Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	catholic_n	communion_n	sound_a	2,706	5	9.7321	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25215	The mischief of impositions, or, An antidote against a late discourse, partly preached at Guild-hall Chappel, May 2, 1680, called The mischief of separation	Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.	1680 (1680)	Wing A2917; ESTC R16170	115,195	136

Corruptions as they have many Errors in the Doctrine of Faith which yet does not in his judgment destroy the essential points of the Christian Doctrine 3 Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful And then 1. Who is the true Catholick Christian and who is the real Schismatick He that holds Communion with all Protestant Churches occasionally lawful and accordingly holds Communion with them actually as Providence gives him opportunity or he that denying all Churches to be truly such except his own refuses Communion with them for want of a Ceremony or two and the necessary consequence of a Ceremony A Bishop 2. That they hold Communion with this Church to be lawful is one of those dubious Propositions which will do the conceding Party no harm nor them that make use of it any service First many of them declare so and many declare otherwise but they do neither of them prejudge the other nor intend to bind them to their private sentiments and it 's as good an argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it Secondly they declare Communion lawful but do they declare total Communion lawful The same persons will tell us that both these Propositions are true Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of worship is so in others not And thirdly they will further tell us that Communion with some Parish-Churches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this reason for their judgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for peace-sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with purer administrations It is a dangerous thing to give us uncertain ambulatory Notions of Schism other than what the Scripture has given us both because the Scriptures alone can inform us what is the Notion of a true Church and by consequence what must be the true Notion of sinful Separation from it and because these unstable mutable Notions of Schism will make that to be Schism in one Countrey which is an innocent thing in another and that to be Schism one year which perhaps the next may prove a good and Catholick practice That was Schism in England in Edward the 6th's days which was not so in Queen Maries and that was Schism in Her Reign which became none in the days of Her Successor And we may be Schismaticks here in England when if we cross the water we shall be none though we practise the same Worship and retain all that which at home would have fastened that brand upon us And if we travel through Germany though perhaps we cannot be Schismaticks and Catholicks twice a day because the miles are very long yet may we be both backwards and forwards forty times in a Twelvemonth and continue the same men both in principle and practice that we were when we went our pilgrimage It is little to our purpose what the Doctor is pleased to tell us what one told him viz. that An. Dom. 1663. Divers Preachers met at London to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish-Churches where they lived in the Liturgy and Sacraments or that 20 Reasons were brought in to prove that it is a duty in some persons to join with some Parish-Churches three times a year in the Lord's Supper For 1. If they consider'd how far it was lawful I hope they spoke something at least to the Question and left it not as they found it a Question forsaken of its Answer which ought to be individual Companions 2. They met to consider what was lawful for or a duty to themselves not for or to others in whose names they had no commission to hear and determine the Question 3. If they inquired how far it was lawful or a duty they supposed that it was not unlimitedly so for to what end should they inquire how far they might go if they had once thought they could go through 4. And the design of the twenty reasons abundantly proves it for it was but some persons whose duty it was adjudged to be to receive the Sacrament thrice a year and it was but in some parishes neither where those some persons might communicate so that there might be some others many others possibly the greatest number whose duty it was not so to joyn and other some parishes many others and and possibly the greatest number with whom it was not lawful or not a duty to hold Communion The Case then is this a Christian may be placed in such circumstances that he may receive the Sacrament from some persons who will indulge him in the questionable Terms in such places where he cannot enjoy that ordinance at all if he do not receive it there and thus with many restrictions limitations distinctions and clauses a Case may be put wherein the twenty reasons may conclude some thing but yet nothing to the Doctors advantage But what effect what operation had these twenty reasons upon the Company Why none of them seemed to dissent that is they did not enter their several protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them They came to consider of the lawfulness of Communion and they would go away and consider of the strength of the Reasons propounded to convince them I see it 's more dangerous than I had thought it to have been to come into the parish Churches lest naked presence and silent appearing in those assemblies should be brought against us as an interpretative approbation of whatsoever is there done or spoken The Doctor adds that they had such another meeting after the plague and fire and if it were but such another there was no great harm in 't at which they agreed that communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good for which he quotes Plea for Peace p. 240. But here the Doctor is tardy by his favour and wrongs his Relator manifestly by nibbling off the last and most considerable words of the sentence viz. when it would do no more harm than good And we believe it lawful in that Case to hold Communion with any Church in the world so that now we must come to another enquiry and start a new question when there are one or two already up before the Dogs viz. whether Communion with the Parish-Churches will do more harm than good which it

