Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	according_a	church_n	word_n	982	5	3.8217	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58653	Jerubbaal justified: or, A plain rebuke of the high (pretended humble) remonstrance and plea against Mr. Crofton his reformation not separation or, a plea for communion with the church under those corruptions, and by that disorderly ministration, to which he cannot conform, nor by it administer. Demonstrating, T.P. (alias D.) his grosse mistakes of Mr. Crofton his principle and argument: as also the fallacie and vanity of his pleaded necessity for his (confessed) separation from publique assemblies, which is found insufficient to acquit him of schisme. To which is added a position, disputing the lawfulnesse of ministers receiving an imposed liturgy.	R. S.; Crofton, Zachary, 1625 or 6-1672. Reformation not separation.	1663 (1663)	Wing S130	35,735	54

like part built on his own Judgement of the expediency of it it is reason he enjoy Page 15. his fancy in his own fabrick he abruptly assaults Mr. Crofton on the most gross and manifest mistake of the man the natur of his Book and the form and force of his Argument which could possibly befall and misguide any Antagonist whatsoever Sir This Gentleman mistaketh Mr. Crofton and the generall nature of his book he accounteth and that with more then ordinary heat and confidence Mr. Crofton the Mecaenas and Advocate of the Liturgy and Common prayer book and an accuser of the bretheren he apprehendeth Mr. Crofton's Reformation Pa. 14. 30. not separation to be a Plea for the Liturgy and an Indictment or accusation of the Saints cujus contrarium verum est how just sober or warrantable those his apprehensions are let all impartiall unprejudiced men judge Mr. Crofton an Advocate for the English Liturgy who can have the face to say it How will that appear hath he not preached and written against it did he ever retract doth he conform to it or consent to read it was not his known opposition to it apprehended to be the cause of his vexations and bonds he met with in Staffordshire in his late Travells can envy it self oppose Mr. Crofton to Mr. Crofton his enemies being Judges never was any man more square and stable to himsell then is Mr. Crofton these things do indeed give cause to call him Jerubbaal and make it suspicious he is the Gideon who threw down the Altar if the Liturgy must be so accounted of Baall on what ground could this pretender to reason and religion cry Mr. Crofton is the Mecaenas and Advocate for the Liturgy hath not Mr. Crofton's Contests actings and sufferings manifested him a Monument of Gods Grace and Truth and Sectarian rage and falsehood will men needs reproach him with that which none hath as he resisted Oh Sir Mr. Crofton hath pleaded for Communion in the Liturgy It is false sir he hath pleaded no such thing his Plea is for Communion with Gods Church in Gods Ordinances and worship though Administred by the Liturgy and that onely in case of necessity when we cannot otherwise enjoy solemn publique worship it is one thing to commnnicate in the Liturgie simply and abstractedly considered this supposeth an assent unto it and a personall acting in and by it as a Liturgy for this Mr. Crofton hath never yet spoken one word It is another thing to communicate in and Religiously attend Gods Worship Administred by the Liturgy in which the Liturgy is no more but the vehiculum instrument of conveyance and humane Ministration the formality of Mr. Crofton's Plea is this the Liturgie is a rude and disorderly Ministration an evil which ought to be abolished by which he cannot Administer but it is not an evil of that nature to visiate the Subject nullify and destroy Gods worship and so warrant the peoples withdrawing from that because of this Vulgus non distinguit that the over zealous vulgar should account this a Plea for Communion in the Liturgy is no wonder whilst a man of learning doth it with all confidence is a withstanding of an inserence which the premisses will not allow a justification of the premisses as true and good cannot a man plead men must in case of need drink water in unclean vessels or affirm Citizens must not loose all for want of asking by the rude dialect of their Recorder but he must be concluded the Mecaenas of Barbarisime and nonsence and Advocate for the Queen of Sluts may not Mr. Crofton deny such disorder to be a sufficient ground for Secession from Gods worship but he must needs be the defender of that disorder According to this sober Logick is Mr. Crofton tauntingly represented the accuser of the brethren and his Book branded as an Indictment against the Saints what cause is there for this high charge whom when where and whereof hath Mr. Crofton accused This Author calls him his accuser he shall do well to put him to shame by telling the world whereof Mr. Crofton accused him Mr. Crofton doth in his book suggest groundlesse unwarantable Secossion Page 29. from voluntary non-communion in Gods worship is a private or negative Separation the first act towards a positive and totall Sepeparation but is