Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
christian_n christian_a church_n jewish_a 1,506 5 9.5679 5 true
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
A70165 Iudahs ioy at the oath layd out in a sermon on the 2 Chro. 15, 15 for Englands example in embracing the parliamentary covenant with readinesse and rejoycing : hereunto is annexed a briefe and moderate answere to The protestation protested, discovering the unsoundnesse of that interpretation of the nationall covenant, and the weaknesse of the grounds there suggested for separate and independant churches / by Iohn Geree ... Geree, John, 1601?-1649. 1641 (1641) Wing G597; ESTC R16455 37,528 68

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

In this Authors Answers to his owne Quaery what shall be substituted instead of Prelacy Liturgy and Ceremonies many things deserve examination First whereas he saith considering the Church of England to be none other then a National Church its uncapable of constitution This word Nationall Church I finde often used and much put upon it and yet neither is it a Scripture phrase nor do any give us a certaine exposition of it if by it they understand a Church that hath some common Nationall Worship by some common Pastor at some common place as all the Jewes had the same High Priest and Temple and all the Males were to meete thrice a yeare at the place which God should choose In which respect I conceive the Church of the Iewes was properly termed a Nationall Church in this sense Christians have no Nationall Churches But he seemes to make a National Church to be when an whole Nation is taken into a Visible Church or Churches having all of them the outward profession of Religion which he saith is impossible now because particular Visible Churches consist of none but Visible living members and visible Saints under Christ the King of Saints But here I would faine know the reason why it is necessary that the members in a particular Church should be of better mettall then the members of a Nationall Church doth not God require by his precepts as much of a Nationall Church and say as much of them as of a particular Church See Exodus 19.4 5 6 7 8. how often is that Priest on the Nationall Church of the Iewes Be yee holy or Saints for I am holy The very same charge that is prest on Christians 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. where no more is required of the members of Christian particular Churches then of the members of the Iewish Nationall Church and are not the members of the Iewish Nationall Church called holy or Saints aswell as be commanded to be so How often is this reason given by the Lord for you are an holy people See Deut. 7.6 14● 21 26 19. And many other glorious things are spoken of the church of the Iewes Ie. 2 5. Ps 1354 And was not Christ their King Psa 44 4. If he were slayne from before the Foundation of the world and the Redeemer of he Church under the Law was he not their King too What difference then doth Scriptures make betweene the members of a Nationall and particular Church and who dares distinguish where the Scripture doth not If they Answere that the Nationall Church of the Iewes were holy in Profession or are called holy in regard of some that were so indeed the denomination being from the better part will not nay must not that answere serve us were all the members of the Apostolicall Churches Visible Saints otherwise then by profession what those that were carnal in Corinth Cap. 3. and defrauders and scandalous contenders too C. 6. Those that were drunk whē they came to the Sacrament too Those that denyed the Resurrection too 1 Cor. 15 12. and those that had not repented of their uncleannesse fornication and Lasciviousnesse too 2 Cor. 12 21. And those that traduced the Apostle too Cap. 11. Then what shall deny the visibility of a Saint or a living member So I might aske touching some in the Ancient holy Church of Rome Romans 16 17 18. And the like of some in the Church of Philippi Cap. 3.18.19 So likewise in the Church of Sardis Revel 3 1 4. and Laodicea Revel 3 16 c. Can these be sayd to consist of Saints or holy people any more then the Iewes must they not have the Title of Saints in regard of their Profession or the denomination from the better part Can Sardis in any other respect have the name of a Golden Candlestick And then I would know againe for what reason it should be more dishonorable to Christ to be the head of a Congregation that are not all Visible Saints further then by profession and outward conformity then to be the head of a Nation where all are not Visible Saints or why Christians should be in more danger for being one by Profession in a Congregationall body then Christ and Prophets for being one with such as were not Visible Saints in a Nationall body these I confesse are Riddles to mee Nay I conceive that though all that doe professe holynesse and life should in duty be so yet Christ in the parable of the Tares and wheate showes it will not be so and a generall seperation is not to be attempted till the end of the world for the Tares signifie the workers of Iniquitie that grow are to be gathered out of the Kingdome of him who is stiled the King of Saints and out of what Kingdome but the Kingdome parabolized The Kingdome of Heaven Math. 13 24 41. and these Tares were not secret Hypocrits for the Servants did discerne them and tell the Master of them and not the Master the Servants nor doth it any way crosse us that the field is interpreted the world as though the wicked and Godly should be in the world together but in distinct societies For this cannot be Why should the Servants wonder to see the wicked in the world how could the Tares come after the wheat as they are said to doe seeing the wicked were in the world before the Godly in the Church see verses 25 27 Why should the Servants consult about the wicked in the world What have they to do with those that are without yea if the wheate and the Tares be thus interpreted there must by this parable be nothing but wheate in the Church no Chaffe no Judas no hypocrite for all but the tares are righteous and shall shine as the Sun in the Kingdome of the Father verses 41.43 But why then is the Field interpreted to be the world A. For good reasons because the visible Church was not to be limited to Judea but extended to the whole world that would entertaine it Secondly the word of this Kingdome ver 19. was to be Preached in the world and by the word of this Kingdome this Kingdome wa● to be gathered in the world in which Kingdome should appeare the Tares with the Wheat These things are so suitable to Christs words scop that I do not at al doubt but that this is the true exposition of this parable Nor doth the Argument so confidently held out against it any whit overthrow it if you thus interpret the parable say some you must of necessity exclude all Church Censures and so crosse other plaine Scriptures A. There is no such necessity in it neither for its a rule in interpreting parables we must not extend them beyond their scope now we must know wicked men are of two rankes one ordinary that though they have no grace visible yet they are formal Professors not guilty of Crimes others that are guilty of notorious crimes as the incestuous person c.
