Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	according_a	church_n	doctrine_n	4,717	5	6.8021	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26943	Mr. Baxter's judgment and reasons against communicating with the parish-assemblies, as by law required, impartially stated and proposed	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1684 (1684)	Wing B1289; ESTC R14325	19,788	40

especially in these two Considerations First Because the abuse of Love-Feasts viz. Superstuity was never so great and scandalous in the Apostles time as the abuse of Kneeling viz. Idolatry was and is in the Synagogue of Rome And besides Love-Feasts were either before or after the Lords Supper whereas Kneeling is in the principal part of the Holy Communion Therefore if the Apostle banished Love-Feasts from the Lords Supper because of the Abuse and brought the Church to the Simplicity of the first Institution is it not a tempting Sin to retain the Idolatrous Kneeling of Papists and reject the exemplary Sitting of our Master Christ And the rather because it is in that Sacrament and in that part of the Sacrament which especially setteth forth our communion with Christ and his Church and is therefore called the Communion Doth not God strictly forbid us to serve him as Idolaters do their Godds The which considered can Kneeling wherewith Papists honour their Breaden God be honourable to Christ in his holy Sacrament For such Reasons many are convinced that Kneeling at the receiving the Communion is Unlawful and seeing without Kneeling they cannot have Communion with the Church of England they cannot locally communicate with her but yet highly honour her for the soundness of her Doctrine and do mentally hold Catholick Communion with her so far as she agrees with the Catholick Church but Necessity makes them to with-hold local Communion from them To make this yet more clear the Reader must Observe that the Argument Mr. Baxter doth furnish them with runs thus It is not lawful to communicate with those that impose Sinful Terms of Communion This Mr. Baxter affirms But the Church of England imposeth many things as Terms of Communion with them which they think are sinful Ergo They must not communicate with them Now in the Minor Mr. Baxter and they differ he thinks the things they scruple for instance Kneeling are Lawful but yet proposes strong Arguments against the Lawfulness of Kneeling which Arguments though not Convincing unto him yet are so unto them And therefore whatever is his Liberty it is their Duty to with-hold their Communion from the Church of England still honouring her for the soundness of her Doctrine c. § 11. Mr. Baxter in his Schism detected p. 40. affirms That he who is unjustly cast out of the Church and by its very Laws Excommunicated ipso facto is no damned nor sinful Schismatick for Worshipping God in a Church that will receive him But according to the Judgment of Mr. Baxter Protestant Dissenters are unjustly cast out of the Church of England and by its very Laws ipso facto Excommunicated Ergo they are not Sinful Schismaticks When Mr. Baxter speaks of going to another Church Mr. Baxter must be understood to mean a with-holding Communion from the Excommunicating Church and commuicating with another whose Laws do not ipso facto Excommunicate The which being so the Argument against Mr. Baxter is valid for the acquitting their Seperation from the Guilt of Sin § 12. There is another Argument which Mr. Baxter in Conjunction with Dr. Sherlock gives us and which will acquit the Lay-Dissenter from Sin 〈…〉 no Sin but a Duty to with-hold Communion from a Schismatical Church This Dr. Sherlock doth over and over assert But the Church of England is a Schismatical Church saith Mr. Baxter It is a Schismatical Church it is guilty of haneous and aggravated Schisme Mr. Baxter in his first Plea p. 41. saith § 14. If any Proud or Passionate or Erronoous Person do as Diotrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications it is TYRANNICAL SCHISME what better Name soever cloaks it If any should make sinful Terms of Communion by Laws or Mandates imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin this wore HANEOUS SCHISME And the further those Laws extend and the more Ministers or People are cast out by them the greater is the Schisme § 15. If any should not only Excommunicate such Persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more haneously aggravated Schism § 16. All those would be deeply guilty of such Schism who by Talk Writing or Preaching justifie it and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Then look to your self good Mr. Baxter reflect on your Talk and Writing and clear your self from the guilt of Reproaching the Innocent as Schismaticks if you can But I 'll proceed § 17. If any should corrupt such a Church or its Doctrine Worship or Discipline in the very Essentials by setting up forbidden Officers and Worship or casting out the Officers Worship or Discipline instituted by Christ and then prosecute others for not communicating with them would be yet the more Haneous Schisme § 18. If either of the last named sorts would not be contented with mens communion with them but would also silence and prosecute such as will not own justifie and consent to all