Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	church_n	doctrine_n	err_v	4,912	5	9.7791	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80510	The copy of a narrative prepared for his Majesty about the year 1674. to distinguish Protestants from Papists		1674 (1674)	Wing C6179; ESTC R230957	20,542	16

their bare saying to be taken against others By all that I have said then if allowed it will appear that there is a clear difference between the Authority of a Prince in things Civil and in things relating to Worship and Religion for as his Authority about things Civil is unquestionable and entersares with no Law of God whatever and can have no pretence therefore to intrench upon the Conscience or upon any prior obligation or duty that a man oweth unto God and as it must for all these reasons be necessarily and indispensibly obeyed and submitted unto by all his Subjects so on the contrary a Prince especially as a Protestant can put out no Law about Divine Worship but his Subjects so far as they are Protestants are bound in Conscience and by the very Principles of that Religion which they profess not only to consider it but to examine it whether it be agreeable to the Word of God or not and if it appear not to be such at least according to the best of their understandings as they will have a Plea always not to submit to it by reason it intrencheth upon a prior obligation that they have both in Conscience and according to the Principles of their Reformation unto God and according also to the sixth Article of the Church of England it self so this Plea cannot well with Justice be denied them if no Crime whatever in their Conversation can be proved against them nor can men in this case be actually punished and proceeded against without the sense and grief of that wrong or oppression that is manifestly done to them and suffered by them especially seeing their non-conformity to the said Laws proceeds not as we said either from their Election or Liberty nor yet from any breach of duty or affection to their Prince but only from what appears to them to be an inevitable or indispensible necessity that ariseth and is occasioned from their meer Profession as they are of the Protestant Religion To which end let me humbly beg leave to offer one argument more also which is That the thing which doth Essentially distinguish a Protestant from a Papist more than any note mark or character whatsoever besides is that a Papist by his Principles as a Papist may not and indeed cannot dispute any Law whatever relating to the Worship or Service of God provided it be declared and established by what he acknowledgeth to be the Church because he takes the Authority of the Church for the whole Argument or for the only Foundation of all his Obidence unto God rather than the Divine Authority of the Scripture or Word and because he presumeth the Church also to be a thing altogether holy and such as neither hath erred nor can err for should he question this he must question the whole of his Religion it self whereas the Protestant Church on the other hand having separated from the Church of Rome not only upon the supposition that she hath actually erred but that she hath been grosly corrupted as well in Manners as in Faith and having for the better justification of her own Practice both in matter of Worship and in all things relating to Doctrine and Faith set up the Scriptures as the sole and Soveraign Rule of Gods mind and will to his Church as she cannot challenge the exercise of any Authority therefore that is beyond that of the Scriptures or of any that is not subordinate to the Scriptures it self so it is expected that all the duties consequently which she requires and all those Articles or Points of Faith which she at any time recommends to such as are the Members of her should always be enforced from those Arguments properly and only which are drawn from the Scriptures because it is this which she her self hath appealed unto and this only which she challengeth to justifie her A Protestant then that understands the grounds of Religion or that hath been at all instructed in the rise or Principles of Reformation taking this for the very first Article of his Faith that a Church may err and may have corruption in it and may in its Worship possibly swerve and depart from the pure Mind Word and Wisdom of God and laying this no less firmly as the foundation of his belief on the other hand viz. that the Scriptures cannot err nor can be other than unalterable and incorruptible Rule of Gods Law and of his will and mind to his people he cannot possibly hold the Authority of the Church to be Divine any further or otherwise than as it appears to be clearly grounded upon the Scripture as the word of God and consequently the tye or obligation which he hath to obey the Church so far as it relates to the Conscience and binds the Conscience ariseth out of no other ground than from the conformity which he seeth or is perswaded that the Church hath in her Laws Orders and Doctrines to the said Word and consequently if this conformity doth or shall once cease in the said Church a Protestant as a Protestant cannot but judge his tye or obligation to her as a Church ought to cease also with it And this being the true state of that Radical or Essential difference that is between the Principles of