is not to oppose lawfully but illegally and seditiously But now let us heare his Answer First saith he All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intention and end Now the Law for reformation never intended to allow or set up Popery in the Church of England Ans This rule for the interpretation of Laws in the a There is a twofold intention of Lawes one generall arising from mens goodnesse and that may be to remove whatsoever is evill the other speciall arising from mens light and that is to remove such particulars as are discovered to be evil the latter intention is the rule of interpreting Laws not the former and this Author speakes of the former sense he takes it is a device of his owne that hath neither authority nor reason for the confirmation of it Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law giver which the Grammaticall sense of the words doth usually discover Indeed in matters doubtfull where the words are capable of a double sense the intention of the Law may there cleere what sense is most Genuine but that the generall intention of of the Law shall give a sense contrary to the letter of the Law is without doubt a groundlesse and dangerous fancy It s true the Law never intended to set up Popery but the question is whether it be destructive of all Popery The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers who if they saw not all Popery could not by their Lawes condemne all nor did if the things in Question be Popery Lex Currit cum praxi The generall practise especially of those that are regular discovers the mind of the Law and the practise hath been to maintaine these things therefore it s not the meaning of the Law to condemne them nor of this Protestation to abjure them Secondly he saith If humane Lawes be found to be contrary to Gods word they are invalid and void ipso facto Ans This rightly understood is in part a truth but here misapplied we are subjected to all Terrene superiours by the Lord and under the Lord when they then command any thing contrary to GOD the Laws have noe binding power because by a superiour Law we are bound to the contrary But yet such Lawes are not Ipso facto void or if void yet they are void in foro conscientiae in the Court of Heaven not in foro politico in Courts on Earth though we are not bound to obey them yet we are without resistance to submit to such penalties under the danger of Sedition which were there noe Lawes we were free from Againe this Thesis of his is misapplied for thence he infers Thirdly that having made this Protestation we ought to have no communion with the aforesaid particulars notwithstanding they be confirmed by Law which inference is therfore faulty because the Protestation is onely against Popery as it is against the Doctrine of the Church and that which is confirmed by our law though it be Popery yet it is not Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England If the Lawes of the Land and the Doctrine of our Church had their establishment in different Courts then that which is establisht by Law might be against the Doctrine of the Church but the Doctrine of the Church and the Laws of the Lands having both their establishment in Parliament what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church and therefore this Authors arguing must needs be irrationall But now we are furnished with a second Objection which we are to consider of and whether this Author hath with any better successe taken of then he hath the former what saith hee If the Parliament did not by Popery understand the Liturgy Ceremonies Government of our Church and he gives good reason to conceive they did not for then many of them would not have taken it What shal we do then that is his Quaere now heare his Answers First saith he we are sure they intended in against all Popery To which I answere that its most cleare and so he himselfe expresseth in the former Page they only intend it against Popery as it is opposite against the Doctrine of the Church of England and such Popery the mentioned things cannot be Secondly saith he They expresse that the words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any forme of Worship Discipline or Ceremonies in the said Church What doth he thence inferre why forsooth that therefore we may not Protest for the maintenance of these why was that the Question whether we should be bound to maintaine them or whether we are bound to abolish them What ridiculous disputing then is this But hence I Argue If the Protestation do not include them for confirmation because they are no parts of Doctrine it doth not exclude them for abolition but leaves them for determination to another opportunity Thirdly saith he Suppose that at the first making of the Protestation that these particulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery yet no good Christian can or will deny that the House of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever should pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof This Author is very good at bold assertions but all as bad in confirmations for what a good Christian may do in weaknesse I will not determine but no wise Christian as far as I can conceive can judge that what ever shall be found to be Popery is included in this Protestation but what ever is found to be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church of England which is the terme limiting Popery in the Protestation Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament of such a Reformation as will not deserve the name of Reformation if all Popery be not made to be packing I joyne with him in all comfortable hopes from this Honourable House but what is this to his matter in hand All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament is not expected by this Protestation this is one degree to reforme whatever Popery or Innovation is against Law established this done the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation by removing corruptions established by Law Fiftly Suppose saith he that it could be imagined by any reasonable man that the House of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foresaid things in the fardell of Popery shall private and particular Christians knowing these to be Popery and Antichristian being bound by their solemne Vow and Protestation never reforme themselves c. I Answere no man can if as he is rationall he deale rationally But suppose that these things were not included in the Protestation according to the intention of the House of Commons which may appeare by unanswerable grounds 1. Because the expresse words be against that Popery which is against the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND which these things mentioned established