that they do by Subscriptions Declarations Covenants Promises or Oaths this would be yet more aggravated Schism So far Mr. Baxter Now let any impartial Reader compare what is here said with what else-where Mr. Baxter accuses the Church of England of and he 'll find all this to be but his Description of the Church of England which according to the general import of his Writings must be looked on as guilty of Haneous Aggravated and Tyrannical Schism that is to be deeply Schismatical and therefore according to Dr. Sherlock not to be communicated with But I 'll draw to a close beseeching the Reader to consider well what Mr. Baxters judgment is about communicating with the Parish-Assemblies by Law established how much he is against it and what are some of his Reasons and he will find I. That Mr. Baxter is as much against communicating with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required as his Brethren are The Parish-Assemblies by Law established are Diocesane and with them as such Mr. Baxter communicates not But first fancies the Parish Assembly to be a Congregational Church and the Parish Minister to be an Independant Pastor exempt from the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Diocesane Bishop and then holds communion with it as such that is he either communicates with it as if it were what indeed it is not or if it be really such a Church as he fancies it to be his communion with it is only as 't is a Church separated from the National settled Order For the Parish Assembly as a part of the National settled Order is no Church it has no Pastor c. II. That Baxter's communion is no more Catholick than theirs though he talks more of the Name he has no more of the thing than they have Doth he hold Catholick Communion mentally with the Universal Church so do they Do they with-hold mental communion from Parish-Assemblies as by Law established i. e. as they are parts of the Diocesane ●nstitution So doth Mr. Baxter Are the Con●●●●●…tions to which their local Communion is confined of a Constitution different from and independent on the Diocesane So is the Parish Church with which Mr. Baxter communicates if it be really what he fancieth it to be so that his Local Communion is as much confined to Dissenting Assemblies as theirs is This is on a Supposition that Mr. Baxters Imaginations were operative ad extra and would make a real change on the Constitution But if the Parish Assembly continues de facto as established then I must say III. That Mr. Baxter holds both those Premises from which a conclusion justifying their separation doth naturally follow The Premises are these It is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Corruptions that are in the Parish Assemblies But the very Constitution of the Parish Assemblies and Ministry by Law established are Corruptions These are Mr. Baxter's Premises And let the World judge whether this Conclusion namely That it is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Parish Assemblies and Ministry as by Law established doth not naturally flow from them justifying a with-holding Communion from the Parish Assemblies In fine it must be observed that if the Parish Assemblies be really de facto but parts of the Diocesane Church and no compleat Churches Mr. Baxter must justifie the Separation and that he doth so I will give you his own words as I find 'em in his Schism detected p. 28. Either our Parish Churches saith he are true Churches or not if not the Separatists are so far in the Right and separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them so far Mr. Baxter who if the Parish Assemblies be but parts of the Diocesane Constitution and not true compleat particular Churches justifies the separation from 'em And who knows not that the Parish Assemblies as by Law established are but parts of the Diocesane FINIS

Churches unhapily of late reject all that own not the Antiquity of the Hebrew points I cannot have local Communion with that Church saith he for they will not receive me unless I subscribe either a falsehood or that which I judge false but yet I highly honour and Love 'em and have mental Catholick Communion with them when perhaps necessity makes me joyn with a Church of far worse Men and Order that will impose no sin on me Mr. Baxter's Schism Detected pag. 56. In pursuance of this principle Mr. Baxter layes down his Brethren separate from the Church of England for there are several things which they Judge unsound that are made necessary to their Communion with them By Cannon 27. No Minister when he celebrateth the Communion shall wittingly Administer the same to any but such as Kneel under pain of Suspension nor under the like pain to any that refuse to be present at publick Prayers according to the Orders of the Church of England that 't is according to the 18 th Canon The Communion must not be administered to him that will cover his Head in the Church or Chappel in time of Divine Service or that doth not Reverently Kneel when the general Confession Lettany and other Prayers are read and shall not stand up at the saying of the Belief or refuse to make due and lowly Reverence when the Name of the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned in time of Divine Service or refuse to say in due