Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	heathen_a	let_v	publican_n	2,742	5	10.9981	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61632	The unreasonableness of separation, or, An impartial account of the history, nature, and pleas of the present separation from the communion of the Church of England to which, several late letters are annexed, of eminent Protestant divines abroad, concerning the nature of our differences, and the way to compose them / by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1681 (1681)	Wing S5675; ESTC R4969	310,391	554

then can justifie this Separation but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship Hold saith he the consequence is not good for there are certain middle things between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances about which it will be lawful to divide though otherwise we agree in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship So that here a Separation is justified 1. on the account of such things which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship 2. Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship and consequently although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship For that he charged us with in the Antecedent and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence he must grant that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies although they be made no parts of worship at all For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship they can be none at all and yet he saith it is lawful to divide about them And which is more pleasant when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things he doth it by undertaking to shew that they are made substantial parts of Worship For thus he argues The Church of England hath exalted these things i. e. Ceremonies to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them and therefore they conclude them sinful If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful then they must be either substantial or circumstantial parts of Worship and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship which I have answered already But after all our arguings about these matters Mr. A. saith the Controversie stands still where it did these hundred years and more I utterly deny that for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years than they did in a hundred years before as appears by the foregoing discourse However they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters and so long they cannot joyn with us and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation which I shall consider both wayes 1. As it respects the Churches censures 2. As it respects the judgement of Conscience 1. As it respects the Churches censures This Mr. B. often insists upon The Canons saith he excommucate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it separation to be so excommunicated And who is the Schismatick here Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you And if men be wrongfully excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion To this I answer That the Excommunication denounced is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it The words of the Canon are not as Mr. B. quotes them If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy Ceremonies c. to be unlawful are excommunicate ipso facto but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England established by Law to be impious Anti-Christian or Superstitious let him be Excommunicate ipso facto Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon for to say if any man do but affirm c. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto but when the Canon saith if any shall affirm c it implies these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately Both which the word Affirm will bear For as S. Augustin very well saith every mans errour is born with until he either finds an accuser or he obstinately defends his opinion Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujus●ibet donec aut accusatorem inveniat aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition according to the Rule If he will not hear the Church let him be as an Heathen or a Publican Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular persons until the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it Besides such excommunications which are de jure latae sententiae are rather to be looked on as Comminations than as formal excommunications For Gerson putting the question what the effect of such excommunications is he answers that it is no more than this that there needs no new judicial process but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence Which he saith he learnt from his Master who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray And if it requires a new sentence then it doth not actually excommunicate But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath discoursed coursed at large to whom I refer the Reader As to the practice of Canon Law in England Lyndwood saith that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto And it is a Rule in our Church that Persons excommunicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months that others may have notice of them and until the sentence be thus declared I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication though it be said to be ipso facto For although the sentence seem peremptory yet ipso facto doth suppose a fact and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church of which there must be evident proof brought before the sentence can take hold of the Person And to make the sentence valid as to the person there must be due execution of it and the question in this case then is whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication be bound to execute this sentence upon himself which he must do if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point Although saith he we are excommunicated ipso facto yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us And so he hath fully answered his own objection But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating

Christian Magistrate was by any Prophet either commanded to deal otherwise than by perswasion in publick Reformation when the Magistrate neglected it or reproved for the contrary Fourthly To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave yet not contrary to his liking or when he opposed his Authority directly and inhibited it they never erected the Discipline when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then yet would it not follow that we may do so now for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church as the Christian Magistrate is neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power to pull down and set up Orders in the Church as the Apostles those wise Master-builders had Fifthly As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced they declare 1. So long as the Bishops Suspend and Deprive according to the Law of the Land we account of the Action herein as of the Act of the Church which we may and ought to reverence and yield unto if they do otherwise we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them If it be said the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient We Answer That it lieth on them to Depose who may Ordain and they may shut that may open And as he may with a good Conscience execute a Ministery by the Ordination and Calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness if the Church will press him to it so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserveth Deprivation cease from the execution of his Ministery when he is pressed thereunto by the Church And if a guiltless person put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it What proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are alwayes guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudgment That they are called of God and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops 2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects First They that Inhibited the Apostles were known and professed enemies to the Gospel Secondly The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Gospel which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto than this of our Bishops who though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government and Reformation of the Church yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached but are also Preachers of it themselves Thirdly The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men nor by the hands of Men but immediately from God himself and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men whereas we though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author and we are also called of God to it yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery To this which I had referred Mr. B. to he gives this Answer If Mr. Rathband hath denied this it had been no proof Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof My words are That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband Can any thing be plainer than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it This way of Answering is just as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament and another should reply If Curcellaeus said so it had been no proof Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers When Fr. Iohnson said That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery no not by Lawful Magistrates Mr. Bradshaw Answered This Assertion is false and seditious And when Iohnson saith That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal but this that they ought to obey God rather than Man which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians Bradshaw a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson gives this Answer 1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God as the Ground of their refusal in so many Letters and Syllables yet that which they do assign is by Implication and in effect the same with it For it is as much as if they had said God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us and not Man and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us For opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man they therein plead a Calling from God and not from Man otherwise if they had received a Calling from Man there had been incongruity in the Answer considering that in common sense and reason they ought so far forth to obey Men forbidding them to exercise a Calling as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling Else by this reason a Minister should not cease to Preach upon the Commandment of the Church that hath chosen him but should be bound to give them also the same Answer which the Apostles gave which were absurd So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever to depose a Minister from his Ministery but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery 2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to Sedition we are to know that though the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists Preached Publickly where they were not hindred by open violence and did not nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority or Commandment whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate whether they would or no or in despite of them but such in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate were as private and invisible as might be 3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly