Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prayer_n	church_n	tongue_n	unknown_a	2,125	5	9.4258	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

Church you mean those who in opposition to the Roman are termed the Reformed I answer that it doth not follow that they are either the true Church or not for they may be and are a part of it and thus in the name of all Protestants I affirm we are a part of the true Church Pa. If yours is the true Christian Church then it must have these following Marks Visibility Unity Universality Sanctity Pro. I told you before we are not the whole but a part of the true Church for we dare not as you do exclude all from Salvation who are not in all things of our Profession and therefore to find whether we be a part of it or no we are not to look for these Marks but for the Conformity of our Doctrines with the Word of God or if we should allow these for Marks of the true Church the way to know whether we be part of the true Church or no is to enquire whether we teach the same Doctrine which we are to prove by the Holy Scriptures according to that of St. Austin De Unit. Eccl. c. 16. Let them shew whether they have the Church only by the Canonical Books of the divine Scriptures But we deny these to be the Marks of the true Church Of Visibility a Mark of the Church PA. 2. The House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of Mountains or it shall not Pro. It shall Isa. 2. 2. Pa. Why then do you deny that the Church shall be always visible Pro. Because that Text Isai. 2. 2. is no Promise of a Perpetual visibility but only of a time when it shall be so and so it was in the Primitive times but it doth not say it shall never cease to be so visible Where by visible I mean that the true Church shall be always in sight so as by its external Glory to be known to be the true Church and this that Text doth not promise for it will not follow that because the Church shall be so therefore it shall be always so and if it be not always so it can be no mark Pa. 3. A City seated on an Hill can be hid or not Pro. It cannot Pa. Then the Church cannot be invisible Mat. 5. 14. Pro. That doth not follow for in the Judgment of divers Fathers this place is not spoken of the Church but the Apostles or the good Works of Christians But if it be understood of the Church all that it proves is that it cannot be hid as long as it is seated upon an Hill but it doth not follow that it shall be always seated there Pa. 4. Christ either founded a Church on Earth that all Nations may be edified therein or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you say the Church may be invisible since all Nations cannot be edified in a Church unseen Isai. 2. 2. All Nations shall flow unto her Psal. 86. 9. All Nations whatsoever thou hast made shall come and adore before thee Pro. Because there is no Promise that the Church shall be evident to all Nations at all times but that there shall come a time when it shall be so but it doth not say it shall be so always but it shall be evident so as to edify all Nations in God's time Pa. 5. A Man for not hearing the Church is termed in Scripture an Heathen and a Publican or not Pro. He is Mat. 18. 18. He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican Pa. How then shall a Man be termed an Heathen or Publican for not hearing a Church that was not visible or yet extant in the World Pro. This Text is nothing to the purpose and that upon two accounts 1. Because the question is Whether the true Church be always visible to those who are not Members of it as Heathens Infidels c. Now this Text speaks only of those who are Members of it to these it is always visible but not to those 2. Because the question is whether the Universal Church be always visible but this Text speaks of a particular Congregation and therefore is not to the purpose seeing if it proves any Church always visible it proves every particular Congregation to be so but as it is plain that these Arguments do not prove that the Church is to be always visible so neither do you at all prove that if it were so it would be a Mark of the true Church seeing Pagan and Jewish Churches can plead Visibility and yet it doth not follow they are the true Church because they have it Of Unity as a Mark of the true Church PA. 6. A natural Unity and Connection of the parts among themselves and to the Head is necessary for the Conservation of the Body or it is not Pro. It is Pa. If it be Why is that natural Connection proper to a natural Body and not a Spiritual Connection proper to a Spiritual Body Pro. A Spiritual Connection is proper to a Spiritual Body but this is nothing to the Purpose as a proof that Unity is a Mark of the true Church for this Connection of the Spiritual Body must be an Union and Connection of each part in sound Doctrine now we must know what Doctrine is sound before we can know whether the Parts be united in it Pa. 7. Christ promised that there should be Unity in his Church John 10. 16. or he did not Pro. He did Pa. If he did why do you deny Unity Pro. We do not deny it we maintain it but we deny it to be a Mark of the Church which it cannot be seeing this Unity must be either in true Doctrine or in false it cannot be in false if it be in true we must first know which is true before we can know whether it be the Unity Christ promised Pa. 8. Unity is either requisite in Gods Church or not Pro. It is Pa. Why do you then deny the necessity of Unity Pro. We do not deny it to be necessary we maintain that without Unity in all points of Faith there can be no Church but it will not follow that because it is necessary it is a Mark whereby Heathens may know the Church seeing other pretended Churches have Unity as well as the Christian and nothing can be a Mark which is not proper to it alone Pa. 9. Christ when he Prayed his Prayer took effect or it did not Pro. It did Pa. If it did then Christs People are one Pro. They are so What then but it doth not thence follow that Unity is or can be a Mark to know the Church by Where pray remember I speak of such a Mark whereby those who are not of the Church may know her to be the true Church Of Universality as a Mark of the true Church PA. 10. To be Universal or Coexstent with Time and Place is a Mark of the true Church or it is not Pro. I could wish you would a little

