Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	particular_a	union_n	1,483	5	10.0681	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67152	Anarchie reviving, or, The good old cause on the anvile being a discovery of the present design to retrive the late confusions both of church and state, in several essays for liberty of conscience / by Abraham Philotheus.	Wright, Abraham, 1611-1690.	1668 (1668)	Wing W3684; ESTC R12351	43,407	77

scalding water They swear to advance him to a Throne and interpret it a Scaffold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Pertinax tells his Souldiers they new drew their Covenant in red Letters dipping their Pens in Royal Bloud But whist one of them silences me with the Act of Oblivion without which themselves had sat very mute Now for their Clergie as Mr. Calamy Case c. yea all Ordained before 1640 they swore Canonical Obedience to their Bishop for the time being and about three years after expounded it by a Covenant to root them out How can we call that a tender Conscience that can digest two-edged Oaths Oaths of an ell long Oaths that speak Daggers to each other and that too without the least wince or haesitation I think a man may have better hold of them by their Purse-strings then Conscience-ties And therefore I should think Authority far more secure against that Party by a Bond for their Good behaviour then the exactest Oath As for an Objection brought in against taking the Oath by P. that it binds not to a Duty more then before 't is very pretty for First Oaths are taken for a stricter Tie and how comes that to be an Objection against imposing Oaths that they do not bind us more then before Secondly Is it not a contradiction to say Oaths bind no more to the thing then we were bound before they are taken yet presently to say they bind by more degrees What is more but a degree Without the Parenthesis there wants truth and with it 't is scarcely sense But 't is urged The Cavaliers formerly complained of the many Oaths imposed and esteemed it a great Oppression 'T is very true and methinks Clem. Rom. ep ad Cor. 1. p. 72. doth think so too for he puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Oppression if I understand him But then First The Cavaliers found them contrary to each other The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy bound them to preserve the King in his Civil and Ecclesiasticall capacity the Covenant would bind them to preserve the King but against his Ecclesiasticall capacity the Ingagement bound them to preserve the Government without the King Secondly They were imposed as Traps to ensnare them and put them out of their paternal Inheritance Thirdly They were imposed by insufficient Authority which left them that knew it so yet took them without excuse Now neither of these is our present Case That this Party hath holes to creep out of Oaths is no doubt M. I. p. 6. acknowledges the juggling of that Party and you may take his word for he well understands them And indeed without this skill in Picklocks how got they out of the Oaths of Allegeance and Supremacy Protestation and Covenant c I am sure they never had the Golden Key of Authority to unlock the door They are something like Philoctetes who swearing to Hercules that he would never discover where his Arrows or Reliques were nor the place of his Buriall yet being urged by the Graecians to reveal he thought to save his Oath by his Silence yet pointed out the place with his feet I will not say the Covenanters did so seeming to dislike the King's Death by their Silence yet made way for it by treading him under their feet let their Consciences make application But having taken the Oaths let them creep out of what holes they will it must be a hole in their Consciences and that will make another in their Reputations and that again a great hole in all honest mens opinions concerning them But enough of this They farther desire leave to take the Oath in their own words some of them as D. P. p. 45. So may they for me for being Non-conformers how could the Parliament hope they would swear in a form And they have too great a conceit of themselves to think a Parliament could not find out fitter words then they In a word such great Speakers ought not now to be taught to speak 2. They decry Rites and Ceremonies and a Subscription to them as tyrannicall and would have nothing as the condition of Communion for Ministers and people but what is necessary to Salvation as is proved before But first Why should the Presbyterians plead thus since they judged other things necessary to be subscribed in their attempts for Association then merely necessaries to Salvation They then thought it no Oppression to urge the Episcopal and Independent Brethren to subscribe their printed Books the bulk of which did exceed that of the Church-Canons and contained in them a thousand things not necessary to Salvation Secondly S. Paul thought it no Oppression to oblige the Ministers of the Church of Corinth to a publick acknowledgment of those Canons he gave them 1 Cor. 14. 37. yet sure they were not necessary to the being of a Christian but the well-being of a Church Thirdly I am of L. C. A's mind that in the Primitive times the Creed might have sufficed and now may for the Communion of Churches but not so for Communion in Churches Faith is a good foundation of the Catholick Union but Union of particular Christians must be grounded on an obligation to observe certain Rites and Canons which ought to be owned and submitted to yea and subscribed if the Church shall think fit How else can men know the time and place and posture the Order and Decency of Worship that is required 1 Cor. 14. 40. which Calvin confesseth to be required in that place Fourthly S. Paul praises the Church of Corinth for keeping certain Ordinances that he delivered unto them 1 Cor. 11. 2. of which one was that men should sit bare-headed in the Church concerning which Ceremony he spends no less then the 14 following verses to enforce it Now all the Arguments almost of the Non-conformers against Ceremonies do as strongly militate against this Ceremony of S. Paul's Institution as against any now imposed And 't is observable that the last Reply the Apostle thinks good to make against these Non-conformers contentions is this 1 Cor. 11. 16. that the Apostles used no such customes as covering of heads in the Church no nor the Church of God Now let the Authour of L. C. A. consider whether the Arguments for Ceremonies can be traced no farther then Bellarmine and Suarez and let the Authour of D. P. consider whether S. Paul be not as much to be blamed for defending this Ceremony as Bp. Whitgift for defending 〈◊〉 of his time 'T is surely an easie way to conquest to persuade men not to defend those necessary Rites that these men please to assault Fifthly It seems to me that some of these Pleaders are not so heartily ingaged against Rites and Ceremonies how-ever they are pleased to affrighten their deluded admirers with the danger of them for D. R. p. 24. tells us Comprehension excludes not Decency but would have in no more Ceremonies then needs must And pray who shall be judge what are needfull D. P. p. 17.

