Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	member_n	particular_a	schism_n	2,767	5	10.0659	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57864	A vindication of the Church of Scotland being an answer to a paper, intituled, Some questions concerning Episcopal and Presbyterial government in Scotland : wherein the latter is vindicated from the arguments and calumnies of that author, and the former is made appear to be a stranger in that nation/ by a minister of the Church of Scotland, as it is now established by law.	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1691 (1691)	Wing R2231; ESTC R6234	39,235	42

under Presbytery And for the rest of the Clergy none of them were cast out for complyance with Prelacy but they generally retained their places wherefore this is a most untrue Allegation A Third thing he saith is That the Presbyterians at the Revolution 1662. were not so dealt with that is were continued in their places Impudence it self could affirm nothing more false Were not above the third part of all the Ministers of Scotland and so in England thrown out by one Act of Parliament For two thirds complyed and by that means kept their places and the few in Scotland that could not be reached by that Act were laid aside by the Bishops and the Council by more slow steps § 6. The Acts of Assemblies that he citeth are Act Aug. 17. 1639. Appointing all in Office in Church and Schools and all Members of this Kirk to subscribe the National Covenant And an Act 1642. for intimating the abovesaid Act and proceeding to Church-censure against them that refuse such Subscription And an Act 1644. appointing strict enquiry and censure against disaffected persons to the Covenant And some other Severities he mentioneth truly or falsely I know not for he doth not direct where such Acts may be found which may be acknowledged as no Pattern for after-ages to go by It is like if that Oath of God had been less universally and less severely imposed it had been better kept by many What he alledgeth That the Assemblies Aug. 1642. do order the persons of them who are Excommunicated to be imprisoned and their Goods to be confiscated is most false never any Assembly in this Church did make Laws for Civil punishments All that I find to this purpose for he is not pleased to be distinct in his Citations is that August 3. 1642. the Assembly Petitioned the Council to put the Laws in execution against Excommunicated Papists All this considered I hope the Impartial Reader will not be imposed on by what this man hath said to think that the Principles of Presbyterians are inconsistent with what Toleration is due to Dissenters Nor will blame them that they are not for a vast and boundless Toleration nor because they cannot bear them who are evil but do try them who say they are Apostles and are not and find them lyars Rev. 22. QUEST IV. Whether from the Year 1662 to the Year 1689 Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation AWise Question indeed He supposeth them Separatists which by no Author was ever accounted vox media or taken in a good sense and yet Querieth whether they sinned in separating But to let this pass he telleth us of Doctrine taught in our larger Catechism from which may be demonstrated how necessary it is to Salvation that every Person keep Communion with the particular Church established by the Laws of the State that he liveth in unless she either enjoyn in her Canons any sinful term of Communion or propose in her Confession any Heretical Article or prescribe in her Directory for Worship any Idolatrous Impurity To this I repone a few things First according to his loose and indistinct way of Writing he neither telleth us what these Doctrines are nor in what place of the Catechism they are to be found we must take his Word for all this and we utterly deny what he saith to be true All that that Catechism saith that could be imagined to have that tendency is That the visible Church hath the Priviledge of being under God's special Care and Government of being protected and preserved in all Ages notwithstanding the Opposition of Enemies and of enjoying the Communion of Saints the ordinary means of Salvation the offers of Grace by Christ to all the Members of it in the Ministry of the Gospel testifying that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved and excluding none that will come unto him Now it is evident that all this is said of the Universal Church not of any Particular Church far less can this passage be understood of a particular Church as established by the Laws of the State wherein it is No Scripture ever made such Laws essential to the Notion of a true Church from which none may separate Neither did ever any Divine talk at this rate except Episcopalians and among them I remember of none that so express themselves but this Man and Dr. Stillingfleet He doth indeed express three Cases that excuse from sin in separating from a true Church but how these can be drawn from the Larger Catechism I understand not § 2. How far we allow a Separation from the late Episcopal Church of Scotland and maintain it not to be sinful in us but sinfully caused by them I shall declare We affirm it to be no Schism but a necessary Duty that the Presbyterian Ministers did not own Episcopal Government nor either directly or indirectly countenance the Authority of Bishops above Presbyters He telleth us of a Letter for Union March 1689. wherein it is said and not answered that never any Confession of Faith in our Reformed Church avowed a Divine Right for a parity among all Church-Officers This Letter I never heard of before but it seemeth the Author of it and the Writer of this Pamphlet have Talents equal for Controversal Scribling For whoever said that there is a Divine Right for Parity among all Church Officers We know that by Divine Right Ruling Elders also Deacons are not equal in Church power with Preaching Presbyters And for the parity of Ministers if it be not found in any Confession of Faith it 's enough that it 's found in the Scriptures But we affirm that the Divine Right of it is also found in the Confession of Faith sworn to by the King and his Houshold and by the Nation wherein they abjure the Hierarchy or distinction of Degrees among Ministers He saith the Solemn League did not abjure the President Bishop Answ. We know no such Bishop the President or Moderator hath no Jurisdiction over his Brethren And he will not say that the Bishops restored 1662. to whom we could not yield subjection was no more but a President Bishop if he do all the Nation will cry shame on him and his own Tongue will condemn him Page 1 2. of his Book What some in England Petitioned for we are not concerned if he had told us what concessions the body or generality of Presbyterians in that Nation had made also let us know where we might find such Concessions an Answer might in that case have been expected from us But what he presumeth about the Repentance of Scots Presbyterians for not submitting to Episcopacy as established in Scotland is without ground and absolutely false § 3. What we further declare concerning the Separation that he speaketh of is that Presbyterians generally did not think it unlawful to hear these Ministers that had complyed with Episcopacy and often did occasionally hear them whatever was the practice of some among us yet the best of the Ministers in