Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	book_n	church_n	doctrine_n	5,749	5	6.5670	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37428	An enquiry into the occasional conformity of dissenters in cases of preferment with a preface to the lord mayor, occasioned by his carrying the sword to a conventicle.	Defoe, Daniel, 1661?-1731.	1698 (1698)	Wing D835; ESTC R36086	13,515	16

Lawfulness of the Dissenters Separation it is not the business of this Discourse to define it and I am as careful as I can in making Reflections upon either but I am bold to affirm That no Dissenting Church can with lawful Cause Separate from the Church of England Establish Private Churches or Communions and at the same times allow the Members to Conform to the Establish't Church too This is incongruous and one must destroy the other From whence I think it becomes the Dissenters if they would maintain the Doctrine they teach if they would have us believe they Dissent purely on the honest Principles of Conscience and Purity of Worship with such a one No not to Eat And it is not sufficient that the Offender be a Lord Mayor or any Greater Person unless he would be Lord Mayor without a Breach of the Sacred Relation he had entred into he should be dealt with in that Case as the meanest Member of such a Society On the other hand if a Man be call'd upon to be a Magistrate and has Courage enough to follow the Impartial Dictates of his Conscience a Query lies before him What shall he do The Case is plain Either refuse the Honour or run the Risque the first indeed is the plainest and easiest Way and the Ground of it is good for he whose Conscience Dictates to him that the Terms are Sinful may refuse the Call for Preferments and Honours are a Bait that some have refus'd on meer Points of Speculative Philosophy and 't is hard Christianity shou'd not carry a Man as far Well but perhaps a Man has a mind to be a Sheriff and Lord Mayor and is a Dissenter or perhaps he really thinks 't is his indispensible Duty to serve his Country if he is call'd to that or the like Office or perhaps he thinks 't is a Duty he owes his Family to advance his Children and the like and he is a Profest Dissenter What shall he do Let him boldly run the Risque or openly and honestly Conform to the Church and neither be asham'd of his Honour nor of his Profession such a Man all Men will value and God will own He need not fear carrying the Sword to a Conventicle or bringing the Conventicle to his own House But to make the matter a Game to dodge Religions and go in the Morning to Church and in the Afternoon to the Meeting to Communicate in private with the Church of England to save a Penalty and then go back to the Dissenters and Communicate again there This is such a Retrograde Devotion that I can see no Colour of pretence for in all the Sacred Book I have heard indeed that some who are Ministers of Dissenting Churches do or did at the same time Communicate with the Church of England I do not dispute how far a Minister may Conform as a Lay-man tho' he cannot as a Clergy-man but how any Dissenting Minister can Conform as a Lay-man and at the same time execute a Pastoral Charge over a Congregation whom he teaches to separate from the Church in a Lay-Communion I cannot imagine 'T is not as I have already noted Conformity or Non-conformity that I am discoursing but 't is Conformity and Nonconformity at the same time in one and the same Person that is the Point and doing this for a Secular End to save a Penalty and Privately and then as being asham'd of it to go back and sit down as not having done it at all and a Church Society admitting this without taking notice of it These are the Contradictions insist upon and rather wish than expect to see rectified FINIS

Sinful Act. For if he is satisfied he does well in Conforming now why did he not before There is but one Answer for that which is He is otherwise convinced to which I reply if that were true he would then as a Convert continue in this New Communion but 't is evident the same Persons return immediately to the former Profession as Dissenters and they can have no such Excuse unless it be that they were convinc'd and reconvinc'd and then convinc'd again Some have the Folly to argue against the Law it self as a most Notorious Imposition upon the Consciences of Men by making the Sacred Institutions of Christ a Drudge to Secular Interest and a Cause of Mens Sins by leading them into Temptation I could say enough to vindicate that part tho I am no more reconcil'd to that Law than other Men but 't is remote to our Argument 'T is an Act of Parliament and what is so is of every Man 's own doing and therefore 't is just every one shou'd comply with the Terms or suffer the Penalty but here is no Penalty if no Crime if no Preferments are sought no Honours accepted there is no Crime if Self-denial was as practicable as Self-advancement here is no need of the Crime So that they who do this seek the Crime that is the first Sin then Mortgage their Consciences to avoid the Penalty and so add one Sin to another But we are told by some 't is not against their Consciences they hope both Parties are Good Christians there are