Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A34077
|
The plausible arguments of a Romish priest answered by an English Protestant seasonable and useful for all Protestant families.
|
Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing C5481; ESTC R16555
|
28,548
|
65
|
same Creeds which were anciently and universally believed in it so that I am as likely to come to know the true sense of Scripture as any others Po. Not so by your favour for you are no Member of the Roman Church which I will prove to be that Catholic Church mentioned in the Creeds and then it must follow that you neither have the true sense of Scripture nor can you be saved out of this Catholic Church Prot. I shall yield your Consequences when you prove the Antecedent but then you must not take it for granted without any Proof as your Priests use to do Po. I do not think it needs much proof for it is as visible as that the Sun is in the Firmament Prot. That cannot be for no body doth or can deny this but the far greater part of Christians utterly deny the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church yea and say it is Non-sense to affirm a part to be the whole or a particular to be universal And it must be well proved from Scripture which all Christians agree to be Gods Word be fore I can be perswaded that Christ who died for his whole Church will suffer three parts of four of those which he redeemed to be damned for not believing this Opinion as you most uncharitably affirm Po. Well for your satisfaction I will undertake to prove that S. Peter was the Chief of the Apostles and that Christ gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and built his Church on him as on a Rock and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor and Head of that Church which Christ promised to lead into all truth and then you must confess the Roman Church to be that Catholic Church which is mentioned in the Creeds Prot. I hope you will give me leave to hear and examine your Proofs and on that condition pray proceed Po. Do not the Scriptures naming S. Peter in the first place shew he was the Chief of the Apostles Prot. This shews he was an Eminent Apostle but cannot imply any Superiority over the rest because Christ makes them all equal Judges sitting together upon twelve Thrones Math. xix 28. and forbids any of them to pretend any Superiority over the others and though there was one Emperor then over many lesser and inferiour Princes Christ saith It shall not be so among his Apostles Math. xx 26. Luke xxii 26. Nor would S. James have finally determined in the Council of Jerusalem in S. Peters presence Acts xv 13. or S. Paul have so openly opposed and reproved him if Christ had made him Superiour over all the Apostles Galat. ii 11 14. Po. Do you not read that Christ gave to him first and singly the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven and promised to build his Church on him as on a Rock so firm that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it Math. xvi 18 19. Prot. I read that Christ in that place to Math. xvi 19. did not give but only promise to give him those Keys afterwards which promise he made also to all the Apostles Math. xviii 18. and when he came to perform it he gave the power of the Keys to them all alike John xx 22 23. And it was upon S. Peters Confession of Faith that Christ built his Church not upon his Person since we see the Gates of Hell immediately prevailed too far against him first in his labouring to tempt Christ not to suffer Math. xvi 22. and secondly in his denying him with many Imprecations Math. xxvi 24. But if I should grant all the Priviledges you heap on S. Peter without any good evidence from Gods Word that will not prove the Popes sole right to them all Po. Yes without doubt for the Bishop of Rome is certainly the Successor of S. Peter and consequently the Vicar of Christ and supream Head of the Catholic Church Prot. The Bishop of Antioch hath a better Title to be S. Peters Successor because the Scripture which never mentions his being at Rome says expresly he was there but if the Bishop of Rome had been S. Peters Successor that could not make him Head of the whole Catholic Church because S. Peter himself never pretended to any such Power or Title yea he was peculiarly the Apostle of the believing Jews who had been Circumcised Galat. ii 7. and to them he writes Nor doth Christ any where tell us he would leave one such Head on Earth or give any Orders to all Christians to obey any one Apostle Po. But we do believe the Bishop of Rome to be S. Peters Successor and if so how can our Lord make good his Promise to be with his Church to the end of the World if he do not make S. Peters Successor as infallible as S. Peter himself was by his presence and assistance Prot. If we grant an inspired Apostle to have been Infallible in order to setling the Faith and writing the Rule of it it doth not follow that his uninspired Successors should have this Priviledge now the Faith and Rule of it are fixed For then the Bishops of Antioch Jerusalem and Alexandria must be Infallible now And Christs Promise is not made to S. Peter or to any particular Apostle but to the whole Catholic Church so that as long as the true Faith is held in any one or more Churches Christs Promise is made good though other particular Churches fall away Po. But the Catholic Church in the Creed is an Apostolical Church and it was promised to the Apostles that he would lead them into all truth John xvi 13. which Priviledge belongs to Rome as being now the only free Apostolical Church in the World Prot. All Churches in the World at first were planted immediately or mediately by the Apostles and Christ did certainly make this Promise good to his Apostles who were led into all Truth and so long as any particular Church keeps close to this Truth which the Apostles taught the Promise is still made good to that Church and there were many particular Apostolical Churches under Pagan Emperors and may be now under the Turks it being not temporal Freedom but adhering to the Apostles Doctrine which makes a particular Church Apostolical and made the whole Catholic Church to be called so at first when the Creed was made Po. However you must grant it is most prudent to take the best way to come to the knowledge of the Truth Now it is both the easiest and certainest way for the People to come to this knowledge by believing as the Church believes Prot. It is neither so easie nor so certain a way as to Search the Scriptures Po. This is a strange Assertion Is it not easier to let your Pastors who are fitted for it by their Profession judge of matters of Faith than for you to take pains to find them out in Scripture Prot. My Assertion is not so strange as true For it is much more difficult for