place and audibly with the Minister the Confession the Lords Prayer and the Creed or not make such other Answers to the publick Prayers as are appointed in the Book of Common-prayer Whoever refuseth these things he is one who though present at the publick Prayers yet not according to the Orders of the Church is not to be admitted to the Communion that is all those things are made necessary to the Communion And here it must be observed that though the admitting notorious Offenders to the Comunion be forbiden by the 26 th Canon yet not under the penalty of Suspension as it is in this case of admitting those who refuse to Kneel or to be present at the publick Prayers according to the Orders of the Church of England But these things several Dissenters for great Reasons refuse to do I 'll at this time only insist on the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Sacrament and give the Reasons of some Learned Men against it 1st Let us hear Mr. Baxter in his five Disput p. 410 411. As for Kneeling at the Sacrament I doubt not at all but the Imposing it and that on such Rigorous Terms tying all to it and easting all out of the Communion of the Church or from the participation of the Sacrament that durst not use it was a very grevious Sin and tended to Persecution and Injustice and Church dividing It is certainly in a doubtful case the safest way to do as Christ and his Apostles and the Vniversal Church did for many hundred Years either the Gesture is Indifferent in it self or not If it be how dare they thus divide the Church by it and cast out Christians that scruple it when they have these and many other Reasons of their Scruples which for brevities sake I omit If they say That Kneeling is of it self Necessary and not Indifferent because it is Reverent Now if the Reader considers the Rubrick added in the New Common-Prayer-Book he will find that Kneeling is enjoyn'd for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein received and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue Thus we see the Gesture of Kneeling is made a Reverent Gesture necessary to avoid Disorder and Prophanation But sayes Mr. Baxter if Kneeling is of it self necessary and not indifferent because it is Reverent Then 1 st They make Christ an imperfect Law-giver 2 dly They make himself or his Apostles or both to have been Sinners 3 dly They condemn the Catholick Church of Sin 4 thly They condemn the Canons of the chief General Councils All which are Consequents that I suppose they will disown What a perverse preposterous Reverence is this when they have leave to lie in the Dust before and after the very Act of Receiving through all their Confessions and Prayers yet they will at other times stand and many of them sit at Prayer and sit at singing Psalms of Prayer and Praise to God and yet when Christ doth invite them to a Feast they dare not imitate his Apostles and Universal Church in their Gesture lest they should be sinfully Irreverent So sar Mr. Baxter Now though Mr. Baxter is accurate in distinguishing and as to the part of the Receiver may yet see how to answer all these Arguments and satisfie himself in kneeling yet he cannot but believe that Godly and Judicious men may be so far under the powerful Convictions of such Arguments against the Imposition as to be unable to satisfie their Consciences in complying with the Gesture of Kneeling Surely Mr. Baxter tells the World so much in his first Nonconformists plea for Peace p. 150 151 152. Some Nonconformists saith he Lay and Clergy judge Kneeling as things now stand Vnlawful Their Reasons are 1. In Doubtful cases Duty lieth on the surest side but this to them is a doubtful case on one side and to imitate Christ's Institution by such sitting as men use to do at Meat is certainly lawful 2. Because they think Kneeling violateth the Reasons of the second Commandment being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us and many among us it signifieth Bread-Worship or Idolatry by the same Action at the same Season used For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images as being external corporal Idolatry and symbolizing scandalously with Idolaters though the Mind intend the Worship of God alone And such they think this Kneeling is and that encourageth the Papists So far Mr. Baxter 2. I 'll only add one Argument more which I find in a Proposition concerning Kneeling joyned to Bradshaw's Twelve Arguments which is taken from the Abuse of Kneeling in this Ordinance by the Papists 'T is there said That the Apostle to Reform an Abuse which crept even in their Times into Love-Feasts which were immediately before or after the Lords Supper did banish them thence and reduced the manner of Admistring the Lords Supper to the first Institution saying Shall I praise you in this I praise you not for I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you c. 1 Cor. 11. vers 22 23. Whereby it is apparent That that form of Administration which differeth from the first Institution is worthy no Praise and therefore no acceptable Service to God For if the Apostle would not tolerate an Indifferent thing as was a Love-Feast till then to continue so near the Lords Supper when it was abused how would they allow the change of Sitting into Kneeling