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	society_n	2,901	5	9.2764	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54407	Indulgence not justified being a continuation of the Discourse of toleration, in answer to the arguments of a late book entituled A peace-offering, or plea for indulgence, and to the cavils of another call'd The second discourse of the religion in England.	Perrinchief, Richard, 1623?-1673.	1668 (1668)	Wing P1594; ESTC R26874	40,846	54

distinct Sect from all of that name beyond the Seas Pub. Disp Salm. Part. 3. de Liturg Nuperririme exorti sunt in Anglia Morosi scrupulosi c. And they produce this Testimony of a Foreign Learned Man Ludovious Capellus who saith There are of late arisen in England certain Morose Scrupulous and too tender not to say Superstitious Men to whom that Liturgie which their Church hath hitherto used seems not only reprovable but they have wholly abolished it together with the whole Hierarchical Government of Bishops and in its place have substituted that which they call their Directory And however they may agree with those abroad in some things Yet they do not in this principle which was observed to be the reason of their Instability For 1. The French Churche's sense is exprest by Mr. Calvin We confess all and every Church hath just Authority to make Laws and Injunctions Confes Fidei oblata Caesari c. Inter opuscula Calvini Fatemur tum omnes tum etiam singulas Ecclesias hoc jus habere ut Leges statu ta sibi cond●nt Spanhem de Labert Christiana Thes 23. to Constitute a Common Polity among themselves 2. The Dutch Church doth not countenance such a principle For Spanhemius a Professor among them saith Every Church hath a Power that is not abrogated to make Laws nor are all humane Traditions to be utterly prescribed for Traditions of Doctrine are to be distinguished from those of Rites the Church indeed hath no Legislative power about those things yet it hath about these 3. As for the Helvetian Churches this Discourser hath been told by the Learned Durel in his Treatise p. 6. That they are not Presbyterian For they have a Subordination of Ministers as Antistites Deans Canons Pastors who have the Care of Souls and Deacons as here amongst us in England they have set forms of Prayer Holy dayes Organs and other instrumental Musick and sure the principles of these men as well as their Practices are not Presbyterian and those Churches that are have not the principles of giddiness which are maintained here If the Scotch Church were so pure as the Author saith we may assign their Purity to their Severities which frighted all Dissenters of drawing their principles farther than they would endure In the next place this Maxim That an Indifferent thing becomes unlawfull by being commanded which was said to be common among the Dissenters gives us little hopes of Stability For since some things Indifferent i. e. neither commanded nor forbidden by God will necessarily fall into practice in the Worship of God and through the weakness of men there may and will arise contradictory Opinions and so consequently through Interest Humour and Corruptions Dissentions about them if there be no power left to the Church to determine those things and whatsoever she determines doth therefore become sinful as these men imagine what way is left to us to come to an Establishment and what hopes of Peace and rest between the contending Parties when none can determine and enjoyn That this Maxime is common among them this Author doth not deny but only gives us the Speech of some of them out of Papers they have printed Which does not disown what was imputed to them but by several ambages seek to hide their sense in that point But I conceive their judgment in this point is clear under their own hands when in the Conference at the Savoy Where this Proposition That command which commandeth an Act in it self Lawfull and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any Circumstance whence directly or per accidens any Sin is consequent which the commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command and particularly cannot be guilty of Commanding an Act per accidens unlawful nor of Commanding an Act under an unjust Penalty was denied by the joynt Consent of those who disputed for the Non-Conformists Let this be considered whether this be sound speech that cannot be proved Another ground of discouragement from having any hopes of Stability by admitting their Comprehension is their shyness to give us the particulars wherein they will rest and what will satisfy them to an acquiescence For though the Discourser saith that the propounded Latitude leaves out nothing necessary to secure the Churches Peace Yet he refuses to give us the boundaries of his Latitude and putting us off as he did before with these General things necessary to Faith and Life and godly Order he quarrels the Answerer for saying this Establishment is not enough for settlement because it doth not secure the Churches Peace Yet he doth not answer any thing to that which proved it as the Instance of the present Dissentions Wherein though the Church of England and the Presbyterians agree in things necessary to Life Faith and Order Yet we finde no peace betwixt them To which we may add that the Presbyterians and Independents have a further agreement yet there was no peace among them but they mutually writ and preached one against the othrr the first declaring and petitioning that the last should not have a Toleration and the last by Subtlety and force weakening and exposing the first to Contempt and Ruin And therefore sure there is something else necessary to Peace It was also instanced that in Government and Worship in both which some particulars are not absolutely necessary there might arise Differences This he doth not disprove but replies with gravity Verily it may much amuse one to think what that thing should be in the Ecclesiastical Polity which is not necessary to the Christian Faith and Life or Godly Order in the Church and yet necessary to secure the Churches Peace To take of this amusement let it be considered how the Great things of Christianity differ from the peace of the Church The Principles of Faith Good Life and Order are the Foundation of that Christian Society which is the Church But Peace being as the agreement and mutual fitness of all the parts of the edifice must necessary be of larger extent There may be breaches in an House where the Foundation remains firm and entire and there have been often fierce contentions among Christians that yet have agreed in things necessary to Salvation and essential to Christian Worship These truths of Faith and principles of Life have a continual existence and though the World should not receive them and wicked men Contradict them yet they have still their being in Nature and are commensurate with Eternity But peace may be and as experience tells us is but Temporary In civil Societies the meanest and vilest Persons have been able to make Seditions and Mutinies even to the overthrow of an Established Government and we may finde Schisms and Divisions have been made in the Societies of Christians by persons who through Ignorance have wrested the Scriptures and men of perverse minds whose glory was their shame and that also

