Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A62125
|
A defence of the peaceable and friendly address to the non-conformists against the ansvver lately given to it. In which the obligation to conform to the constitutions of the established church is maintained and vindicated. The answerers objections solv'd; and his calumnies refuted.
|
Synge, Edward, 1659-1741.
|
1698
(1698)
|
Wing S6377; ESTC R221946
|
57,215
|
64
|
at all before he shall lye under any Obligation to give Obedience to it But Church-Governours says he are obliged to teach us to observe no more than what Christ Commanded them Mat. 28. 20. Acts 10. 33. I grant it But what can be more plain than that the Apostles who were the first Governors appointed by Christ to his Church did teach all men to observe the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority And will our Author say that they had no Command from Christ for doing this But says he again they have no Power to impose things needless I answer that they who have the Power of making Laws ought not indeed to enact such Laws as impose things altogether useless to any good purpose Nor are there any of our Church Constitutions but what if they were duly respected and observed would tend very much to Order and Decency and also to keep out unnecessary Innovatious and therefore they cannot justly be termed needless things But if I should Judge them to be altogether needless Yet as long as they are innocent this would be no good Reason why I should refuse Obedience to them as well because I have no Warrant from Gods word for so doing as that the Government in their Wisdom may have very good reason for Commanding such things altho' it may be I am not able throughly to comprehend it And that such a modest compliance as this should be judged no less than a Conspiracy with Men usurping Power is such an imagination as no Man of Reason or Charity could ever entertain Well! But did not Paul withstand Peter to the Face in his imposing unnecessary things on the Jews Gal. 2. 11. But will this Man never make any Conscience of imposing not only impertinent but false Allegations of the Holy Scripture upon his unwary Reader S. Paul in the place mention'd did indeed withstand S. Peter But not on account of his Imposing any thing on the Jews of which there is not there the least shadow of a suggestion But purely for his Dissimulation in that by withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of them which were of the Circumcision he laid a stumbling Block before the Gentiles And tho' not by his Doctrine yet by his Example seemed to put a sort of Compulsion upon them to live as did the Jews to which no Law either of God or Man did oblige them And as to what he immediately Adds I grant with him that the Authority which the Lord hath given unto the Church is for Edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. To which I must tell him that a setled Decency and Order in the Circumstances of Worship does not a little conduce I grant also that where a Church ceases to follow Christ we ought not therein to follow that Church according to the Apostles Doctrine 1 Cor. 11. 1. But where the Church is careful to follow Christ in all manner of things that are nâ—cessary and therein to the utmost to promote the Edification of all her Members why it should be a Sin to Comply with that Church for Peace and Unity's sake in such things as are indifferent and therefore Lawful or why a Man should Renounce the Communion of such a Church on account of such things even in case they were needless I cannot in the least gather from either of those places And whereas he tells us that the Synod of Jerusilem Acts 15 thought fit to impose nothing but necessary things Verse 28. I desire to know in what Sense was the abstaining from Meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled at that time necessary If they were absolutely necessary as essential parts of Gods Law how comes S. Paul to teach the lawfulness of eating that which had been offered to an Idol provided it were done without any Worship to the Idol or Scandal given to weak Brethren 1 Cor. chap 8. and chap 10. And how came our Saviour so expressly to assure us and in such general Terms that not that which goeth into the Mouth desilâ—th a Man Matt. 15. 11. But if they were in themselves indifferent and necessary only in order to reconcile the Jews who laid great Weight upon these things and to bring them to a more favourable opinion of the Gentile Christians which I believe our Author will not deny how can the Example of this Synod be alledged to Condemn and not rather to justifie the practise of the Established Church which has retained and kept up the use of some things in themselves likewise indifferent because they conceived them necessary and proper to reconcile those of the Church of Rome who by long custom had entertained a great respect for them and to beget in them a better opinion of the Reformation And lastly as to what he quotes out of my Lord Primate Bramhall's Vindication I freely grant that no man ought to suffer an Erroneous Opinion to be imposed upon him because as it is impossible for him to believe what he judges to be Erroneous so to prosess what he does not believe would be a lye and a sin But the consequence which he would suggest from a supposed parity between an Erroncous Opinion and an Indifferent and therefore innocent Ceremony or Circumstance is altogether weak and groundless The fourth main Proposition which I have insisted on in my Address is that since the Communion of our Church is lawful and innocent in it â—â—â— which I hope I have now abundantly proved against all that our Author â—â—s Objected to the contrary there cannot be any just reason why the Noncâ—â— sormists should refuse to join with us in it And altho' our Author nibbles a little aâ— some of those things which I have touched under this head of my Discourse yet since every thing which he there says is either not to the purpose or else proceeds upon a supposition that our Communion is not lawful and innocent in it self which clearly alters the state of the case and the contrary whereto I have hitherto been asserting against all his weak and trifling Objections I will not give either my self or the Reader the trouble of making any Remarks upon the particulars of what he offers on this occasion only as to that passage of Dr. Holden's which he cites out of my Lord Primate Bramhall p 113. I think it enough to say that altho' it may be less criminal for one National Church upon account of some doubtful Opinions or such 〈◊〉 things to refuse the Communion of such another Church the obligation of whose particular Laws or Canons can only extend to its own members than for subjects to disobey those Laws which are Enacted by their own lawful superiors and thereby to make a Schism in the very body of that National Church of which they are or ought to be members Yet since the obligation to Ecclesiastical Union and Communion is universal and extends unto all Christians and Churches whatsoever wherever there is any separation or
