Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	believer_n	church_n	visible_a	1,349	5	9.2573	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65714	Romish doctrines not from the beginning, or, A reply to what S.C. (or Serenus Cressy) a Roman Catholick hath returned to Dr. Pierces sermon preached before His Majesty at Whitehall, Feb. 1 1662 in vindication of our church against the novelties of Rome / by Daniel Whitbie ...	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1664 (1664)	Wing W1736; ESTC R39058	335,424	421

perhaps tell you that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the end of the world refers to the end of the Jewish state and so signifies only the end of that age as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time Now if this sense be taken as no reason but it may then did this promise dye with the Apostles and so could not be entaild on their successours But because I will not be too rigid with him it shall be The end of the world 2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world ergo the Roman Church is infallible Well leapt Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foundation were you not first resolved to be infallible and then catch at any thing to prove it For here is not one syllable of infallibility and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that I will be with you to the end of the world that is say you I will secure you from all errour and why not as well I will exempt you from all sin or from all persecutions are not these as express in the promise as infallibility and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin and not lyable to any persecutions Again could not Christ be with them unless he endowed them with infallibility Is there no other way for him to be with his servants unless by inspiring them with that Is not his spirit with every particular believer as well as with the Church and must all Christians be therefore infallible If in a word wherever Christ is present by his spirit there is no errour then is every individual Christian infallible and then what need of any other infallible guide but if where Christ is present by his spirit there may be errour then how gross is the inference that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit that therefore he exempts it from all errour 3. This argument fights alike for every cause and may be listed for the service of all pretenders What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility would it not serve our turns as much as yours What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves how would you answer them Is not this consequence Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world ergo The Greek Church is infallible as good as yours that because our Saviour hath made such a promise ergo the Roman Church is infallible What disparity can you give unless you first suppose what 's to be proved And then what answer you would give to them the same give to your selves Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus Christ hath promised that when two or three of them meet together in his name he will be in the midst of them surely to direct them therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only Ans This Argument is far more frivolous if that can be then the former Is Infallibility promised here or is it not if not then this Text is nothing to the purpose if it be then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible and then what need of General Councils seeing two or three honest men can as infallibly decide all controversies Mr. C. must own this inference if his own is good seeing therefore this is false his can not be true 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vented at the Bull and Mouth as the Canons of the Trent Council Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines how would you Answer him fancy what Reply you please and that 's the very same we give you How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridiculously absurd deductions Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know Answ Now he seems to misgive and a little to mince the matter that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert what need of his running to that either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things or not if the latter then he either gives up the cause or beats beside the Question but if the former then let him speak out and let us see how sound his proof is Where then hath Christ promised to lead his Church into all truth he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible and therefore sets down no particular Text as he is wont to do in his other proofs Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles That he would send them his Spirit that should guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and shew them things to come which we find fulfilled Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles or if to any why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks the Abassines the Georgians c Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you that is as strong for your adversaries as for your selves Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they A. But the mischief of it is that this is the very thing to be proved Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future and though she did the event would soon confute her infallibility and therefore this promise belongs not to her It s a pretty inference that because the Apostles were infallible that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so But prettier still that therefore the Roman Church particularly must be so Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised that against his Church built upon St. Peter the gates of hell that is Heresie say the Fathers shall not prevail therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie Answ As if he were not absurd enough in his former arguings he must now be impertinent too what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies which we grant his task if to the purpose is to prove That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true

