Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	communion_n	separation_n	2,767	5	10.7643	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61842	The indecency and unlawfulness of baptizing children in private, without necessity, and with the publick form seriously recommended to the consideration of both the clergy and laity of the Church of England : to which is added, a brief exhortation to the constant receiving of the Lords Supper.	Strong, Martin, b. 1663 or 4.	1692 (1692)	Wing S5995; ESTC R15237	25,798	32

the Toleration is for Dissenters not for us We have still blessed be God the same Church the same Public Liturgy the same Articles Canons and Constitutions established by the Law of the Land by several Acts of Parliament which stand yet unrepealed And therefore our Obedience is still as due to those Laws as ever Nor can the Toleration with any shew of Modesty or Reason be thought to excuse us so long as we own our selves Members of the Church of England as of a good and an Orthodox Communion But suppose I were concern'd with a professed Dissenter yet I might justly answer 2. That all that any Toleration in the World does or can do is to excuse only from the Penalty not at all from the fault of Disobedience to the Laws and Orders of an Established Lawful Communion it gives a Liberty of Impunity 't is true whether justly or unjustly I will not now dispute but not of justification it takes away the civil Punishment but it can never take away the Sin of Non-conformity or Disobedience my reason for it is this because these are Sins forbidden by the plain Laws of God which no Laws of Man can alter or dispense with For every Orthodox and lawfully constituted Church has a full power from Christs own Institution to make Canons and Constitutions for its own Regulation for the security and preservation of its own Peace and good Order And this lays a sufficient Obligation on all Christians to obey those Laws tho there should be no Civil Authority to back and enforce them The Church considered as a Church is a distinct body and has a distinct Government inherent in it self without any regard had to the State And consequently all disobedience to the Lawful Commands of the Church is an Evil in it self Morally and intrinsecally sinful and therefore can never be altered by any Humane Dispensation or Toleration Hence we find the Primitive Christians decrying Schism and branding it with the most odious Characters before there were any Civil Laws in Defence of Christianity nay when all the Civil Laws were against it as well before the Empire became Christian and again in the intervals of Persecution as when Christianity was Established by a Law So the Donatists were accounted Schismaticks by the Primitive Christians as well under those temporal Princes that favoured as under those who persecuted them Arianism was condemned as well under Constantius and Valens who countenanced as under Constantine who opposed it so that tho a Toleration do take away Civil Penalties yet the Laws of God and of Scripture that require Vnity Communion and Compliance with an established Orthodox Church do stand still uncancell'd and in as much force as ever If any one doubt the truth of this Let him only read the ingenious Mr Norris his Charge of Schism continued and if he can fairly answer what that learned Author there urges in defence of this Assertion I promise him I will instantly give up the Cause and become his Proselite There is a passage in the learned Dr. Stillingfleets Sermon of the Mischief of Separation so apposite to our present Argument that I cannot forbear setting it down 'T is Page the 45th in these words Let us who continue in the Communion of our Church walk by the same Rule and mind the same things While we keep to one Rule all People know what it is to be of our Church if men set up their own Fancies above the Rule they charge it with Imperfection if they do not obey the Rule they make themselves wiser than those that made it It hath not been the Doctrine or Rules of our Church which have ever given advantage to the Enemies of it but the Indiscretion of some in going beyond them and the Inconstancy of others in not holding to them This being the Judgment and Opinion of so great a man and of so pacifick a Temper deserves a serious Consideration by all who wish well to the Church of England 4. The Baptizing Children in Private by the Public Form is contrary to every Ministers solemn Promises and Subscriptions For the 36th Canon of our Church Every Minister is required both at his receiving of Orders and at his Admission to any Benefice or Living to make this Promise and to subscribe it with his own hand in these very words viz. That he himself will use the Form prescribed in the book of Common Prayer both in Public Prayer and in the Administration of the Sacraments and none other And now I appeal to the sense of all the world whether that Minister who uses that Form of Public Baptism in Private Houses which is prescribed to be used in the Church does not break this Promise And whether he who does not in Private houses use the Form Prescribed for that purpose does not do the same Does such a Man use the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and none other as he promised and subscribed Perhaps it will be said that he uses the same words tho in a different Place But still I answer That this is not the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer The Form prescribed is perfectly of Another Nature The Church has composed two Forms for Baptism of Infants the one for the Church the other for Private houses the one for ordinary and common cases the other for the extraordinary cases of sickness and necessity Now he that confounds these two Offices which the Church has made distinct and wholy omitting that Form which is designed for Private Vses that in Private which is commanded to be used in Public that Person does not use the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and none other but perfectly another than what is commanded If any one in the World can deny this assertion or without Tricks and Fallacies fairly justify this Practice from Breach of Promise I will never more trust my discursive Faculty so long as I live can any thing be more indisputably clear If to doubt in this case be not to seek Knots in a Bulrush I know not what is This Argument very nearly concerns us of the Clergy and we should all do well seriously to consider it and the rather because our own undue Compliances in this respect are made use of by the Laity as the greatest Argument for the Continuance of this Vnlawful Practice But if the most solemn Promises and repeated Subscriptions signify any thing we are all certainly bound to do our utmost for the reforming of this unhappy Custom in doing of which there would be far less difficulty than now there is were we our selves Vnanimous in the Attempt were we All resolved to be just to our own Engagements and would not undermine each others Endeavours by our contrary Practices 'T is plain we are not left at Liberty to do as we please in this case we are bound by Laws by Promises and Subscriptions And when the Laity know and consider this I cannot but

