Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	bind_v	church_n	loose_v	4,001	5	10.0884	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

yet if they were they never used a Greek Liturcy among the Latins but among the Greeks these several Liturgies being for the several Nations whose Language they were pen'd in Pa. 64. Seeing God hath commanded nothing concerning the Language of the publick Liturgy we ought either to follow the Commands of the Church or we ought not Pro. God hath commanded already that the publick Service should be in a known Tongue and not in an unknown so that you suppose what is not true the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. forbids Prayer or Preaching in an unknown Tongue Pa. Why do you deny the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Church commands it Pro. The Church doth not command it the Roman Church indeed doth but that is not the Church we deny it therefore because it crosses the ends of Prayer which is Edification and because God hath forbid it in the forecited place Pa. 65. The Man that prays and gives thanks in an unknown Tongue either doth well or he doth not Pro. He that gives thanks or prays in a Tongue unknown to himself doth not well and he that publickly prays and gives thanks in a Tongue unknown to his Auditors doth not well Pa. Why do you condemn that place of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 17. Thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified Pro. We do not condemn that place The Apostle there speaks of the matter of such a person's Thanksgiving which he says may be good but at the same time he condemns the manner the doing it in an unknown Tongue because others are not edified and he commands vers 26. that all things be done to edifying This then being a Breach of that Command is not lawful the Apostle says he may give thanks well for the matter but not in a right manner seeing the other is not edified For which reason we condemn the use of a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue Pa. 66. That which is praised in Scripture and proved to be pleasing unto God is either lawful and expedient for us to prastise or it is not Pro. That which is proved to be pleasing to God for us to do is lawful Pa. Why then do you deny the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostle says 1 Cor. 14. 2. He that speaketh with Tongues speaketh not to men but God and vers 14. If I pray with Tongues my Spirit prayeth but my Understanding is unfruitful and vers 30. to speak with Tongues forbid not Pro. For God's sake Sir consider how strangely you argue this is the very reason why we Condemn publick Prayer in an unknown Tongue because it is not to Edification and because the Understanding is unfruitful and we ought to pray with Understanding 1 Cor. 14. 15. the Apostle here in vers 30. commends speaking with Tongues and so do we but it is one thing to speak with Tongues and another to speak in an unknown Tongue it is not unlawful to speak to or Pray with the People in Greek and Hebrew if they understand it or I or any other interpret it to them But to speak or pray in a Tongue they do not understand without interpreting what I say is expresly forbid by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 27 28. If any Man speak in an unknown Tongue let one interpret but if there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church Thus Prayers in an unknown Tongue are so far from being recommended that they are expresly forbidden therefore we reject them Of Confession and Absolution PA. 67. The Apostles being made Spiritual Judges by our Lord had power from him to bind and loose from Sin or they had not Pro. They had no power to bind and loose from the Guilt of Sin but a power of binding and loosing they had Pa. Why then do you reject Absolution Pro. We do not reject it but the Absolution of the Church of Rome we do which pretends to more than Christ ever gave and we also deny that it is a Sacrament as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Pa. 68. The Laity are obliged to disclose their Faults to their Judges or they are not Pro. If by their Judges you mean their Ministers they are not their Judges and they are not obliged to disclose all their faults to them Pa. If not how can they absolve them from what they know not Pro. Absolution is either general or particular the general is sufficient except in particular grievous Sins which trouble the Conscience for these we enjoyn a particular Absolution but for the general it is sufficient for the Ministers to know in general that they are Sinners and see that they profess to be Penitent Pa. 69. Christ in speaking these words whose Sins ye forgive c. John 20. 24. spoke true or false Pro. He spoke true Pa. Why then do you deny the power of Absolution Pro. We do not deny the power but we condemn your abuse of it Pa. 70. That which the Scripture commands either is necessary or it is not Pro. Whatever the Scripture commands as our Duty is necessary Pa. Why then do you deny that of St. James 5. 16. Confess your faults one to another Pro. We do not deny it but we say it doth not prove the necessity of Confession to a Priest it speaks of confessing one to another to our Brethren therefore by no means proves Confession of all our Sins to a Priest necessary to Salvation We condemn not the use of Confession but the making it necessary to Salvation and part of a Sacrament Of Purgatory PA. 71. There either is a Penal Prison or Place of temporal Punishment and Payment after this Life or there is not Pro. There is not Pa. Why then do you falsify that Scripture Zach. 9. 11. Thou also in the Blood of thy Covenant hast set forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit wherein there is no Water Pro. We do not falsify it but you do it is not Thou in the Blood of thy Covenant but as for thee in the Blood of thy Covenant or whose Covenant is by Blood I have sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit wherein there was no Water and it speaks not a word of Purgatory but of the Deliverance of the Israelites and the Redemption by the Messiah Pa. Why do you falsify that Text. Mal. 3. 3. He shall purify the Sons of Levi. Pro. We do not falsify it but we affirm it proves nothing of Purgatory but of the Conversion even of the Priests by the Gospel of Christ which we find was fulfilled Acts 6. 7. Or if it did speak of a Purgatory it speaks only of one for the Sons of Levi and therefore says nothing of such a third Place as you maintain Pa. But you falsify that Text 1 Cor. 3. 15. The work of every Man shall be manifest and yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire Pro. We do not but we say it is evident that this whole Text is an allusion