Selected quad for the lemma: word_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A34077
|
The plausible arguments of a Romish priest answered by an English Protestant seasonable and useful for all Protestant families.
|
Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing C5481; ESTC R16555
|
28,548
|
65
|
same Creeds which were anciently and universally believed in it so that I am as likely to come to know the true sense of Scripture as any others Po. Not so by your favour for you are no Member of the Roman Church which I will prove to be that Catholic Church mentioned in the Creeds and then it must follow that you neither have the true sense of Scripture nor can you be saved out of this Catholic Church Prot. I shall yield your Consequences when you prove the Antecedent but then you must not take it for granted without any Proof as your Priests use to do Po. I do not think it needs much proof for it is as visible as that the Sun is in the Firmament Prot. That cannot be for no body doth or can deny this but the far greater part of Christians utterly deny the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church yea and say it is Non-sense to affirm a part to be the whole or a particular to be universal And it must be well proved from Scripture which all Christians agree to be Gods Word be fore I can be perswaded that Christ who died for his whole Church will suffer three parts of four of those which he redeemed to be damned for not believing this Opinion as you most uncharitably affirm Po. Well for your satisfaction I will undertake to prove that S. Peter was the Chief of the Apostles and that Christ gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and built his Church on him as on a Rock and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor and Head of that Church which Christ promised to lead into all truth and then you must confess the Roman Church to be that Catholic Church which is mentioned in the Creeds Prot. I hope you will give me leave to hear and examine your Proofs and on that condition pray proceed Po. Do not the Scriptures naming S. Peter in the first place shew he was the Chief of the Apostles Prot. This shews he was an Eminent Apostle but cannot imply any Superiority over the rest because Christ makes them all equal Judges sitting together upon twelve Thrones Math. xix 28. and forbids any of them to pretend any Superiority over the others and though there was one Emperor then over many lesser and inferiour Princes Christ saith It shall not be so among his Apostles Math. xx 26. Luke xxii 26. Nor would S. James have finally determined in the Council of Jerusalem in S. Peters presence Acts xv 13. or S. Paul have so openly opposed and reproved him if Christ had made him Superiour over all the Apostles Galat. ii 11 14. Po. Do you not read that Christ gave to him first and singly the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven and promised to build his Church on him as on a Rock so firm that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it Math. xvi 18 19. Prot. I read that Christ in that place to Math. xvi 19. did not give but only promise to give him those Keys afterwards which promise he made also to all the Apostles Math. xviii 18. and when he came to perform it he gave the power of the Keys to them all alike John xx 22 23. And it was upon S. Peters Confession of Faith that Christ built his Church not upon his Person since we see the Gates of Hell immediately prevailed too far against him first in his labouring to tempt Christ not to suffer Math. xvi 22. and secondly in his denying him with many Imprecations Math. xxvi 24. But if I should grant all the Priviledges you heap on S. Peter without any good evidence from Gods Word that will not prove the Popes sole right to them all Po. Yes without doubt for the Bishop of Rome is certainly the Successor of S. Peter and consequently the Vicar of Christ and supream Head of the Catholic Church Prot. The Bishop of Antioch hath a better Title to be S. Peters Successor because the Scripture which never mentions his being at Rome says expresly he was there but if the Bishop of Rome had been S. Peters Successor that could not make him Head of the whole Catholic Church because S. Peter himself never pretended to any such Power or Title yea he was peculiarly the Apostle of the believing Jews who had been Circumcised Galat. ii 7. and to them he writes Nor doth Christ any where tell us he would leave one such Head on Earth or give any Orders to all Christians to obey any one Apostle Po. But we do believe the Bishop of Rome to be S. Peters Successor and if so how can our Lord make good his Promise to be with his Church to the end of the World if he do not make S. Peters Successor as infallible as S. Peter himself was by his presence and assistance Prot. If we grant an inspired Apostle to have been Infallible in order to setling the Faith and writing the Rule of it it doth not follow that his uninspired Successors should have this Priviledge now the Faith and Rule of it are fixed For then the Bishops of Antioch Jerusalem and Alexandria must be Infallible now And Christs Promise is not made to S. Peter or to any particular Apostle but to the whole Catholic Church so that as long as the true Faith is held in any one or more Churches Christs Promise is made good though other particular Churches fall away Po. But the Catholic Church in the Creed is an Apostolical Church and it was promised to the Apostles that he would lead them into all truth John xvi 13. which Priviledge belongs to Rome as being now the only free Apostolical Church in the World Prot. All Churches in the World at first were planted immediately or mediately by the Apostles and Christ did certainly make this Promise good to his Apostles who were led into all Truth and so long as any particular Church keeps close to this Truth which the Apostles taught the Promise is still made good to that Church and there were many particular Apostolical Churches under Pagan Emperors and may be now under the Turks it being not temporal Freedom but adhering to the Apostles Doctrine which makes a particular Church Apostolical and made the whole Catholic Church to be called so at first when the Creed was made Po. However you must grant it is most prudent to take the best way to come to the knowledge of the Truth Now it is both the easiest and certainest way for the People to come to this knowledge by believing as the Church believes Prot. It is neither so easie nor so certain a way as to Search the Scriptures Po. This is a strange Assertion Is it not easier to let your Pastors who are fitted for it by their Profession judge of matters of Faith than for you to take pains to find them out in Scripture Prot. My Assertion is not so strange as true For it is much more difficult for
