Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	church_n	person_n	1,806	5	4.8836	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45152	A plea for the non-conformists tending to justifie them against the clamorous charge of schisme. By a Dr. of Divinity. With two sheets on the same subject by another Hand and Judgement.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1674 (1674)	Wing H3703A; ESTC R217013	46,853	129

A PLEA FOR THE NON-CONFORMISTS TENDING To Justifie them against the Clamorous Charge of SCHISME By a Dr. of Divinity With two Sheets on the same Subject by another Hand and Judgment Vexatio dat intellectum LONDON Printed in the Year 1674. A PLEA for the Nonconformists tending to justifie them against the Clamourous Charge of Schisme § 1. IT was doubtless one of the greatest infelicities which ever befel the whole body of people in these three Nations considering them as universally professing the Doctrine of Christ that in the year 1662. the Settlement of the affairs of Religion with relation to Worship Government was made to no more universal satisfaction but that some thousands of Ministers many of whom their greatest Adversaries being judges were men of no inconsiderable worth and usefulness took themselves obliged rather to lay down the publick exercise of their Ministry then to do what was by Law required of them if they would preserve it and that such a rigid interpretation was at that time in practice put upon the Act of Uniformity as they were not only incapacitated to hold or take Livings but also to Preach occasionally in the publick Temples Whether the Act will necessitate any such sense may deserve the second thoughts of our Superiours § 2. Whether this was Originated in the anger resting in the bosom of some Church-men at that time who had been Sufferers Or in their zeal to continue some Bishops the repute of Martyrs who had suffered for the rigorous enforcing of some of the things now enjoyned or in the desire of some of that filthy lucre which ariseth from pluralities of Livings Dignities sine curare or in their desire to propagate some Doctrines to which they knew the persons who would be ejected would be no more friends then are the Articles of the Church of England as interpreted by King James former all Professors of Divinity in our Universities very many eminent Bishops and once and again by the whole Parliament of England or from one or all of these causes is uncertain to be determined a better Original is hard to fancy while the things required are by our most knowing Eccles Superiours granted not necessary antecedaneously to the Superiors command § 3. Nor could they ever have been made necessary as is now said by the King and Parliament of England had they not been suggested to them as things that in themselves might lawfully be done Nor probably would that suggestion have prevailed with our civil Superiours who in things meerly lawful know sufficiently that they are to govern themselves in their commands by Prudence had they not been also told that the Numbers both of Ministers and People that would refuse were very inconsiderable Their persons and circumstances very invaluable that if once the things were enjoyned the Generality would do them notwithstanding all their pretences of Conscience c. § 4. How true these suggestions were quickly appeared to our Prudent States-men which made the then Lord Chancellour a sufficient friend to Conformity and a Prudent Person before ever the Act took place send for some very valuable persons and propound a Medium to them that they might yet abide in their stations foreseeing the gap would be made the Parishes only providing some who might read the Liturgy but this was too late and the Act would not when it came out admit any such thing § 5. With that rigour the Act was pressed is sufficiently known and how soon after fortified with another Act against private Meetings and with another when that but a probationer for a few years was expired more severe than the former nor did there want those in all parts of the Nation that executed all the Acts with severity so far beyond what those Acts Authorised that they saw need of Indemnity for their actions by further Acts of Grace and Favour How many Godly Ministers and People were during these years not only publickly reviled in Pamphlets and Pulpits but Imprisoned and how many dyed in their imprisonments spoiled of their Livelihoods driven from their Habitations and Trades is but an unpleasant story to reflect upon and with how little success as to the bringing them to conform is abundantly known § 6. In the mean time it pleased his most Excellent Majesty as a tender Father of his People and he who considered his interest lay not in the Division and Ruine of his People but in their Peace and Freedom to attend their several Trades Professions and Callings the King himself as Solomon saith being nourished from the Field to inspect the state of Ecclesiastical affairs and hearing so many Crys from his People with the Advice of his Counsel to direct means for his or their better information about the numbers of Ministers and People dissenting for which purpose Letters were directed in the ordinary course from the Arch-Bishop to the Bishops who by their Registers were to inform themselves and then his most Sacred Majesty of the Number of dissenting Ministers c. § 7. How imperfect the information must be in this method is obvious enough to every one the Return could only be made of those who being possest of Livings Aug. 24. 1662. left them for not Subscribing into which number came not a 5th part of Ministers dissenting 1. None came which 1661 were turned out to give room to others who had a praevious Title to their Livings and were not possest so soon of any other which were very many 2. No Congregational Ministers who had no Legal Titles to Churches 3. None that fore-seeing they could not conform the Act being out did chuse rather to resign their Livings than abide a turning out 4. No young men not possest of Livings though ready for them To say nothing of Anabapt c. To advantage this imperfect account the Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity tells the World of but an hundred Ministers that hindred all Uniformity § 8. But our Wise and Prudent States-men quickly saw through these Fallacies and from their more perfect information of his most Sacred Majesty and the meltings of his own bowels towards the distresses of his People the sound of which came almost from every Court of Judicature and corner of the Nation his most Excellent Majesty and his Privy Counsel took a fuller estimate of the Number both of Ministers and private Christians dissenting from the publick modes of worship § 9. Upon this it was that his Majesty conceiving himself empowred thereto by his Prerogative and a liberty reserved to him by the last Act against Conventicles was pleased to issue out his Gracious Declaration for Indulgence date Mar. 17. § 10. What Power his Majesty had or what was reserved by that Act to him we are no Judges to determine It is enough for us That as his most Sacred Majesty hath asserted to himself such a power so the denial of it to him hath been by no publick Act made known to us much less his Majesties

Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them