and tatters confounding the minds of peaceable Christians who would willingly have united upon those plain easie reasonable terms upon which they had already received and professed Christianity only these peevish trouble-houses would not let them And this is remarkable that the Apostle never gave one hard word to the Conscientious Dissenter nor one good word to the Judaizing Imposer in all his Epistles To what end now is all this pompous ceremonious train of words to what end are these Positions Suppositions and Preliminaries why so many Lines Entrenchments Galleries why these tedious Approaches why all this Spanish Gravity why does he not fall aboard with his Text and storm it Alas Things are not yet ripe and ready for such hot service and therefore 4 The Apostle having done this he persuades all good Christians to do as he did ver 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded What was that to assert his liberty he did so and would not be brought under the power even of lawful things 1 Cor. 6.12 Was it not to put his neck under the old yoke of bondage he did so or did he scorn to build up what he had once pluckt down he did so and would he have us do as be did Content Shall we stand fast in our liberty as he in his Content Must we not build up whatever of humane inventions we have pluckt down Content Would he have us as many as be perfect be thus minded Content Let as many as are as he was do as he did They that are honour'd with his Attainments let them come up to his Evangelical Practice when we were children we thought spake acted as children Are we grown up to Manhood let 's put away childish things It is a shame not to outgrow our Trinckets our Rattles our Hobby-horses when we have outgrown the Rickets Shall it be said of Christians as of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks are always children But such were the Judaizers always learning never coming to the knowledge of the truth And you may as soon whip these huge great Boys out of all Religion as out of one Ceremony so fond so doating so peevish froward awkward such a whimpering such a whining such puleing and powting for Ceremonies as if they had lost that famous Engine of the Nutcrack or had been plundered of a pin-box I have read of a learned man in this nation who tells us he had quite other sentiments of and apprehensions about death than most men others were afraid to die but he was ashamed to die Really many are afraid of the Ceremonies as sinful and I am not without those fears too but methinks I am greatly ashamed of 'em as I should that any should spie me riding upon a penny Colt or a Gelding No St. Paul would have them that are thus perfect grow up into a more manly and generous way of serving and worshipping God Though the famous Alcibiades did once to please a child condescend Ludere par impar equitare in Arundine longâ To play the fool at even-or-odd And for a hobby-horse ride a rod. 5. Hitherto we have felt no wound but like the bird in the tree looking at the gunner wonders what he 's fidling about till of a sudden she 's past feeling At last the Author comes nearer Because says he many disputes and differences as to opinion and practice might happen among them he therefore lays down two Rules to govern themselves by Here now the Dr. beats up and gets within our Quarters and very subtilly would insinuate to the unwary Reader that the Apostle gave two Rules about one and the same thing whenas 't is evident he gave but one nor was it possible he should give more in that case The case which the Dr. supposes is that there were differences of opinion and practice among the Philippians Let it be supposed Does the Apostle give two Rules in that case No! but one single Rule which was the Rule of mutual forbearance and leaving one another to Gods Instructions but in Another Case where Christians had attained to be of the like mind there the Rule was that they should walk up and according to what they had attained But we must go through now we are in and therefore let us hear what these two Rules are and what use he will make of them 1. Rule If any happen'd to differ from the body of Christians they lived with they should do it with modesty and humility not breaking out into factions and Divisions but waiting for further information Now here we want that Accuracy that might have been expected from a person of his Abilities For 1. He puts it as a rare and extraordinary Case If any happen such a one as might fall out in an Age or so whereas this was a most familiar Case and that which the Apostle met with everywhere that there was a difference of apprehensions about the lesser things at least of Religion nor was he to seek what direction to give in the case but uniformly determines that they should not judge nor despise each other upon these accounts nor was there ever any Church at any time wherein these differences did not happen 2. He lays the stress of the duty upon those that differ from the Body of the Christians they live with It is very true the Church or Body of Christians at Philippi at that time was sound in the Doctrine of the Gospel evangelical in their worship and regular in government and Discipline and therefore it was the duty of those that differed from that body not to separate from it but suppose any happened to differ from the body of Christians they lived with which were not so must the Rule hold equally is there the same obligation in the case also what if a Christian should happen to live at Rome what if it should be the Drs. lot to live there must he be under the same obligation not to divide from the body 3. He supposes the Rule only to be given to the person that happens to differ from the body of the Church whereas the Rule is mainly given to the Church how they are to demean themselves toward a dissenting brother viz. to wait till God shall reveal his mind to the person otherwise minded Neither is he to act nor the Church to compel till God clear it up to his Conscience that he may act like a Saint or since Saints is a term of reproach at least like a Man and not a Beast 4. He disguises his rule by those Terms of Art faction separation c whereas faction and separation are two things the one always sinful the other many times a duty 2. Rule For those that are come to a firmness and settlement upon the Christian Principles he charges them by all means to preserve Unity and Peace among themselves Now these things also are laid down with as much obscurity as one could wish For 1.