Council hath decreed against The millenary Raign which most of the Antient Fathers held you have exploded as ridiculous Lastly The sentence of the purging fire which was to try and purifie all men even the most holy you have deservedly rejected whereas upon these three opinions did almost all the prayers of the Antients depend and how then can you be said to have retained the prayers which the Antients used albeit you retain some of their words who have wholly rejected those opinions upon which they did depend I confesse there were some other ends which I have mentioned above of the Antients prayers as the obtaining an happy Resurrection the augmentation of their glory at the union of their souls and bodies the blotting out of their sins at the day of Refreshment that they might finde mercy in that day and would the Church of Rome pray for them to these ends and these alone wee would very heartily joyn with her But shee hath added new ends of her own devising as the satisfaction of Gods justice the procuring pardon of venial sins not formerly remitted and a release from a purgatorian fire which shee hath kindled and is it meet that we who have rejected together with them these prayers as grounded upon such opinions which had confess'd Antiquity to plead for them should embrace them again upon such grounds as are not onely manifestly false but also void of all shadow of Antiquity To p. 189. l. 34. adde nor is it ever said in Scripture that the body of Christ is received unworthily but onely that the bread and cup are so further were it said so yet will not your transubstantiation follow hence without begging the main dispute betwixt us viz. whether such a passage must be understood litterally and rigidly or according to the custome of sacramental phrases that is figuratively and spiritually Lastly if they that despised the Apostles were said to despise Christ because they were commissionated from him as we have it Mat. 18.5 and he that offends a weak brother is said to offend against Christ because he doth it against one of his members why might not hee that participates the Sacramental elements unworthily be said to receive Christs body so as receiving that which represents and signifies his body and offers to the Receivers faith all the benefits thereof 2. The confirmation of all that I have cited from Dr. Hoyle may be seen in the margin of the places cited After p. 211. l. 17. adde we have something alledged p. 304 305. In defence of this half Communion which here may properly be considered we are told 1. That the Protestants use sprinkling instead of dipping Answ This is El●●ch●s Parium For 1. Albeit the Apostles used dipping yet did not either they or our Saviour command it he never said dip all that you Baptize as he said drink ye all of this and therefore that he and his Disciples Baptized in Rivers and by dipping will no more infer that we should do so then that they say down at this Supper or used a clinical gesture will infer that we should use it 2. Dipping is no essential part of the Sacrament but a mode or circumstance and therefore variable but the cup is an essential or at least integral part of the Sacrament as is fully evidenced by Crocius in his Antibec p. 214 215. 3. This we do in case of danger otherwise the Church requires dipping Now in such case the Scripture gives warrant for such an alteration both by example and precept telling us God will have mercy and not sacrifice Now hence to argue for a change in the institution of Christ when no such necessity in the Church can be alledged is as if the Israelites should have urged a general permission for eating the Shew-bread because David and his Servants had it to supply their necessities 2. Saith hee do we not think our selves obliged to communicate fasting albeit Christ instituted the Sacrament after Supper Answ No We think it highly convenient but wee dare not charge him with sin that doth it otherwise 2. The time is evidently a circumstantial not commanded or instituted by Christ depending upon the Passeover and therefore very unfit to bee paralleled with this deprivation of the cup. 3. Hee addes do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings non obstant● the Apostles gave commandment to the contrary Answ Some who think the precept not temporary scruple yea refuse the eating of them and to such this instance must bee impertinent others that eat them do it upon this account because they suppose they have good reason to conclude the precept temporary and made onely to avoid the scandal which it gave unto the Jews and seeing this cannot with any reason be supposed of Christs precept the instance must bee impertinent to them also Yea wee have many Texts of Scriptures which seems to give us this liberty of eating any such things but there is not any thing which in the least manner intimates the lawfulnesse of with-drawing the cup from Layicks To p. 453. l. 14. adde Onely whereas hee saith that surely prudence and a most necessary care of our own salvation by continuing in the unity of the Church would dictate to us that seeing the Church is infallible as to fundamentals and therefore cannot mis-lead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her decisions as if they were of necessary faith for onely by doing so wee can bee sure not to erre in necessary points and wee shall be certainly free from all danger of Schisme p. 266. And by this means say you the Church of Rome is continued in unity and by assenting to all decisions her members are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary whereas Protestants by taking a liberty of discerning betwixt fundamentals and non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may bee fallible are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals I Answer This whole discourse to omit divers other answers very obvious depends upon two suppositions unanimously exploded by us 1. That the Church which wee hold to bee infallible in fundamentals is the Roman Church or at least a General Council whereas when wee assert the Church to be infallible in fundamentals we do not intend to assert that any one society of men is so but onely thus that whilest the world lasts there shall bee some men in the world which erre not in fundamentals Chill p. 105. or that religion shall never be so far driven out of the World but that it shall alwaies have somewhere or other some that beleive and profess it in all things necessary to salvation Thus therefore you argue Protestants acknowledge that some Christians shall bee infallible in fundamentals albeit they be neither the Roman Church nor a General Council nor any other visible Society therefore they ought in prudence to submit to the decision of the Roman Church or a