be seeing this Unity must be either in true Doctrine or in false it cannot be in false if it be in true we must first know which is true before we can know whether it be the Unity Christ promised Pa. 8. Unity is either requisite in Gods Church or not Pro. It is Pa. Why do you then deny the necessity of Unity Pro. We do not deny it to be necessary we maintain that without Unity in all points of Faith there can be no Church but it will not follow that because it is necessary it is a Mark whereby Heathens may know the Church seeing other pretended Churches have Unity as well as the Christian and nothing can be a Mark which is not proper to it alone Pa. 9. Christ when he Prayed his Prayer took effect or it did not Pro. It did Pa. If it did then Christs People are one Pro. They are so What then but it doth not thence follow that Unity is or can be a Mark to know the Church by Where pray remember I speak of such a Mark whereby those who are not of the Church may know her to be the true Church Of Universality as a Mark of the true Church PA. 10. To be Universal or Coexstent with Time and Place is a Mark of the true Church or it is not Pro. I could wish you would a little

before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles