Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	call_v	church_n	society_n	1,435	5	9.0715	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47432	An answer to the considerations which obliged Peter Manby, late Dean of London-Derry in Ireland, as he pretends, to embrace what he calls, the Catholick religion by William King ...	King, William, 1650-1729.	1687 (1687)	Wing K523; ESTC R966	76,003	113

to the Disciples of Simon Magus who taught as St. Irenoeus informs us that such as were perfect among them and had that Principle they called S●lt and Light could not ●in Not but that they were guilty of the greatest villanies but they reckoned nothing in themselves sin because they walked in Light and Truth while the rest of the world were in Darkness as they pretended In opposition to these St. John shews us v. 8. that if we pretend thus to be without sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us but if we own and acknowledge our sins and heartily endeavour to avoid them then the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin according to Gods promise who gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish It is plain from vers 10. that such as refused to confess their sins according to St. John made God a lyar Now this is litterally true of those who deny that they are sinners as those Hereticks did but to deny the necessity of a particular enumeration of sins to a Priest doth no ways impeach Gods truth and therefore the Confession required by these words if we confess our sins is not Auricular This is farther manifest from the ancient Fathers of the Church not one of which understand these words of Confession to a Priest. St. Augustine has written a Comment on this Epistle and he thus explains this place If thou confess that thou art a sinner the truth is in thee Tell men what thou art tell God what thou art If thou tell not God what thou art God will damn what he finds in thee If thou wouldst not that he should damn condemn thou Occumenius refers this whole passage to the Jews If we who said his Blood be on us and on our Children should impudently say that we have not sinned we deceive our selves but if we acknowledge and confess this sin he will forgive us Which sufficiently shews that by confessing our sins here is meant the acknowledging our selves to be sinners in opposition to those who plead innocency And that this has no relation to a particular Confession of Sins to a Priest. Sect. 5. But 2. When God is said to be Faithful and Just it doth not particularly respect that Promise John 20. 23. Whose Sins you remit they are remitted which is sufficiently proved from this Argument that no ancient interpreter has thus applyed them but on the contrary have referred them to other Promises Thus St. Cyprian refers them to that Petition in the Lords Prayer Forgive us our Trespasses and interprets Confessing in St. John by this Petition in the Prayer to which he saith Forgiveness is promised St. John therefore saith that God who keeps his Promise is faithful to forgive Sins because he who hath taught us to pray for our sins hath promised that his Fatherly Mercy and Pardon shall follow The Roman Gloss saith God is faithful who promised Grace to the humble Oecumenius refers this to Isaiah 43. 26. Where according to the Septuagint Translation the words are tell thy sins first that thou mayest be justified Which is ushered in with that promise v. 25. I even I am he that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake and will not remember thy sins Lyra saith God is faithful to forgive us our Sins because he promised so Mat. 3. 2. Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand You see that the ancient Interpreters could find other Promises both in the Old and New Testament which obliged God to forgive Sins before Auricular Confession is pretended to be instituted and not one of them dreamed that St. John had relation to that promise beside which Mr M. affirms there is not another in the New Testament How will he reconcile this to his profession of Faith in which he promises never to interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers When there is not one Father to vouch his sence of this place and several against him § 6. But 3. Suppose that consequence followed from this place which he infers that God will not remit Sins under the new Testament without the Ministry of his Priests Yet it would not follow that Auricular Confession is necessary because under the old Law the Sins of the People were not pardoned without the Ministry of Gods Priests and yet it is confessed that Auricular Confession was not then instituted Besides if the Ministry of the Priest be necessary why should that be understood rather of their private than publick Ministry And lastly their Ministry may be necessary on other accounts than hearing Confessions and pronouncing Absolutions Thus Oecumenius makes the Forgiveness of Sins here promised to be that Remission which is obtained in Baptism Therefore saith he God doth certainly remit Sins to them that come to his holy Baptism St. Chrysostome who wrote his Books De Sacerdotio purposely to magnisie the Priests Office interprets the promise in St. John 20. 23. by the power of admitting to Baptism and the Lords Supper together with the Priests Intercession and Prayers for Sinners but he says not one word of their remitting by an Absolution or Judicial Sentence Who soever knows St. Chrisostom must own that if he had known or believed such a magnificent power in the Priests he wou'd never have omitted it in Books written designedly to magnifie their Office I conclude therefore that although the Ministry of the Priests under the Gospel is necessary to the pardon of the Peoples Sins Yet that Ministry may consist in the use of their Directions Prayers Intercession and Sacraments and I believe Mr. M. will hardly be able to shew any other way of Absolution used by the ancient Church Nay St Cyprian denies that Priests properly forgive Sins because all that they can do is to put men in a way to be forgiven Sect. 7. The second thing Mr. M. intends for an Argument in favour of Confession is what he alledges p. 7. that Confession is approved and frequented by all the Christian World except the People of our Islands and some few others that call themselves reformed and further p. 8. that it was never heard of in the Catholick Church that Christians may receive the communion of Christs Body and Blood without a previous confession and Absolution Which if true proves this Doctrine to be Catholick both as to time and place but the best of it is that we are not bound to take his word And that upon Examination this will be found false in both the parts of it For neither do all other Christians beside the Reformed frequent and approve Auricular Confession otherwise than our Church doth Nor is it any new thing in the Catholick Church for Men to come to the Communion without private Confession and Absolution by a Priest. The whole Greek Church denies Auricular Confession to be of divine Right pretending it only to be a

