Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
end_n lord_n receive_v supper_n 1,604 5 9.1492 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A26945 The judgment of Mr. Baxter concerning ceremonies and conformity with a short reflection upon a scandalous pamphlet intituled, A proposition for the safety and happiness of the king and kingdom : in a letter to a gentleman of the House of Commons. Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Gentleman of the House of Commons. 1667 (1667) Wing B1290; ESTC R5453 5,194 18

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

there is no Law there is no Transgression And yet I have heard very Reverend men answer this That it is enough that it is not commanded though not forbidden Which is plainly to deny both Scripture and Civil Principles Now for the Minor That a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden we need no other proof than that no Prohibition can be produced Argument 6. If it be lawful for the People to use a stinted Form of words in Publick Prayer then is it in it self lawful for the Pastors but it is lawful for the People for the Pastors prayer which they must pray over with him and not onely hear it is a stinted Form to them even as much as if he had learnt it out of a Book They are to follow him in his Method and Words as if it were a Book-Prayer Argument 7. It is lawful to use a Form in Preaching therefore a stinted Liturgy is lawful 1. Because Preaching is a part of that Liturgy 2. Because the reason is the same for Prayer as for that in the main Argument 8. That which hath been the practice of the Church in Scripture-times and down to this day and is yet the practice of almost all the Churches of Christ on earth is not like to be unlawful but such is the use of some stinted forms of Publick Service therefore c. That it was so in the Jews Church and approved by Christ I have shewed That it hath been of ancient use in the Church since Christ and is at this day in use in Africk Asia Europe even among the Reformed Churches in France Holland Geneva c. is so well known that I think I need not stand to prove it yea those few that seem to disuse it do yet use it in Psalms and other parts of Worship As for the Common-Prayer it self I never rejected it because it was a Form nor thought it simply unlawful because it was such a Form but have made use of it and would do again in the like case Of Ceremonies The Ceremonies controverted among us were especially The Surplice the Gesture of Kneeling in receiving the Lords Supper the Ring in Marriage Laying the hand on the Book in taking an Oath the Organs and Church-Musick Holy-dayes Altars Rails and the Cross in Baptism Of the Surplice Some decent Habit is necessary either the Magistrate or the Minister himself or the Associated Pastors must determine what I think neither Magistrate nor Synod should do any more than hinder Undecency But yet if they do more and tye all to One Habit and suppose it were an undecent Habit yet this is but an imprudent use of Power It is a thing within the Magistrates reach he doth not an aliene work but his own work amiss and therefore the thing in it self being lawful I would obey him and use that garment if I could not be dispensed with Yea though Secondarily the Whiteness be to signifie Purity and so it be made a teaching sign yet would I obey Of Kneeling at the Sacrament But yet as sinfully as this Gesture was imposed for my part I did obey the Imposers and would do if it were to do again rather than disturbe the Peace of the Church or be deprived of its Communion For God having made some Gesture necessary and confined me to none but left it to Humane Determination I shall submit to Magistrates in their proper work even when they miss it in the manner I am not sure that Christ intended the example of himself and his Apostles as obligatory to us that shall succeed I am sure it proves sitting lawful but I am not sure that it proves it necessary though very convenient But I am sure he hath commanded me Obedience and Peace Of the Ring in Marriage And for the Ring in Marriage I see no reason to scruple the lawfulness of it For though the Papists make a Sacrament of Marriage yet we have no reason to take it for any Ordinance of Divine Worship any more than the solemnizing of a Contract between a Prince and People All things are sanctified and pure to the pure Of Organs and Church Musick And for Organs or other Instruments of Musick in Gods Worship they being a Help partly Natural and partly Artificial to the exhilerating of the spirits for the praise of God I know no argument to prove them simply unlawful but what would prove a Cup of wine unlawful or the tune and meeter and melody of singing unlawful Of Holy-Dayes Nor for my part do I make any scruple to keep a Day in Remembrance of any Eminent Servant of Christ or Martyr to praise God for their Doctrine or Example and honour their Memorial But the hardest part of the Question is whether it be lawful to keep Days in celebrating the Memorial of Christs Nativity Circumcision Fasting Transfiguration Ascension and such like And yet for all this I am resolved if I live where such Holy-days as these are observed to censure no man for observing them nor would I deny them Liberty to follow their judgments if I had the power of their liberties provided they use not reproach and violence to others and seek not to deprive them of their Liberties Yea more I would not onely give men their Liberty in this but if I lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it I would observe the outward rest of such a Holi-day and I would preach on it and joyn with the Assemblies in Gods Worship on it Yea I would thus observe the Day rather than offend a weak Brother or hinder any mans salvation much more rather than I would make any division in the Church Of Altars and Rails And for the next Ceremony the Name and form of an Altar no doubt it is a thing indifferent whether the Table stand this way or that way and the Primitive Churches used commonly the names of Sacrifice and Altar and Priest and I think lawfully for my part I shall not be he that shall condemn them I conceive that the dislike of these things in England the form and name of an Altar and the Rails about it was not as if they were simply evil Whether we shall receive the Lords Supper at a Table or in our seats and whether the Table shall be of wood or stone whether it shall be round or long or square whether it shall stand in the East or west-West-end of the Temple or in the middle whether it shall have Rails or no Rails All these are left to Humane Prudence Of the Cross in Baptism But of all our Ceremonies there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawful than the Cross in Baptism Yet I dare not peremptorily say that it is unlawful nor will I condemn either Antients or Moderns that use it nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more than my own forbearance will make I presume not to censure them that judge it lawful but onely give the Reasons that make me doubt and rather think it to be unlawful though still with a suspicion of my own understanding Ambros contr Symmach Unus quis que patienter ferat si non extor que atur Imperatori quod moleste ferret si ei extor quere cuperet Imperator FINIS P. 18 19. P. 6. Disp. 4. P. 361. Disp 5. P. 400 P. 400. P. 401. Ibid. P. 423. P. 424. P. 396. P. 398. Disp 4. P. 358. P. 359. P. 361. P. 364. P. 421. P. 409. P. 409. P. 411. P. 411. P. 412 * In point of Lawfulness For Conveniency is according to several accidents P. 412 413. P. 416. P. 417. Ibid. Ibid. P. 401 402. P. 417. P. 418.