Commemoration as we say but it cannot be a Sacrificing of Christ again as you say if we refer the matter as we ought to be judged by Scripture wherein there is nothing to shew that is a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Living much less for the Sins of the Dead whose estate can never be altered after this Life Luk. xvi 26 28. But as they fall they must lye for ever Eccles xi 3. Po. The World may now see how unjustly you brag of your Magnifying the Merit of Christs Passion and how falsly you accuse us of diminishing and disparaging it Since we hold it sufficient to pardon both Quick and Dead and you deny it can do any good to the Dead Prot. It is not for want of Merit in Christs Passion but for want of Capacity in those who have not Repented in their Life Time that hinders these Deceased Persons from receiving the benefits of Christs Death Christ hath declared he will pardon none but them that do repent and if Men do not repent before they die they cannot repent afterwards and so cannot receive any benefit of Christs Passion and if living Men be taught they may get a Pardon after Death it will encourage them to put off their Repentance to the very last Nor would so false a Doctrin without any ground in Scripture ever have been taught in your Church but only that the crafty Inventers of it found it would make Masses sell at dear Rates Po. You are very free of your Censures but we despise them being assured our Doctrins and Practices are the true sense of Scripture as it is interpreted to us by the Holy Catholic Church Prot. Do you really think so Pray then before we leave this Subject will you tell me How the making only some that is the Priests to Drink of the Cup can possibly be the true meaning of Christs Words Drink ye all of this Math. xxvi 27. Po. Why it is plain the Apostles were Priests and not Lay Men and it was only to the Apostles that Christ spake these Words and though we forbid the People to Drink of this Cup yet we Command the Priests to do it Prot. Was it not also only to the Apostles that Christ said then Take Eat this my Body Ver. 26. and will it not follow by your way of arguing that none but Priests must Eat of the Bread and that the People must receive neither Bread nor Wine You know the Apostles stood then in the place of Lay-Men and represented the Congregation as Christ did the Priest so that S. Paul plainly applies to the People the Commands both of Eating and Drinking which Christ gave at first only to his Apostles And nothing is more evident than that all the People at Corinth did Drink of the Cup and some of them too largely 1 Cor. x. 21. Chap. xi 21. and Ver. 27 28 29. Chap. xii 13. So that I wonder how you dare call the contradicting Christs Commands and the Precepts and Practice of the Apostles the true sense of Scripture and why you rob the People of one half of the Sacrament Po. We rob them of nothing because we declare we give them whole Christ which is contained fully under either species Prot. This is no more than if one who clipt off half the Kings Coin should say it was still current Money The very declaration it self supposes that our Lord instituted two species when one was sufficient and so to excuse your selves of impiety you accuse him of doing things in vain And since Christ is here set out as having suffered for Sin and so his Blood separated from his Body we cannot imagin how the Bread alone should be sufficient to set forth this Mystery Po. There is danger lest we should spill the Cup in giving it to the People and lest it should be profaned by the rude mouths of Lay-men Prot. This danger may be in giving it to the Priests however you are not of S. Pauls mind who when the Cup was abused at Corinth even to excess durst not alter Christs Institution nor take it wholy away as you do thereby committing a grievous Sacriledge in keeping back part of that whereof God hath made you dispensers and as much as in you lyes depriving the People of the benefit of Christs Blood Po. We can find more fault with your preparation for it than you with our dispensing of it for why do not you all go to a Priest to confess your sins before you do receive as the Scripture doth appoint Prot. The Scripture appoints every Man shall examine himself before he Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup 1 Cor. xi 28. Now of this you say very little but our Church strictly enjoyns all thus to prepare But Scripture no where appoints it as necessary for all to go to a Priest and confess before every act of receiving Po. Doth not Scripture declare that penitent Sinners confessed their Sins to a Priest Math. iii. 6. Acts. xix 8. And command us to confess our faults one to another James v. 16. and can there be any fitter time to do this than just before we Communicate Prot. We do not forbid Men at any time to Confess to a Priest but advise them to it in case of a troubled Mind or a violent Temptation and especially if that be their condition who are to receive the Sacrament But we dare not lay such a Snare on our People as to make this always necessary since God hath not declared it is so And those Examples you bring concern Publick Confession of Sins before the Priest and the Congregation and so doth that place in S. James for it orders us to Confess not to the Righteous Man alone but one to another that so the Righteous Man and all the rest may pray for Mercy for the Penitent and I have heard this was the Primitive way of Confessing Sins and is still here in our Church where the Offences are scandalous and the Party censured But this is no ground for your Private Confessing into the Priests Ear and so getting an Absolution of course at Set times Po. Hath not Christ granted to the Priests a power to remit mens sins or retain them John xx 23. and must not the Iudge who is to condemn or set free of necessity hear all the particulars concerning the Criminal Prot. Our Priests will not grant us Absolution in particular Cases unless we do so far confess the Crimes we are guilty of as to shew our selves truly penitent but they do not compel us under pain of Damnation to come and tell them all our Sins which Scripture saith is impossible Psal xix 12. Nor doth the Kings granting a Commission to certain Judges to hear and to determine Causes oblige those who can make up their differences among themselves to come and be tried before them Besides the Priest is not the highest and last Judge nor can he infallibly tell when