No doubtless not where your Church expresly contradicts God and his holy Apostle The Spirit of God by S. Paul commands Men to pray with understanding and forbids any to use an unknown Tongue in Christian Assemblies enjoyning the Priest so to make his Prayers and Praises that the most unlearned may joyn in them be edified by them and say Amen to them 1 Cor. xiv 14 15 16 17. and 26. and your Church bids men pray without understanding and prescribes an unknown Tongue for the Priest to Pray and Praise God in wherein the People cannot joyn and whereby they are not edified yea to which they cannot with understanding say Amen In such a case to obey the Church is to disobey God and a great Impiety Po. You must know Latin was the Language of the ancient Christians at Rome and we have not altered our Prayers but only kept them in that Tongue in which they were made at first by the Apostles who planted our Church Prot. Now you have yielded the Cause for if the Apostles who were Jews did not set up the Hebrew Prayers at Rome but Latin because that was the Language which the People then understood if you were of their Spirit or followed their steps you ought now to turn them into other Languages because the People do not understand Latin and because it is necessary they should pray with understanding Is this your Apostolical Church which acts contrary to the Writings and Example of the Apostles or could the Apostles leave you any Tradition to contradict their own Commands and Practice Po. May not the People think of God and good things and so be very devout at these Prayers though they do not understand the words Prot. They may think of God and good things at home and so need not come to the Publick Service at all if this be sufficient We think Publick Prayers were designed for the People to come and unite their particular and hearty desires to the Petitions made by the Priest and this praying with one accord Acts i. 14. makes them more prevalent than private Prayer S. Math. xviii 20. But your People are thinking of one thing when the Priest is saying another and cannot desire the particular things asked by the Priest because they do not know them So that this turns the publick Prayers into private and the Priest might as well pray without a Congregation Po. It is to God we speak in Prayer and since he understands us it is no marter whether the People understand them or no. Prot. By this Argument you need not Pray at all because God knows your necessities before you ask Yet he bids us ask that by the words of our Prayers we may stir up our Desires exercise our Devotion and excite our Faith not that we may instruct him Wherefore your People are robbed of all that comfort and benefit which ours find so sensibly in our English Prayers meerly because your Church scorns to reform any thing and you can never expect that those who by Experience have found the sweetness and advantage of our pious and plain Liturgy will endure your dry unprofitable Latin Prayers Po. Well but some of your People think Sermons the main thing in Publick Worship and we hope to gain them however because we Preach in English Prot. Possibly some of these may be catcht by this Bait but all wise Protestants will ask you why there is not as much reason for the People to know what they are to speak to God as what the Priest is to speak to them and will also desire to know why you should read the Psalms and Lessons and other parts of Scripture in Latin which God writ for our Learning and Instruction 1 Cor. x. 11. and so make it as impossible the People should learn any thing from it or be instructed by it as for Boys in Horn-Books to be made any wiser by reading a Latin Author to them Po. I have told you before This is lest the People should wrest the Scriptures if they were in a Language they understood Prot. Why then do you preach in English May they not wrest your Sermons as well as Holy Scripture Is there more danger now than in the Apostles times Or is your Church wiser than they Did not they write it in a Language generally understood And was it not soon after turned into Latin because the Romans best understood that Language Did they not deliver it to all and command all to read it and search it to meditate on it and teach it to their Children Though some are Gluttons and Drunkards we must not deny all Men the use of Meat and Drink nor would you thus keep the Scriptures from the People but only for fear that such plain Men as I should discover your Corruptions Po. Methinks you should discover your own Corruptions there For what is more plainly expressed in Scripture than these words concerning the Sacrament of the Altar This is my Body Luke xxii 19. and yet you will not own the real Flesh of Christ to be there Is not this to deny Christ's words and disbelieve the Scripture Prot. We may as well charge you with denying Christs words and disbelieving Scripture since you affirm his real Blood to be there though he tells us This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luk. xxii 20. 1 Cor. xi 25. You must confess there is a Figure in this Expression or else you must affirm the Wine is Transubstantiated into the New Testament and if there be a Figure in one Verse why may there not be one also in the other in regard this substantial Change which you pretend is either in both parts or in neither Po. However we have much the advantage of you because we take the Literal sense which is both the more common and the more easie sense whilst you are forced to fly to Tropes and Figures Prot. You must consider this Sacrament is a Mystery and in discoursing of Mysteries it is more common in Scripture to speak Figuratively than Literally yea what is more usual there than to call the Sign by the name of the thing signified and the thing signified by the name of the Sign So the Rock is said to be Christ 1 Cor. x. 4. and Christ is said to be Bread John vi 48. yet none are so absurd to say the Rock is substantially changed into Christ or Christ into Bread And when the Church is called The Body of Christ Colos i. 24. your selves do not affirm that there is any change made of the Church into Christs Flesh and Blood though there be more said of this than of the Sacramental Bread viz That we are Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones Ephes v. 30. So when Christ is called a Vine a Door a Way a Branch c. it is very certain the Expressions are Figurative and there are a thousand places in the Holy Bible which cannot be otherwise understood