hope that they will think the better and not the worse of us for being just to our Rule and true to our Promises Nor will they be so unreasonable as to expect our compliance in a thing so manifestly unlawful Much less conceive any Pet or Prejudice against us only because we cannot make the plainest Laws of the Church and our own Promises too bend and bow to their humors And since the London Clergies Practice is most taken notice of in this affair it would be happy if they would joyn with us in this Reformation 5. The Form of Public Baptism is so composed that it cannot be used in Private Houses without manifest Absurdities which is another demonstration that the Church never intended it should be so used The forementioned Mr Arwaker reckons up four several instances of this Nature in the Office of Public Baptism where he that has a mind may see them pag. 29. I shall only mention One at present and that is in the Preface to the Baptismal Covenant in these words Dearly beloved Ye have brought this Child here to be Baptized How can this be truly or rationally spoken when instead of the Childs being brought by the Sureties the Minister himself comes home to the house and is brought into the very Chamber were the Child was born We have already proved that the Church at the beginning of this Office requires the Child to be brought to the Font and that the Priest standing at the Font shall say From whence 't is manifest that by the word Here in this place is meant the Church where alone the Font stands And how then can the Minister in the very place where the Child was born say to the Sureties Ye have brought this Child here viz. to the Font to be Baptized Or ought he not rather to alter the words to a quite contrary sense and say Ye have brought me here to baptize this Child For this is true and proper but the former is evidently false and absurd and the Absurdity is so plain that I am verily perswaded that he that does not perceive it 'T is not because He cannot but because He will not understand it Now whether it becomes either Minister or People to use such gross Absurdities in so solemn a part of Gods sacred Worship is a Question to which I would beg a serious Answer There is the same Absurdity in the Office for Churching Women when 't is used in Private houses The very Title proves this Practice to be absurd It ought to be called Chambering or Houseing of Women But Churching of them it can never be in any place out of the Church But not to insist on that the Rubrick before this Office says The Woman shall come into the Church decently apparalled and there shall kneel down in some convenient Place c. than which no command can be more plain The Rubrick at the End of the Office directs the Woman to receive the Holy Communion if there be any which still farther argues it to be done in the Church and the last Verse of the Psalm appointed to be read in this Office makes the Absurdity undeniable 'T is this I will pay my Vows now In the Courts of the Lords house How can this be said in any Private Chamber Was ever any Place beside the Church called the Lords house Or can any other Place be so called without a manifest and daring Absurdity An Absurdity too gross to be offer'd to the great God in return for a Mercy which deserves not only a Private Acknowledgment See Bp. Sparrow and Dr. Comber on this Office but a most solemn Thanksgiving in the Public Assembly of Christians which is both a greater Honour and more acceptable to God than any Private returns can be And now a modest man would think that after all this there should be no possible Objectious against so undeniable a truth Dr. Sherlock tells us Rel. Assemb p. 290. That he could never hear any thing that deserved a serious Answer But lest the Pretences should be thought unanswerable let us hear what they are And the first grand Pretence is Custom 'T is objected to us that 't is generally practised in most parts of the Kingdom and by many great and eminent Divines of the City of London too and therefore why may it not be continued This Objection tho it make a great deal of Noise yet it signifies just nothing as will be evident to any one that considers these things First That however prevailing this Custom now is yet 't is but of very late date even in this Church Dr Sherlock tells us Rel. Assemb p. 290 That this unhappy Custom was begun by as unhappy a Cause Namely by our late Civil Wars and a tyrannical Usurpation When our Laws were all subverted and our Religion ruined When the Orthodox Clergy were all turned a begging and their Churches usurped by their Enemies then 't was that the Loyal Party being first banished from the Church were forced and compelled to Baptize their Children in their own Houses There was a Necessity then of doing it privately or not at all But this Necessity is now removed our Churches now thanks be to Almighty God are at Liberty And therefore this can be no Argument to excuse us But it becomes us rather to abhor a Custom brought into the Church by such Vngodly means and to remember that our Forefathers would have been glad and thankful too to have injoyed that Liberty and Priviledge of bringing their Children to the Church which we now despise And yet 't is very observable that even in those times when the Common-Prayer Book was abolished and the Presbyrerian Directory established in its room by what was then called an Ordinance of Parliament Anno 1644. Even that very Directory expresly decrees That Baptism is not to be administred in Private places or privately but in the place of Public Worship and in the Face of the Congregation as may be seen p. 19 And this is the more remarkable because the Compilers of this Directory do in their Preface declare that they composed and agreed upon it after earnest and frequent calling upon the Name of God and after much consultation not with Flesh and Blood but with Gods holy word 'T is well known that our Brethren of this Perswasion were always great Enemies to all Needless and Superstitious Ceremonies in the Worship of God from whence I infer that even in their Opinion The Administration of Baptism in the Public place of Gods Worship is not a Needless Ceremony but a Necessary Circumstance to the due and decent Performance of that divine Sacrament What their Practice now is it concerns not me to inquire 't is plain This is their Rule and This their Judgment Secondly Tho many eminent Divines and particularly of London do comply with this Custom yet some others no less eminent refuse to do it Dr Sherlock and Mr Arwaker have both writ expresly against it