this to accuse the bretheren cannot a Minister suggest the sinful nature of an act but he must be arraigned as an Accuser of the bretheren oh Charity oh Sobriety Sir Who readeth Mr. Croftons book and seeth not that it is so far from an Indictment or Accusation of others that it is a sober serious and necessary Apology for himself and his own practice most groundlesly unchristianly and incharitably accused by others and those some of the bretheren who never administred or attempted to reprove the things whereof they did accuse him in his whole Conflicts for Reformation he had protested he could communicate in Gods worship under that order by which he could not adminester comming to practice his principles what Calumnies what Censures did accuse him of defection and Apostacy and constrain these Letters by way of Apology for himself And this thus extorted by false accusations is most falsely accused to be an accusation of the brethren Oh! Charity Oh Sobriety Sir We cannot expect he should rightly take up Mr. Crofton's Argument who hath so grossely mistaken himself and the generall nature of his work let me observe to you his mistake in the very form and so in the force of what he is pleased humbly to tearm Mr. Croftons Doome Argument Page 15. Having passed his many needless distinctions he professeth himself a negative and partiall Sepatist he is best see to his Warrant least being loosed from the Harbour he be driven he knows not whither I am glad he disavoweth Positive Separation gathering a select Company into a Corner some who shreudly guess who this Author is think they durst presume to charge him as peccant in this respect but sure I am Mr. Crofton and other good men are no little grieved to observe some Presbyters not only absent from publique assemblies but also celebrate the Lords day by preaching and Ministration of the Lords supper to a select Company in private as if they were designed to verefie that Independant Calumny Presbiterated Churches are gathered Churches His Separation stated this Antagonist assaults Mr. Crofton's Considerations that he might fence with better successe he forceth the chief of them into this syllogisme according to his own fancy not Mr. Croftons Argument Communion with the Church visible in all acts of solemn Publique worship is an essential part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day and indispensable Duty of every particular Pa. 15. 16. Christian to be onely superseded by an inevitable necessity c. This is indeed Mr. Crofton's proposition on which this man doth assume as that which he saith must be the assumption and accordingly

stateth the Conclusion But Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer called Divine Service is Communion with the Church visible in solemn publique Worship ERGO Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an essentiall part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day and indispensable duty c. Sir this Argument thus framed is a monstrous Argnment especially to come from Mr. Crofton they that ever heard him preach read his writings know his person principles or practice can believe him such a Mecaenas and Advocate for the English Liturgy and Common-Prayer-Book as to assent and conclude Communion in it to be an Essential part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath So as that the Sabbath or Lords day cannot be sanctified where the Service-book is not attended assented to and acted in But Sir What ground or reason in Mr. Crofton's Plea hath this Antagonist which necessitateth this Assumption and Conclusion as that which he tells us mnst be Mr. Crofton's Book is an Epistle to a Friend his Argument is not therefore logically formed but very legible in the Connexion and scope of his discourse but this Author doth not in his book or Margin cite or refer his Reader to one single sentence or word on which he bottometh this assumption and conclusion as that which must be he indeed hath Page 22. confidence enough to affirm Mr. Crofton saith the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an act of solemn publique worship but doth not tell us where he saith it and I am sure I have read all that he hath written and I never found that he said it I must say Sir they say so of this humble Remonstrator though spoken with so high considence is not a sufficient ground for credit the rather because the question Mr. Crofton did discusse and was to bring into conclusion was not whether Communion in the Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book was an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabboth Truly sir Mr. Crofton hath disputed fairly if onely this Antagonist can find his sillogysme conclude what never came into his question his logick hath lately failed him very much Sir sure I am whosoever shall read and regard the scope of what Mr. Crofton hath written on this Argument shall find another assumption and conclusion then what the zeal and prejudice of this Remonstrator hath assumed and concluded the true state and form of Mr. Crofton's Sillogisme is manifest to be this Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publique worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty But Communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated is Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publique worship ERGO Communion with the English Church having no opportunity with any other in the worship of her Celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty This Argument Sir is far from assuming and concluding the Communion in the Liturgy is an essentiall part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty and that the worship celebrated in the English Church must be the Subject predicated in the assumption of Mr. Crofton's Argument is manifest to every one who observeth these passages in his amplifying the consideration which containeth this Argument 1 Communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated notwithstanding the defects and disorders in Ministration thereof was the question Mr. Crofton did dispute and must bring into his conclusion 2. He saith to his friend you yet enjoy a liberty of worshiping God in due and right order and may drink the waters of the sanctuary in clean vessels i. e. VVithout the Liturgy its Rites and order it is manifest this he intended long may you enjoy Reformation not Seperation it and if God take pleasure in me he will in due time restore me to it Sr. is it likely Mr. Crofton would assume and conclude the Liturgy is that solemn publick worship which is an essential Pag 6. part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty whilst he professeth he had sanctified the Sabbath and worshipped God without it and hoped for a restored liberty so to do again as a token of divine favour to him he acknowledgeth it to be his friends priviledge prayeth the continuance feareth the loss of it that he did enjoy a liberty to worship God in due and right order without the Liturgy he complaineth of of it as his affliction that he had no choice but was under a necessity of attending Gods worship in this order Ministred or he must enjoy no solemn publick worship of God Sr. all men must confess those things will not square with an argument that shall conclude Communion in the Liturgy is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath c. but they are exactly square with an Argument for Communion with the Church in Gods woship there celebrated though Ministred with rudness and disorder 3. Mr. Crofton as a conscientious Christian and serious Casuist having concluded Communion in Gods worship was his indispensable duty in the general enquireth what specialty might become a moral bar and warrantable supersedeas to the Reformation not Separation same hereupon he considereth what is pleaded by the Separatists who abound among us and among other things the Liturgie by which Gods worship was ministred in and to the Church admitting the defects disorders and corruption Pag. 25. charged on the same he concludeth they are great and evil but not an evil of that nature and quality as to constitute a sufficient bar to Communion in Gods worship ministred by the same Sr. it is manifest the worship concluded by Mr. Croftons argument and the scope of his whole discourse on this consideration is distinct from though ministred by the Liturgie and that this is considered as a moral bar or warrantable supersedeas to that but is found insufficient Sr. our Antagonist having thus mistaken and misformed Mr. Croftons argument must needs be concluded to fight with the fancies of his own prejudice and so I might dismiss him but Sr. I seek verity not victory and would if possible he may see his mistake more plainly upon the whole case of this Controvercy in wich Mr. Croftons conflict is the more uncomfortable because single and failed by those whose place and duty oblige them to his succour but the Conquest is most certain to him fighting for the truth against all extreams for vincit veritas I would therefore direct a word to this Remonstrator and tell him in his ear if instead of those many needless and some groundless distinctions he hath multiplied he had well weighed and closely pursued the Criticismes in this case stated by Mr. Crofton he had saved this labour or written with better success and more satisfaction to his Reader if he will not be offended I will note unto him

exercise being superseded and he resolved into the state and capacity of a private member of the Church considereth 1. This ministerial mode is evil but not such an evil as vitiateth the subject Gods worship doth truly formally salvably though not comfortably or so prositably as by another exist in and to the Church by it and I cannot have Gods Ordinances in communion with Gods Church without it 2. In this ministerial mode the members of the Church are purely passive they according to their duty assemble to worship God the Minister charged with the bumane mode doth assume a Minister by this the which the members of the Church do not advise or choose nor any way act in but composedly attend the worship of God hereby ministred unto them and exhibited for their Amen so