Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	christian_a	church_n	communion_n	4,472	5	10.2516	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41330	The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entituled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templers sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1681 (1681)	Wing F962; ESTC R16085	105,802	120

great question about the Ruling Elder but I am not to meddle with it now Our Brethren of the Presbyterian judgment I suppose yield the question they may and ought to unite to make up one Governing Church but I do not fully understand their meaning Suppose twenty Parishes and Congregations that meet together to worship God and twenty Ministers belonging to them are these twenty Parishes distinct Churches as to Word and Sacraments so that he that is Pastor in one Church hath nothing to do in another Parish as to feeding them with Word and Sacraments but as to Government and Jurisdiction one Minister with the rest of the Classis have power over them all if this be the meaning I am not satisfied in it Dr. Stilling fleet hath declared his judgment they may unite I wish he had pleased to have opened his mind fully about it If he will yield but this That constitution of a Church wherein a Pastor cannot possibly feed with Word and Sacraments watch over and govern his flock according to Christ be it Diocesan or Parochial that constitution is not according to Christ and consequently unlawful as Scripture-light and nature's light will prove it I should it may be come up to him to perform our duty by Substitutes this may please them who make their own brains not Gods word their rule and such we little regard God hath now brought me to old age in my Pilgrimage divers disputes about Church-work and Government I have read absurd unscriptural practices in Churches I have seen woful disorders and wretched effects I have heard and known great scandal but so circumstanced that a single Pastor could not proceed by Mat. 18.15 c. to remove it I have met with one of the ablest Divines in England and exercised in Government was of the same opinion with me all arising from this notion of a single Pastor with such a people making a Church and all which mischiefs might be avoided if the uniting of several particular Congregations into one particular Church were admitted which Scripture-examples and Scripture-reasons will sufficiently justifie CHAP. IV. Of SCHISM THere remains yet one thing to be spoken to viz. the great crime of Schism with which we are charged by the Fr. Deb. in his first and second Book very deeply thus also Dr. Goodman and this is the common language of them all both in Pulpit and Press To which I would take liberty to speak more largely That Schism in the Church is a great crime is readily yielded by understanding men of all parties and no party will own it though they be guilty enough of it At this day all but Conformists are Schismaticks but to the Prelatical party this sin is a stranger yea in the time of our troubles when they were in France and refused Communion with the French Protestant Churches yet a Prelatical person was not then nor can be guilty of Schism but they were Schismaticks in France What is Schism Dr. Goodman tells us p. 112 113. Schism is a voluntary separation of ones self without cause given from that Christian Church whereof once he was a member He opens his Definition p. 113 114. First It is a separation c. i. e. When a man shall refuse to join in the acts and exercises of Religion used by such a society and to submit to its authority So he that refuseth Baptism the Lords-Supper or to submit to the censures of the Church Thus he But what he means by non-submission to the censures of the Church I know not for I know but few Nonconformists that are under the Censures of their Church nor how it will agree with his second which is 2ly It must be voluntary separation So that Excommunicate persons are no Schismaticks 3ly It is separation from a particular Church 4ly Of which Church he was once a member because Schism imports division making two of that which was but one before But according to this opening of his definition I pray Sir tell us how you will prove us Schismaticks For take up your third head 1. I pray tell us what is that particular Church you mean National Diocesan Parochial As for the National I know not how you understand a National Church for as I understand it you cannot prove us Schismaticks For the Diocesan you cannot prove us Schismaticks unless the refusing to submit to Prelatical Government be Schism For the Sacraments belong not to a Diocesan Church quâ sic I suppose Dr. Goodman's judgment to be the same with the Doctor that kept the Act at the Commencement at Cambridg I heard so much of one question that I laboured much to get a view of it but could not in our parts A Conformist told me it was to this purpose Recessio a regimine Episcopali est mortale schisma he told me Damnabile schisma as it was told him I say only this to it As God gives up some men to monstrous lusts in practise so he doth others to as monstrous opinions in judgment in these days So that it must be meant the Parochial Church But 2ly I pray prove that we were members once of that particular Church you mean For the Diocesan we deny any such Church especially as your constitution is to be according to Christs Institution and therefore were not are not members of it For the Parochial Churches I pray how are we members of them 1. Not by our Baptism if that were your meaning I would soon give arguments to confute it 2. Not by my dwelling within such a Parish-bounds though I am for the Vicinity of Church-members yet I was not so simple when I was in my Place to think that all the people that dwelt within the bounds of the Parish where I was Minister must own me for their Minister as if a spot of ground measured out by a Civil constitution must make a man a member of a Church which as such is a spiritual and free society I wish Dr. Goodman could convince all the Papists that dwell within these Parishes that therefore they are members of the Church of England or Schismaticks 3. I know nothing but consent that constitutes any man a member of a Church but that we never gave either to the Priests imposed upon us by a Patron and a Prelate nor to the Parochial Church as you take Parochial Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue where there was no union there can be no Schism But between us and your Church there was no union Ergo no Schism why then doth he charge us with it 3ly Suppose we were members yet still you are to prove there was no cause given for our separation which though you attempt to do yet Sir you must bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flourishes and humane stories to convince us But one thing more Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a

