Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
city_n bishop_n church_n rome_n 9,289 5 7.3911 4 false
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
A56149 The altar dispute, or, A discovrse concerning the severall innovations of the altar wherein is discussed severall of the chiefe grounds and foundations whereon our altar champions have erected their buildings / by H. P. Parker, Henry, 1604-1652. 1642 (1642) Wing P393; ESTC R21276 49,491 88

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Heathens nor apostate Christians should know thereof and yet the more s●●ange that this being objected against Christians and not being true that Christians would not justifie themselves against so manifest an untruth Origen answers that the Christians Altar was his understanding and that prayers were his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Octavius answers that the Church Sacrifice was bonus animus sincera mens pura conscientia Arnobius confesses sacrifices but not corporeall agreeing with the former that they were mentall only And Cyrill gives not a deny all to Julian Is it not to be wondred at that so many men of severall places and times should all so farre prevaricate and make such fond answers if they could have advantaged their owne cause or satisfied their adversaries by affirming proper Altars and such reall Sacrifices as our Doctors now affirme How easie had it beene and how true how necessary was it to have made this direct answer Persecution suffers not Christians to build such sumptuous Churches and Altars as you doe but we have Altars as proper and would build Temples as stately as you doe if we had power and liberty we deny not al Sacrifices as you erroneously object we deny not true visible externall Sacrifices we deny only Jewish bloody and meerly corporeall Sacrifices so that the force of that objectiō is against our hard condition not against our worship or Religion But Mr. Mede sayes that these Apologeticall Divines denyed Altars under the Heathen name {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not denying the Church word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} whereby he accounts them meere cheaters and triflers not regarding whom they treated withall or the current sense of the words according to common acception but desiring to obscure truth and deinde their opponents this is to bee slighted as a toy Pocklington takes pains to prove Churches out of the Scripture antiquity sayes that those Churches had Altars to which none came without oblations and that with those oblations captives widowes orphans c. were relieved He also insists upon the great names of Thrones and Syndos but his proofes are most of them indefinite both to time place and thing We say that before Constantine few Churches were especially so formally built with Thrones and other divisions as he seemes to intimate and in respect of the vast surface of the earth scarce visible or considerable especially to severall men living in severall places and at severall times such as the Apologeticks were And yet the word Church is taken sometimes for any place where God was publikely worshipt and sometimes for the congregation it selfe of the faithfull named by such a Towne City or Country and in this sense and no other the Church of Rome is said to maintaine in it 1. Bishop 46. Priests 7. Deacons 7. Sub-Deacons 42. Acolythites Exorcists Readers Porters 52. Widowes 1500. Poore It is not meant that any locall materiall Church in Rome during the times of persecution was so rich capacious or stately for this would evince more then a meere toleration of christianity and yet we read not of so much Hospinian for the ●●ace betwixt Christ and Constantine more reasonably collects that those Altars which were then were neither fixed nor of stone which sufficiently cleeres that they were woodden unfixed Tables not stone and fixed Altars for if Christians during Heathenisme had liberty to build and meete in such formall Churches and had such Synods Thrones Libraries Schooles Gazophylacies as the Doctor labours to prove they could not want power or opportunity to adorne or inrich Altars or to fix them and fashion them as they pleased And thus the ages before Constantine might be defective in Discipline by reason of persecution and we may suspect the ages after for their superstition Constantine was too pompous in Discipline and soone inclined to Arianisme and long deferred his owne Baptisme in his times the foundations of Popish usurpation beganne to be laid Then it was said hodie venenum infusum est Ecclesiae then it was said That there were as many Religions as opinions and opinions as men I ascribe not to antiquity such infallibility as some do and yet many things might fit those times which fit not ours and many things may be misreported misunderstood and mistaken by us in these times wch perhaps were not in such repute of old as we now beleeve Our third reason against materiall and proper Altars is grounded upon the Fathers Eusebius often cals that of Christians an unbloody and reasonable Sacrifice the word Unbloody is used in opposition to corporeall and sensitive things the word Reasonable to reall or vegetative things for if we conceive that Reasonable and Unbloody distinguish from Jewish Sacrifices we must understand notionall or mentall Sacrifices because the Jewish were not all bloody The same Eusebius also sayes that we are appointed to offer daily to God the commemoration of Christs Sacrifice {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Kings deputy is entertained as a King and its an honour to him but Kings are not entertained as deputies that 's derogatory so if this were a Sacrifice it were an undervaluing lessening word to say it were a meere commemoration or instead of a Sacrifice In another place also he cals it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that which is the representation of a proper Sacrifice is not it selfe a proper Sacrifice these things differ in predicament And to put all out of doubt Chrysostome by way of correction for more proprieties sake having call'd it a Sacrifice addes this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to shew that it is in propriety but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} It may be called a Sacrifice figuratively but in truth it is rather the remembrance of a Sacrifice Our fourth reason is taken from the acts of our Ancestors in the reformation who did expresse great dislike of Altars and did remove and abollsh the same as Popish innovations We will therefore against Doctor Heylin make these two things cleere First that the Reformers were very adverse to Altars Secondly that they were so upon just grounds Constantines times though not so pure as the former yet were farre more pure then those which succeeded for Antichrists entrance is obscure he seemes likes Melchisedeck without pedegree as to some of his mysteries of tyranny He beganne to worke presently after the the infancie of the Church but as to his solemne inthronization at Rome he is much younger then Constantine Tantae mo'is erat Romanam condere gentem It appeares by Saint Ambrose his insulting over Theodosius that the Hierarchy was advanced in good times and that by the blinde zeale of some men otherwise very good Altars had gotten great adoration before St. Ambrose but that adoration was not wholly abused till the installment of Antichrist and then the Sacrament was soone turned into a present propitiatory Sacrifice and