that the sin is personal not publique and common no way derived to me unlesse by my neglect to mourn for this as any other sin in another 3. Though this mode of worship do direct some acts to be done by the people yet I am Master and Judg of my own action and can with-hold and refuse it so that in the whole ministration I act not but in my Amen to the prayer thus modified and my attention to the worship thus ministred and the sinful mode is by and to the Minister and him alone Sir Let not any infer that on these grounds we may attend a Masse and be innocent For Sir the corruptions in a Masse are such as vitiate the Subject and destroy the worship of God 1. It is celebrated in an unknown tongue and so doth not exhibit any worship it is to the people vox preterea nihil it is a frivolus objection I understand Latine when the Church who understandeth it not is the subject of the worship to be done to God the Question is of publique communion not my private and personal adoration 2. The Masse doth pray to the Saints a wrong object in the name of the Saints a wrong ground for some unlawful things wrong matter of prayer Gods worship is not herein existent but destroyed 3. The Masse maketh the Sacraments Sacrifices for the quick and dead transubstantiateth the Elements and so changeth the nature of the Ordinance in the very nature and esse thereof We are Sir at last arrived at the last quarrel our Remonstrator picketh at Mr. Croftons Plea in which he is exactly square to his mistaken self Mr. Crofton saith I am not without the caution and conduct of sober godly learned promoters and pursuers of a perfect and compleat Reformation To this the Remonstrator saith It is strange Mr. Crofton Page 54. should argue from communion amongst distinct Churches against the non-communion of present members of one and the same Church since that is a communion not by participitati●● and joint fellowship How Sir not by participitation and joint fellowship that is strange though not by constant participitation personal by their individual members yet by joint fellowship in the same substantial worship and occasional perticipation reciprocally each with other by their particular members cast into this or that Country Sir can other Reformed Churches hold communion with England if her worship be no worship of God will-worship Scripture-bitten will-worship Moreover Mr. Crofton observed Reformation not Separation the Reformed Churches disowned not on occasion declined not never advised their travelling members to decline communion with England her Liturgy notwithstanding they sure concluded Page 43. Gods worship was therby ministred Again this Remonstrator telleth us Mr. Croftons instance in the primitive Non-conformists is wide of that of the modern it is true and Mr. Crofton tells us in his Plea He was sensible of it they administred by this ministerial mode which Mr. Crofton saith He can better excuse than justifie yet the distance is not Page 44. so great as this mans wild fancie doth dream they were under the same corruptions for kind which are returned upon us yet Hildersham Ball Nichols Hind and others maintained the duty of communion in Gods worship under in and by them against Brown Barrow and other Rigid Separatists who urged this mans grand Argument it was not Gods worship and it was will-worship I know our Remonstrator disowns relation to these men and their Sects yet sheltereth himself under their shield and fighteth with no weapon but what was forged on their Anvil and in their Shop only he addeth ours is an estate of relapse that is indeed true and aggravateth our sin but altereth not the nature and quale of the corruptions if these corruptions returned do vitiate the subject and destroy Gods worship they did so when first inovated or continued in the first Reformation for as I have before urged it is only the quality not the degree of the evil must vitiate Gods worship to make it poyson express poyson Sir I have done with this Remonstrator when I have told him Mr. Crofton is a Peter who can receive the rebukes of a brother Paul but the rebukes of a Zeal mistaking matter of fact doth only retort on the Censurer with a what doth your arguing reprove I am Sir Your Obliged Friend R. S. Febr. 13. 1662. POSTSCRIPT Worthy Sir YOu cannot but have heard that Mr. Crofton in his late travels had a Paper taken out of his pocket it was a rough Draught of his high-way thoughts which he committed to paper to communicate to a now Conformist a good friend of his himself had not another Copy for whilst it was in his hand it was never transcribed by himself or any other I having with some difficulty procured a Copy thereof from one relating to the Gentleman who took it from Mr. Crofton have presumed to send it you that if you think good you may make it publique and thereby capacitate our conforming Clergy to resolve if they can one of the great Scruples which barreth Mr. Croftons Conformity and Ministration by a Liturgy however the world will see what a Mecaenas and Advocate he is for Liturgies This Paper being since his Plea for Communion Vale. FINIS