heart and one soul and therefore what was then might be again and so could not be impossible Neither doth Origen say much less shew that these differences hindered not their Faith Love and Obedience For the Heresies which he thought Celsus had respect unto and grounded his reproach upon were the Ophitae and Cainitae to whom Origen denies the very name of Christians They pretend also a kindness from Justin Martyr who they say in his second Apologie declares his forbearance and the Churches of those dayes towards those who believing in Christ yet thought themselves obliged to the observation of Mosaical Rights and Ceremonies But this is an open abuse both of Justin and the Reader for there are no words in that Apology tending to that purpose and such indeed would have been impertinent and besides his subject in that Apology and lastly had he said what he doth not it would not have been of advantage to Indulgence Ignatius also is used no better by them whom they would have to say that to persecute men on the account of God and Religion is to make our selves conformable to the Heathen that know not God Whereas Ignatius saith no word like it but that which makes against them * Ignat. Ep. ad Phila delphinos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one saith he follows him that hath made a Schism he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God If any one walks in a different opinion he is not complyant with the sufferings of Christ These are the words of Ignatius who in that place by many arguments urges them to continue in the Unity of the Church and therefore could not at the same time speak for indulgence of those who did break that Unity But those words which they refer to are the words of the Interpolator of Ignatius For they are not in Vossius's Edition of Ignatius nor in that Latin Copy which Bishop Usher thought to be Authentick but they are in that corrupt Copy set forth by him yet so set forth and noted in Red Characters that no man could take them for Ignatius's but he that had a mind to prevaricate Which in civil converse is an infamous crime but in Religion we want a name to express its buseness Then they huddle up many witnesses together Tertullian Origen Arnobius and Lactantius Who say they pleaded for a Liberty in Religion as founded in the Law of Nature and the inconsistencie of Faith with Compulsion But where these Authors say such things they do not tell us and the former discoveries show how little reason we have to take their bare Words But whatsoever those Authors may say to justify Christian Religion even by the Law of Nature and that the light of Reason could finde nothing in it that deserved persecution Yet I shall not believe that they ever said Ter●de Praescrip Haeret. c. 37. Si Haeretici sunt Christiani non sunt Ib. c. 32. Ita omnes Haereses nec recipiuntur in pacem communionem ab Ecclesiis quo quo modo Apostolicis the Law of Nature did give to any persons ground for Liberty of different Opinions and practises contrary to the Rules and Orders of that Christian Church wherein they lived until I see their own words for it And of these certainly Tertullian can have no great favour for them who is so severe against Hereticks in his Book de Praescriptione that he will not allow them the name of Christians and saith that they were not received to peace and Communion in the Churches that were any way Apostolical If therefore we may judge of the rest by one we have no reason to think they are for the the Indulgence till we see it under their hands After these they bring the Synod of Alexandria in the Case of Athanasius who did as they say Condemn all External force in Religion and Reproached the Arians as the first Inventers and Promoters of it The shamefulness of this Allegation will appear to the Reader If he take notice that this Synod made no Acts nor Canons for the Histories of it mention none nor are any Extant and therefore their Judgment in this Case was not definitive Their main business was to inquire into the Sclanders which the Arians had raised against Athanasius and to bear witness against them they being competent to this as being Members of the same Church and conversant with him in his offices This their Testimony they published in a Circulatory Letter to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church and to their beloved Brethren in Christ In this Epistle they speak not at all concerning External force in Religion nor do they say the Arians were the first inventers of it For they only complain of the Arians for offering to the Emperour Letters that did accuse * Siquidem jam denuo Accusatrices Literas contra Athanasium Imperatoribus porrexere iteratis calumniis homicidia ei objicientes quae aunquam facta sunt ac denuo illum conjurationibus suis opprimere student Athanasius of Murders which were never done that by that means they might take away his life by the Sword of Justice And as to this not to any force of the Emperour about Religion they say * Tota enim eorum accusatrix Epistola nihil aliud nisi necem spectat aut necem moliuntur si ipsis liceat aut saltem exules facere c. Ista opera Ethnicorum sunt non vel tenuiter Christianorum minime omnium Episcoporum quos aliis justitiam commonstrare oportuit Their whole Libel designes nothing else but slaughter as much as in them lies or else banishment c. Those are works of Heathens and not of the meanest Christians much less of Bishops whom it becomes to be patterns of Justice to others Now what is all this which is spoken of bloody Slanders to the force which restrains different Apprehensions from disturbing Practices Let the Reader see if he can for I cannot finde any thing to their purpose in that Synodical Epistle and if these Writers had intended sincerity they would have given us the very words which made for them and I conceive they did not because they could not Thus of these Testimonies out of that ancient Christians some are meer Fictions the alledged Authors having no such words as these are cited to have Thus Justin Martyr Origen Ignatius and the Synod of Alexandria are abused Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius brought in as Witnesses without any Testimony Socrates the Historian and the Instance of Victor impertinently mention'd Truth stands not in need of such low shifts SECT 6. The first Christian Emperours were against Indulgence HAving done with Churchmen They come to Emperours And first they lay hold of that Edict of Constantine who having a mind to deliver the oppressed Christians from the persecutions of the Gentiles and not finding it safe Euseb Hist l. 10. c. 5. as yet to appear particularly in their favour having then Licinius and