a Protestant and the Principles of a Papist as a Papist if a Church then that professeth her self to be a Protestant or the Clergy rather who are the Rulers properly of it shall not much consider or regard the justifying of what Laws and Orders she makes by the consonancy they expresly have to the Law or Mind of God in his Word which is his Rule to the Church nor shall much concern it self to clear and inforce the Faith and Doctrine which she holds by the evidence of its truth or by the authority of it as sufficiently grounded upon that word that is absolutely divine but shall on the contrary in whatsoever she commands or in the things she teacheth constrain and exact an obedience from her Members to her self and to her own Authority as absolute and as unsubordinate to the Word of God and therefore to her own Authority as it is a distinct thing from the said word that Church or the Clergy rather which are the Rulers of it so far as she doth this in any Doctrine or in any Law that she makes indispensible doth so far cease in her Principles and practice to be Protestant and doth so far disclaim not only a main and chief ground of her separation from the Church of Rome but the very Principle it self upon which she pretends to guide her self and justifie her self in her Reformation For if it cannot be denied that this was one main and great cause of our separation from the Church of Rome viz. because she had made her self and her Commands absolute and had set up an Authority in the matters of worship and faith above that of the Scripture as the word of God and secondly because she did not

sufferings groans and complaints of divers others that are poured out in the very bitterness of their souls unto God and when the said Protestant Church or the said ruling Clergy shall nevertheless have no sense at all of these things nor seem to be in the least ●…oved or concern'd for them And these things if they be considered I humbly offer it whether any man as rational can draw any other conclusion from them but that the said Protestant Church c. do not believe themselves at all when they write against the Papist for these things and notwithstanding they do seem in their Books to threaten the Church of Rome with the dreadful Judgments of God because of their cruelty and of their persecution of men for Conscience sake yet they do indeed but laugh in their Sleeves at it and do intend to frighten them only with Scare-crows Bug-bears and Pot-guns seeing they credit none of these things themselves as likely to befal any such actions or such as are the Authors of it for would it not be a great uncharitableness for any man to imagine or rather would it not be a thing very absurd to apprehend that the Protestant Clergy should do the very same things which the Church of Rome doth if they did really believe themselves in what they usually write against the Church of Rome when they threaten them with the Judgments of God upon them for the said things If to avoid this then which they may look upon perhaps as some imputation or reflection upon the said Protestant Church or the ruling Clergy of it shall deny the case to be the same and shall say that the grounds or principles upon which they persecute men are much different from those of the Papist or Church of Rome let themselves lay down the state of it and shew us wherein the greatness of the said difference doth consist and wherein it is plainly such and so great as that though we are to believe and ought to believe that the Judgments of God will unquestionab●y reach the Church of Rome for this their cruelty and persecution and for the unrighteousness of it yet we are not to believe or so much as to imagine they will ever befal the Protestant Church or the ruling Clergy of it notwithstanding any persecution that they are guilty of For if the fact for which men are punished by the said Protestant Clergy be the very same or of the same nature with that for which the Popish Clergy do punish men viz. for their worshipping of God and for their worshipping of him not contrary to the Scripture or contrary to any thing that seems clearly and plainly their duty in the word of God but contrary only to some Order or other in the Church and if the quality of the persons that do suffer and that are punished by the Protestant Clergy are the same also with the quality of those that are punished by the Popish Clergy viz. such men as are neither blameable in nor so much as accused or charged by them with or for any crime or any immorality in their lives or conversations but such as otherwise demean themselves in all duty and with all subjection to their Superiours I say if both these are the very same one with another where can or doth the Essential Difference ●e between the persecution of the Popish Clergy and the persecution of the Protestant Clergy or between the nature of the one and the nature of the other unless it be strictly in this viz. that the Protestant Clergy do pretend to believe the Scriptures to be the Supreme Rule and Mind of God to his Church and if ask'd do freely grant that men are not bound in Conscience to any Rule superiour to this nor can be in the things of Faith or in things relating to the worship of God and yet with the same breath that they say this and at the very same time that they own it they persecute their