Differences between them which they don't understand nor meddle with and their Consciences are very well satisfied to Communicate with either I would ask such if their Consciences would serve to Communicate with the Church why did they Separate For Communicating with the Dissenter is not an Occasional or Casual Thing but an open declar'd breaking off from the Church Establisht Now no Man can be said to separate from and join to a thing at the same time if your Conscience is satisfied in Joyning it cannot be satisfied in Separating unless you can suppose your Conscience to be satisfied and dissatisfied both together If you have a Conscience of any Religion at all it must be of some Religion or other if of this it cannot be of that if of that it cannot be of this To Dissent and Approve are different Acts and can never be fixt upon the same Object at the same time as for a Man Passively Religious that can Communicate any where that Man may from the same Principle and with far less guilt Communicate no where for such a Man in down-right English has prostituted the little Religion he had if ever he had any to his Interest and may be Turk Jew Papist or any thing The latter part of the Charge leads me to consider another Point which relates to the Assemblies of the Dissenters who admit and by consequence approve this way of proceeding I do not pretend to examine by what Methods such particular Churches do proceed And I would be as tender as possible in making Reflections I wish they would be as Charitable in censuring this Reproof I do think with Submission 't is impossible to prove that any Person whose Case the foregoing Paragraph reaches can be receiv'd again into Church-Communion in a Dissenting Assembly upon any other Terms than as a Penitent I have heard of some who have been said to have leave from their Ministers for this Matter if so they have assum'd some Dispensing Authority which I believe does not appertain to the Ministerial Function nor is not contain'd in the Mission of our Saviour But I do not affirm That any such thing has been really allow'd As to the Relation of Churches and the Members thereof one to another as the Dissenters now Establish them I am sure the allowance of any Member in a Promiscuous Communion with the Church of England and the Dissenter at the same time is not pretended to be allow'd nor is it consistent with it self 'T is Preposterous and Excentrick and is Destructive of the very Foundation of the Dissenters Principles as is already noted concerning Schisms in the Church In this Case Charity can heal nothing nor help nothing 't is of absolute necessity that one Man be but of one side at one and the same time Either the Conformist will marr the Dissenter or the Dissenter will marr the Conformist For if I shall be admitted into the Communion of the Dissenter and of the Church together then the Dissenter must have some other Reason for being a Dissenter than Purity of Worship Methinks Men should seem what they are if a Man Dissent from the Church let him do so and his Principle being well-grounded for such Dissent let him hold it if not well-grounded let him leave it if he cannot suffer one way let him suffer another and why should we not be as honest to God as our Country The Motives to serve our Country are strong but there are ways to do it without such a Violation of all our Principles and Profession if not trust God's Providence with the Issue who never wants Agents to preserve and deliver his People when his time is at hand and you can have small hope to expect that the Office and Trust you shall Execute shall receive any Assistance from his Providence when the first Step into it is made by offering the greatest Affront to his Honour and committing the vilest Act of Perfidy in the World But if the gay Prospect of a Great Place tempt any Person beyond the Power that God's Grace is pleas'd to Assist him with in that way let him abide and not be re-admitted because of his Gold Ring and Fine Apparel without a Penitent Acknowledgment The Dissenters in England can never pretend to be Dissenters upon the mere Principle of Purity of Worship as I have related in the beginning of this Discourse if such shall be receiv'd as blameless into their Communion who have deserted them upon the occasion of Preferment and have made the Sacred Institutions of Christ Jesus become Pimps to their Secular Interest and then wipe their Mouths and sit down in the Church and say They have done no Evil. 'T is also an Intolerable Affront to the Church of England reflecting upon its Doctrine as well as Practice To make use of the Church for a Cover to sence them against the Laws at the same time continuing to disown its Communion as a thing not fit to be continued in And yet the Church of England is in the right to receive such of the Dissenters as shall come to them without the Ceremony of Recognition because it is agreeable to the Notion of a National Church which they profess to be But Dissenters are bound to justify their Separation from them or else their whole Constitution falls to the Ground Now how a Separation and a Conformity are Consistent is to me an Inexplicable Riddle I question not here the