to hinder Gods blessing crave for his presence with us and assistance of us in our Preaching c. so after Sermon to bless him for mercies and to beg for his watering of the seed sown c. For a Text Why did not this Author put the question to Christ what command he had to take a Text and gloss upon upon it Luk. 4.16 17 18 19. Also why Ezra or the Priests Ezr. 8.8 take a Text give the sense and apply it We have a command to teach the word 2 Tim. 4.2 To teach to observe what Christ commanded Mat. 28.20 Shall we not then take a portion out of that word Shall we not take that command and open that word first explain it to their understandings then apply it to their wills and affections as doth the Apostle Heb. 3. his Doctrinal part in Chap. 4.1 the application of it how shall we shew our selves Ministers of the Word but this way shall we take a Text out of our own brains For Psalms Why did you not ask me for a command to read the Psalms in English The Romish Priests will put this question Is there not a command to sing Psalms Hymns and spiritual songs Col. 3.16 Were not Davids Psalms of old commanded to be sung 2 Chron. 29.30 35.15 and the authority we may learn 2 Sam. 23.1 2 3. The Jews sung then according to the Poetry of the Hebrew Language and some have observed several verses in David's Psalms run in Rimes in the Hebrew Our English Songs according to the course of our English Poetry run in Meeter so we sing in such verses as are suitable to our English ears If you will teach us to sing a better way we will follow your way De metro Psalmorum testatur Josephus L. 2 Antiq. Jud. cap. 14. l. 7. cap. 12. and Hieronymus in Prefatione Chronici Eusebii saith Sobnius Tom. 3. p. 68. The fourth Text Mat. 15.9 with Mark 7.7 In vain do they worship teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men To this Mr. Falkner answers p. 361. 1. This Tradition did not refer to the order of the publick Worship of God Ans I hope it was never the worse for that it is well they let the worship of God alone which you do not But saith Mr. Falkner The question between Christ and the Pharisees was whether it was to be admitted as a Doctrine that eating with unwashed hands defileth a man Ans So the question between you and us is Whether this be to be admitted for a Doctrine That men may institute Religious doctrinal or mystical Ceremonies and annex them to the worship of God You teach this Doctrine first as a general Law and then you bring it into practise by instituting and commanding yours by a particular Law I know not where you and they differ only they let Gods worship alone you say and you do not His second answer is that Christ observed the Prudential Rules Answ But Sir do you make Prudential Rules and these Religious mystical ceremonies all one for what you have said of Christ at the Passover I shall add a little more to what I have said already but because Christ sate in the middle of the Doctors as others sate hearing and asking questions Luk. 2.46 hence to argue Christs conformity to Jewish religious mystical Ceremonies is very strange for a man of your worth and learning At the end of that Section I see you condemn the Popish Ceremonies Many of them being Sacramental and designed to be operative of grace and spiritual help But I pray Sir do not you say as much of yours when you tell us that yours signifie such spiritual duties and have such an aptness in them to stir up our dull minds to our duty Treasure out of Rubbish p 43. and help to edifie us And do not you make them Sacramental It is one proper end of Sacraments saith Mr. Cotton by striking of the senses by outward representative Elements to teach the understanding help the memory stir up the affections excite devotion And after The Scripture expresseth the nature of a Sacrament rather under the name sign than seal which consisteth in the Analogy which is betwixt a sign determined to signifie and the thing signified This is so true that I have known Christians who not out of a principle of cavilling but from a desire to help their Faith in the use of the Sacraments that have questioned whether they were seals and have wished for other arguments than usually we give them to help them in their doubts looking on them as not cogent that we give but for signs they questioned them not Thus in our Ceremonies 1. Here are signs 2. Here is a spiritual thing a duty we owe to God signified by them 3. These signs are not dark and dumb but so set forth that every man may understand what they mean or signifie 4. They are apt means to stir up our dull minds to what they do signifie and help to our edification I think you speak plain enough There is as much given to them as was to Gods own Ceremonies which did signifie spiritual graces and duties they owed to God Yea something more All may understand what yours signifie and they are not dark nor dumb but fit to stir up dull minds That they contain external worship also in them and so are as Bellarmine saith of them and these you took from the Papists Ceremoniae sunt pars quaedam cultus Divini Divine and true worship I think may be thus described It is some act commanded by God in which we do reverently acknowledg his excellency immediately serving and having communion with him therein whether that act be such as we immediately offer up to him as Prayers Sacrifices c. or such as we offer from God in his name unto his people as Preaching and Sacraments c. some give other descriptions but I think this will hold This Worship having the Authority and Command of God to warrant it is true Worship If it hath not but only mans invention and authority it may be called Divine worship in one sense but it is Will-worship superstition and false In teaching is worship In vain do they worship me teaching c. Mat. 15.9 It is me they pretend to worship this was in teaching but the worship was vain God teacheth us two ways 1. By his Word 2. By Signs By the last the Pharisees taught spiritual things by their washings as God taught by his washings in the Law so do you teach us by your Ceremonies and it seems very lively Now all actions whereby spiritual duties are taught in Gods solemn worship are acts whereby God is worshipped and such acts are worship as all acts whereby he is obeyed are obedience Some argue thus Those external Ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God are external worship but the Ceremonies in question are such Ergo. Others thus All external Ceremonies in their nature formally