as does imply a Schism was most apparently all that there I intended to say Nor did I think it necessary by any deduction of Consequences to prove that which I thought so evident as not to be denied or doubted of But our Author it seems will not allow that there is a Schisin between them and us because the Presbyterians in the North never joyned with the Established Church in those things in which we now differ to wit Church Government Liturgy and Ceremonies and all Division pre-supposeth a prior Union To which I Answer that wherever there is an Obligation to the maintaining of Union and Communion if that Union and Communion be not accordingly maintained but denied and renounced from thence results what I mean by a Schism Which word I understand to signifie not only the Action of Dividing or separating what once was joyned and united but also the State of Separation between such Parties as stand obliged to Religious Union altho' they never were actually united Now that all Christians are by the Law of God obliged as far as lawfully they can to maintain Union and Communion one with another is what I never yet heard denied by any one And since this Union and Communion is not maintained between the Non-Conformists and us it will follow that there is a Schism between us and that either we are guilty of a Sin in giving them a just ground of keeping themselves separate from us or they in keeping themselves so separate without any just ground for it But if after all our Author will not allow the word Schâ—sm to be a term proper enough to denote such a State of Separation I am contented that he should put what other word he pleases in the room of it as long as the thing intended is sufficiently plain viz. That such a State of Separation necessarily implies a Sin in one or other of the Parties For the clearer discovering at whose door the Sin of this Schism which is between us lies I have in my Address proposed several things to be considered Against the manner of which first our Author takes this exception that I rather Catechize the Non-Conformists by asking them Questions than convince them by Reasons pag. 97. To which I Answer that there is not any Question put in my whole Address but what I think as plainly carries in it the force of an assertion as if I had set it down not in an interrogation but a preposition Nor have I there delivered or suggested any assertion but what I have given or sufficiently intimated my reason for except the thing were so evident as to need no proof But yet to take away all pretence of Cavill I shall in this Defence reduce my Questions into such Propositions as are naturally implyed in them and fairly examine which are strongest my Reasons for them or his against them The first Proposition then which on this occasion I have advanced tho' under the form of a Question is that in the Communion of our Church there is nothing wanting which is necessary to the Salvation of a Christian And as I have constantly served my Cure in my own Person Notwitstanding our Authors uncharitable Insinuation to the contrary pag. 98. So have I in my Address suggested such proof of this assertion as not to stand in need of him for my Curate or Delegate to prove it for me viz. Because our Church Teaches all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith requires all Men to lead Vertuous and Holy Lives and omits no part of Christ's Institution either in Baptism or the Lord's-Supper which things are all that are required as of necessity to any Mans Salvation Nor did I think it proper to offer any further Confirmation of these things besides the notoriety of them because I was not Disputing with Jews or Pagans to whom our Auther tell us Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines But with the Non-Conformists who do not deny what I have hitherto asserted as the others did the Doctrines of the Gospel but give other Reasons altogether for their separation from us And therefore why our Author would have me stand to prove these Points before they are gainsaid I know not except it may be to divert the Reader from attending unto that which is the knot and difficulty of the controversy if any real difficulty at all there be in so very plain and evident a Case Where an assertion is laid down in any Controversy there can be but two ways of returning an Answer to it viz. either first to deny the Truth of it or secondly to shew that tho' it may be true yet is it impertinent to the purpose for which it is alleged The former of these our Author I suppose knows he cannot do in relation to the above-mentioned Proposition Altho' according to his way he seems to suggest something like it by urging me to undertake the proof of it For the only reason why a man should produce his Arguments to prove a thing is because it may be denied or doubted of But in order to the latter without distinguishing between the case of our Church and that of Rome he produces pag. 99. a passage of the Learned Chillingworth which tho' levelled by its Author only against the Roman Church yet he sets down as equally applicable against that Church also of which Mr. Chillingworth himself was a Member And that without taking any care to caution his own Party against an unjust and false Opinion that some of them have seemed to be inclined to â—s if the Church of Rome and the Establish't Church were in a manner equally culpable The substance of what he recites out of Mr. Chillinwarth is comprised in the first words of the Quotation it self All says he that we forsake in you is the Belief Profession and Practice of your Errors c. Let but these Errors be taken away and in all the rest we shall agree very well In Answer whereunto I grant with that Learned man in what follows That to believe an Error knowing it to be an Error is absolutely impossible and for a man to profess what he does not believe is Hypocritical and Sinful and therefore ever to be avoided But altho' this bears close upon the Church of Rome which requires the Belief and Profession of divers things which from plain Scripture and Reason we abundantly prove to be false yet is it altogether wide from our case except our Author had plainly told us as we do the Papists what those Errors or false Doctrines are the Belief or Profession of which we require among the Conditions of our Communion Which till he undertakes to do he must I think acknowledge that what Mr. Chillingworth says as to the Believing and Professing of Errors is no way to his present purpose except it be to amuse and keep up the prejudice of his own Party against us But that Learned man excepts against Practising as well as against