Brethren not only in their Liberties but in the r Goods Fortunes and Estates and sometimes in their Lives also through nasty Prisons and want of conveniences for acknowledging the said Scriptures to be such as they themselves own to be and for that they conform themselves to it accordingly not in word or pretence but in deed and truth whereas the Popish Clergy though they persecute men for the same Crime yet they do not give so much honour to the Scriptures nor do so much as pretend to it but which of these two are for this very cause the greater Crimes before God I must leave to rational men to consider In the mean time I am most sure of this viz. that whether our first Reformers did well or not well in calling the Church of Rome Antichrist and in charging her with Innocent Blood and in putting the name of the Scarlet Whore for this reason upon her and whether the guilt of that Blood will ever be wiped off from her or not in the sight of God yet notwithstanding 't is most certain that the peculiar stain and discredit of it is now manifestly lessened if it be not wholly blotted out for it is impossible that the Church of Rome should ever hereafter grant these things to be stains or crimes proper only to her which she doth not only see but can daily observe the Protestant Church to follow her in and to follow her in upon such grounds as are far less justifiable in the said Protestant Church according to the Principles they profess than they are in her self and that this is not a thing ever to be hoped or expected from her hereafter is the more clear in regard the said Church of Rome hath already in so many words sharply and closely retorted it upon our very Church that in the very thing which we blame the said Church of Rome for and accuse her criminally of and pretend to be one main ground why we could no longer have any communion with her which was her setting aside the sole authority of the Scripture and persecuted such as desired to walk according to the rule of it we our selves have not only imitated her but have out-gone her and done so much worse than she ever did by how much we have contradicted the Principles we profess which she hath not and that she hath not only cast this reproach upon us in words but alledged several arguments to confirm and such as have not to this very day been answered by us is matter of Fact And therefore if in all Courts of Judicature matter of Fact be good Evidence and if the highest Evidence that can be given in matter of Fact is when the Fact is able to speak and attest it self or when it is capable to be attested to by thousands then is the Evidence which I here bring every way as good and every way as valid to prove what I affirm which for the greater notice I again here repeat Viz. That the Church of Rome hath expresly justified her self from the Crime of unjust persecution and blood by instancing our practise of the same thing one toward another as Protestants or as a Reformed Church And therefore that she hath by this instance justly exonerated her self from the sole guilt of this evil and consequently from the sole guilt of her being that Babylon mentioned Rev. 17. which we have formerly fixed singly upon her and attributed to none beside her And that beside the discharging her self from the sole and only guilt of this Crime she hath produced several arguments also and those of weight to make it appear that we in our persecution one of another as Protestants and Reformed Churches are far more unjust upon the Principles we profess than she is upon her own Principles how much soever we have pleased to inveigh against her and revile her That these arguments she hath no way scrupled publickly and openly to divulge in English to the end that every man that is rational may the 〈◊〉 examine them consider them and judge of them And that we have not pleaded as yet to the said arguments or to the Retorsion she hath thus made upon us either by denying the fact it self absolutely or by distinguishing the respective circumstances and grounds of it which may give her the more just occasion to think we are conscious to our selves of our own guilt And seeing all this is pure matter of fact one of these 2 conclusions therefore do seem to me to be utterly impossible to be avoided viz. either that we ha●… done very evil in charging the Church of Rome as Antichristian and very e●… in separating from her as guilty of that blood of the Saints which is me●tioned Rev. 17.6 and which must nevertheless inevitably be charged somewhere and very evil to impose the name of the Scarlet Whore and of ●…bylon upon her Or if we as a Protestant and as a Reformed Church have said all this r●… in judgment and really in truth against her then have we done much w●… our selves in being actually guilty of the same things which we have so ●…minally charged upon her and condemned her for and in our giving her 〈◊〉 this means not only an occasion to justifie her self against us but to upbr●… us for doing herein much more irregularly and much more inexcuseably 〈◊〉 her self So that it still remains that the Church of Rome is guilty of I●…cent Blood or not if guilty of Innocent Blood none that is sober then 〈◊〉 doubt but she must be liable to the extreme Judgments of God at length 〈◊〉 it and therefore it remains likewise that we our selves as a Protest●…