so have they to a fresh Rebellion 4. His next Exception against the Oath is That it affirms it unlawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King alledging several Authours to determine it lawfull in some cases to take up Arms against their King D. P. p. 30. First The Authour acknowledges he is not like to say any thing against the sense and meaning of the Oath id p. 31. So that his quarrell is against the Composers viz. the Parliament for their weakness in expressing their sense Secondly The Authours cited speak with respect to the Laws under which they live but sufficient Authority hath declared it unlawfull in this Land upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the Sovereign and accordingly hath imposed this Oath Thirdly Holy Scriptures that supersede all humane Laws allow no Opposition upon any pretence whatsoever if they do the Authour may take his own time to shew where that we may see God's Anointed murthered by God's command and our holy Religion to countenance a holy Rebellion Fourthly Admit it lawfull to rebell on any pretence and Traitors will not want a pretence for any Rebellion No Treason shall be unreasonable because some Reason may be given for Treason This Truth hath been most lamentably experimented in our past Commotions where the same reasons were given for outing the Secluded Members that were used for rejecting the King viz. they were a corrupt Interest that strived to ruine the good People and the same Sword that cut off the Bulk lopp'd off the Rump of that Parliament The Army found no Sword like it to overturn what-ever carried any face of Authority Being taught by such fatal instances 't is time to break that Sword that hath been the death of so many Powers Fifthly To suppose a Case in which Opposition may be lawfull who shall be judge of the matter of Fact nor Governours nor Governed for both are parties and unusquisque sua in lite judex est corruptus It remains then that the senseless Sword must be the sole Arbiter of the Controversie and then the Sentence must needs be a keen one let it fall which way it wil. How much better is it for this man to consent with those Non-conformers in their Address to the King cited D. R. p. 16. That the publick judgment Civil or Ecclesiasticall belongs to publick persons onely and not to any private man 5. His last Exception is That men are forced to swear to a doctrinall Proposition which we can't be sure of because man is not infallible To which we say first Many things are infallibly true though delivered by a fallible man as that Twice five is ten that there is a Deity c. Secondly A man may lawfully swear what he certainly believes to be true and this the Authour seems to do Thirdly His Exception would prevent Oaths in matters of fact as well as doctrinall Conclusions for his Eyes are no more infallible then his Brains as a Juggler would soon convince him So that this Oath would never have choak'd him had it been swallowed without so much chewing Having done with the Exceptions of D. P. because the rest seem to oppose all Impositions of this kind I shall farther say Their Opinion may be that of the Anabaptists and Quakers that there is no jus jurandi no Oaths lawfull To which I mean not a Plea for Swearing but onely tell them that God swears by himself the Angel by him that lives for ever S. Paul by the rejoycing of Christians which is the Gospel and most School-Divines make Oaths a part of that Honour and Worship that is due to God when upon just occasions and reverently taken If Wickliff and Hus were of another opinion as the Council of Constance affirms yet the evidence of Divine truth hath led the Protestants not to say the whole Catholick Church this way The Christians were not accused by Saturnius for refusing to swear at large but for refusing to swear per genium Caesaris as Tert. Ap. c. 32. plainly proves Yet I would not be thought a Patron to common Swearing the Gentleman's sin who thinks his Coat can't be well emblazoned but by a field of Oaths as if his Oratory were not pungent untill he stabb'd his God as if 't were impossible for him to be damned till he had pray'd God damn me I could wish that the Groans of Christians might drown the Oaths of these Antichristians But now allowing Oaths lawfull what reason can these men have to rob Authority of this Bond by which Inferiours are linked to Superiours They say indeed they are useless but they have the concurrent judgement of all Ages past to the contrary and that too glossed with perpetual practice so that anciently Sacramentum militare was the form of listing a Souldier And can they believe all men deceived rather then themselves If Oaths be no Tie why do they refuse them if a good Bond why do they refuse to give it to their Prince 'T is a strange Paradox That the way to settle a Government in peace is to take away all Ties and Obligations of Fidelity to it If they mean less then they say and so confine their thoughts to Oaths and Declarations about Religion onely I reply That it would accuse the Licensers of horrible negligence should they admit a man to guide the Flock of God yet not require him to declare before-hand which way he would lead them Then may the Fox be set to keep the Goose and the Wolf appointed to direct the Lamb. S. Paul Gal. 6. 16. would give his blessing to none but such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would walk by his Canons Woe be to the Souls of the undiscerning Vulgar when men shall be bid to speak before we know what they will say when vent shall be given to their Commodity though it be Poison What safety is a City in when any one is permitted to enter the Gates The best Ties fail of holding all from evil and what will be done where is none at all Yet were these mens Pleas ever lawfull 't is so now for they have learned like masterless Swine to run through Quick-set-Hedges with Yoaks about their Necks How nimbly did they skip from Allegiance and Protestation to the Covenant from thence to the Ingagement without Scratch or Prick complained of in their Consciences As if the Fishes in Christ's Net were all Eels you could have no hold of them As if Christ's Freemen could not be bound with Word nor Wax No doubt they were good Graecians that practised so much Graecâ fide the Fathers fideles Infideles that had so well studied the Art of fast and loose Brothers to Severus of whom Herod l. 2. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then fail he made his Conscience serve under his Projects the better to effect them They preserve Kings by their Oaths as Ladies do Apricocks plucking them from their tree of life and boiling them in