an Evidence of the Churches Sanctity but is indeed a meer invention of Men but our Sanctity we will prove by the Word of God because we teach the same Doctrine which that contains Pa. 32. Luther and Calvin and the rest of your Reformers confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles or they did not Pro. What if they did not Pa. If they did not they were not true Apostles Pro. The Doctrine they Preached was not theirs but that which Christ and his Apostles taught and confirm'd by Miracles so that it needed no more Confirmation except we had received it upon their Authority which we did not We acknowledge they were not Apostles as the twelve were and therefore no need of their working Miracles Pa. 33. The Signs which Christ said in Scripture followed your pretended Reformers or they did not Pro. All the Signs which Christ said should always accompany the true Preachers of the Gospel did follow them Pa. If they did shew one Man they dispossessed or one sick that they restored to Health for if these Signs did not follow them they are not true Believers Pro. That doth not follow for Christ never made that a Sign of True Believers nay you must confess that many never worked any of these Miracles who are yet true Believers If indeed they had Preached any new Doctrine you might call for Miracles but seeing they Preached none new but the Doctrine that was taught by Christ his Apostles and the Ancient Fathers there is no need to confirm that by Miracles seeing all the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought were for that end However we can shew many certain instances of Mens being dispossessed by the Prayers of the Faithful in our Church and many among us who have had their Health restored them in answer to their own and the Churches Prayers but for all that we have better grounds for our Faith which we rest upon Pa. 34. Your Reformers were either famous for their virtuous Lives or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why did they break their Vows made to God and teach Men so to do Pro. The Vows which they broke were unlawful Vows and your own Canons expresly say that an unlawful Vow ought to be broken C. 22. qu. 4. c. in malis by breaking then their Vow of single Life that is by repenting of it and not observing it they did no more than what they were in duty bound to do and therefore were holy Men for all that Pa. 35. The Catholick Roman Church and no other stands firm and infallible against all the Tempests of Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pro. The Roman Church is not firm nor infallible but as to the visible part of it is fallen both by Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pa. 36. The Romans had once the true Church or they had not Pro. The question is Ambiguous if you mean by it that the Roman Church was the true Church as the Mother of all other I deny it if you mean that the Roman Church was a true Church and had the true Faith I answer that she had the true Faith. Pa. If the Romans had the true Faith they retain the same still infallibly or do not Pro. They do not Pa. 37. If they do not then they must have their fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism Pro. She hath fallen by them all Pa. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church fell by Apostasie or it did not Pro. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Church fell not at all Nay the Ancient Roman Church fell not but the present Roman Church is fallen Pa. If she is fallen by Apostasie what prudent man will say that she ever renounced the sweet Name of Jesus which she ever hath in so great Veneration Pro. She may have fallen by Apostasie and yet not have renounced the Name of Jesus so that her having it in so great Veneration is no Argument that she is not fallen by Apostasie Pa. 38. The Roman Church fell by Heresie or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did by what General Council was she ever Condemn'd which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Or by what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd Pro. If nothing be an Heresy but what a General Council condemns then those Heresies which sprang up in the first three hundred years were wrongfully esteemed such in those times seeing there was then no General Council If a Doctrine may be Heretical which was never Condemned by a general Council then the Dostrines of the Church of Rome may be Heretical though never Condemned by a General Council so that question doth not vindicate her from being guilty of Heresie Pa. But which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Pro. All the Ancient Fathers disclaim those Doctrines which the Roman Church now holds but they could not write purposely against her because she did not then profess those Doctrines But if it be a good Argument the Church of Rome fell not into Heresy because no Father wrote purposely against her then the same Argument will vindicate us seeing no Father hath writ against us but if no Father had writ against the Church of Rome she might be Heretical for all that so that this question and the former are both impertinent Pa. But by what Authority was she reproved Pro. By the Authority of the Scriptures by the Authority of the Testimony of the Antient Church and the Authority of right Reason Pa. 39. The Ancient Roman Church fell by Schism and by dividing herself from some other Church or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did whose company did she leave from what Body did she go forth Where was the true Church she forsook Pro. She forsook the Primitive Church the Eastern Church and all those Christians who always maintained their Freedom from the Roman Yoke Pa. 40. The true Holy Apostolick Catholick Church is fallible and can err or it cannot Pro. Remember by the Church I mean the Faithful throughout the World and of these I say they all cannot err in any point of Faith. Pa. Why do you then falsly condemn her Pro. We do not condemn her we are part of her but for the Roman Church we condemn her Pa. 41. The Church of God is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faith or she is not Pro. All Definitions made by the whole Church of Christ are infallibly true Pa. If she be why do you deny infallibility Pro. The Infallibility we deny is that of a Pope or Council and this we deny because they are not the whole Church and therefore though the Church of Christ be infallible yet they are not Pa. 42. Christ being the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost the Soul of the Church guiding and directing the Church in all Truth she can err or she cannot Pro. She cannot Pa. Then she is not fallible Pro. The Church of Christ is not fallible but the Roman Church is 43. Christ is either a