assign any such on Earth is to destroy the very notion of the Catholick Church and make her as particular as the Jewish Synagogue out of which no Person or Nation was excluded so they would turn Proselytes any more than they are excluded out of the Church of Rome if they will embrace her Faith and submit to her Government But the Church is called Catholick in opposition to such a particular Society because she consists of many such Societies which have in every Nation the same Priviledges which were before peculiar to the Jews And these particular Churches are intire Bodies in themselves not made accountable by Christ or his Apostles to any Foreign Church as to a Head but only as to a Sister Neither is the union of these particular Churches into one Catholick Church an union of subjection to one visible Head but an union of Faith and Charity under our visible Head Christ. When therefore Mr. M. asks in what Provinces of the Earth this Church doth inhabit I answer in most Provinces of the World in more by many than he or his Church will allow Let him read St. Augustine on the 85 Psalm and he will tell him the sin of those that confine the Church to a Province or corner of the World to a Sect or Party of Christians § 2. To this second Question Was there any such Society upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation I answer there was and the several branches of it were dispersed through many Provinces in Europe Asia and Africa The Church of England was one branch thereof such she has continued ever since and we hope will continue to the end of the World And therefore he might have spared the labour which he has spent to prove that there was extant such a Church on the face of the Earth since we believe as firmly as he can desire that according to our Saviour's Prediction the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholick Church § 3. To this third Question Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of this Church I answer He did And being placed by Providence in an eminent station in the Church and the Care and Government of so considerable a part thereof being committed to his charge he found himself obliged by the Laws of God and Man to remove those things he apprehended to be Corruptions and Abuses And if they were really such who but Mr. M. can doubt his Authority do do it in a regular way And therefore to his fourth Question Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Holy Catholick Church and to set up Altar against Altar I answer No body he never attempted the one or the other He never attempted to Reform the Catholick Church because he had neither Power or Inspection over her Nor did he ever pretend to make any Law to oblige her He only endeavoured to cultivate and reform that part of her that was committed to his Care. And he must have lost his Understanding or renounced it that doth not see that this is the Duty of every Bishop nay of every Parish-Priest in his sphere and therefore except Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer went beyond his sphere he talks and asks questions to no purpose I suppose that I have already shewn that Cranmer did not exceed his Authority in his proceedings at the Reformation And as he did not pretend to reform the Catholick Church so neither did he set up Altar against Altar There was no Schism made by him in England the Division of Communion was made long after about the Tenth of Queen Elizabeth on the Bull of Pius V. Heylin ad Ann. 1564. 1565. p. 172. § 4. Mr. M. seems to have nothing to object against all this only he insinuates that the Reformation supposes the Catholick Church to be lapsed into Idolatry And if she were guilty of Idolatry she should be no Christian Church And then there is an end of the Episcopal Succession of the Church of England and consequently of the Church it self There is not one step in this Argument but is justly liable to exception I shall only desire the Reader to consider these few things and then judge whether Mr. M. can be supposed to have examined this matter either diligently or impartially 1. The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry 2. The Idolatry with which we commonly charge that Church is not inconsistent with the Being of a Church or Succession of Bishops 3. The Argument Mr. M. has produced to prove the Impossibility of a Christian Churches teaching and practising Idolatry is weak and inconclusive Sect. 5. First The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry Because there were many confessed and notorious Abuses in the Church that needed Reformation besides what we count Idolatrous And the Governors of the Church were obliged to reform them whether they were Idolatrous or no except Mr. M. thinks that nothing but Idolatry can need Reformation Prayer in an unknown Tongue the half Communion the ludicrous and antique Ceremonies of the Mass private Masses and Indulgences Appeals and Foreign Jurisdiction with many other things were removed by the Reformers not because they counted them Idolatrous but because they were great Abuses and Deviations from the Primitive Rules and Practice of the Church The things in the Roman Church which we commonly charge with Idolatry are the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and Adoration of the Host Now the Reformation would neither be unjustisiable nor unnecessary tho we should reckon these practises only in the same rank of abuses with the former We need not therefore charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry to justifie our first Reformers But whatever be said as to that he may assure himself we never did nor will charge the Catholick Church with any such Crime She never decreed either worship of Images or adoration of the Host. § 6. But secondly the Idolatry with which we charge the Church of Rome is not inconsistent with the being of a Church or Succession of Bishops I do consess there is an Idolatry inconsistent with all true Religion that is when Men renounce the true God and worship a false one in his stead But there is another Idolatry that consisteth in worshipping a false God with or in Subordination to the true And a third which Men incurr by giving some part of that honour to a Creature which God has reserved sor himself or asking those things of Creatures which God only can give And 't is with this last the Church of Rome stands charged Now not only Doctor Stilling fleet whom he confesses he never read but Primate Bramhall also whom he pretends to have seen have proved that some practice of this kind of Idolatry as well as some other Sins may consist with the Being of a Church But what shall