Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	day_n	lord_n	sabbath_n	2,255	5	9.8890	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49123	Mr. Hales's treatise of schism examined and censured by Thomas Long ... ; to which are added, Mr. Baxter's arguments for conformity, wherein the most material passages of the treatise of schism are answered.	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. Mr. Baxter's arguments for conformity against separation.	1678 (1678)	Wing L2974; ESTC R10056	119,450	354

the Scruples and suspicions of private Christians concerning the lawfulness of Actions required by their Superiors cannot warrant their separation Because their obedience to Superiors in things not unlawful is their duty and to omit a certain duty upon a bare suspicion is dangerous and sinful And for a full answer to this error I desire it may be considered what a scrupulous Conscience is which I take to be such an act of the practical understanding as resolves what is or what is not to be done but with some fear and anxiety lest its determination be amiss And it differs from a doubting Conscience which assents to neither part of the question but remains unresolved as doubting of the true sense of the rule in which case it is resolved that in all things doubtful we are to take the safest course And doubtless that wherein the generality of wise and good Men as well Ancient as Modern are agreed is much more safe than that in which a few less knowing prejudicated and guilty persons pretend to be doubtful But where there are only groundless fears and scruples concerning some circumstance annexed to a known duty it is the sense even of our Non-conformists That if we cannot upon serious endeavours get rid of our Scruples we ought to act against them And this is so lawful and necessary that we cannot otherwise have either grace or peace See more to this purpose in a Sermon at Cripplegate on Acts 24. 26. p. 18 19. And if scruple and suspicion were a just plea for Separation then every discontented Person that is resolved to contemn his Superiours every one that is affectedly ignorant and lazy or refractory to better information every one that hath melancholy humours and temptations or wants true Christian Humility or Charity may make separation and yet be guiltless So that this Opinion of our Author's would be an Apology for all Separatists which being allowed there neither was nor can be any such sin as Schism For I suppose it is sufficiently known that neither the Doctrine or Worship of any Church is so well constituted but some unquiet spirits have raised scruples and suspicions concerning them And unless the Church have power to command things lawful and no way repugnant to the Word of God though some giddy Persons may scruple at them it is impossible that it should preserve it self from confusion The Apostles I am sure did practise this in the Synod at Hierusalem Acts 15. And St. Paul silenceth the objections of contentious and scrupulous Persons with the Custome of the Churches of God 1 Corinth 11. 16. Every Congregation that pretends to have the face of a Church requires the obedience of its Members to all Orders for publick Worship as well as their consent to their Articles of Faith and without this it could not subsist I shall conclude this with Mr. Baxter's advice in his Dispute of Ceremonies Ch. 15. S. 3. That the Duty of obeying being certain and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being uncertain and only Suspected we must go on the surer side And the Author of the Sermon on Acts 24. 16. gives a good reason for it saying If a Christian should forbear praying or receiving the Sacrament every time his scrupulous conscience tells him he had better wholly omit the duty than perform it in such a manner he would soon find to his sorrow the mischief of his scruples And he adviseth In all known necessary duties always do what you can when you cannot do what you would Our Author p. 202. falls on an Ancient controversie concerning the observation of Easter of which he gives us this imperfect account That it being upon error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept and upon worse than Error if I may so speak for it was no less than a point of Judaism forced upon the Church thought further necessary that the ground for the keeping the time of that Feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews there arose a stout question whether we ought to Celebrate with the Jews on the 14th of the Moon or the Sunday following This matter though most unnecessary most vain yet caused as great a combustion as ever was in the Church the West separating from and refusing Communion with the East for many years together An impartial relation of the ground of this controversie as it lies in Church History will sufficiently discover how odiously it is represented First then whereas he says it was upon error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept I answer if it were an error the Church had it from the Apostles themselves for although the contending parties differed among themselves in the day yet both agreed on the necessity of observing Easter in Commemoration of our Saviour's Resurrection And the Controversie concerning the day puts it out of controversie that there ought to be a day observed Some learned men have thought the setting a-part of an Easter day to be grounded on 1 Cor. 5. 8. where S. Paul speaking of the Christian Passover says Let us keep the Feast and Grotius observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to abstain from all work for the offering up of holy things to God If the observation of any day be necessary unto Christians this of Easter is because it is the Mother and ground of our weekly Sabbath and is supposed to be the same which S. John calls the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. But we need not seek express authority from Scripture to make it necessary the practice of the Apostles testified by such early and authentick witnesses and the continued celebration of it in all the Churches of God do evince that it was not taken up on an Error no more than the observation of the Weekly Sabbath Mr. Hales says enough to resolve this objection in his Golden Remains set forth by Mr. Garthwait 1673. p. 260. on the question how we may know the Scriptures to be the word of God When saith he we appeal to the Churches testimony we content not our selves with any part of the Church actually existent but add unto it the perpetually successive testimony of the Church in all Ages since the Apostles times viz. since its first beginning and out of both these draw an argument in this question of that force as that from it not the subtilest Disputer can find an escape For who is it that can think to find acceptance and credit with reasonable men by opposing not only the present Church conversing in earth but the uniform consent of the Church in all ages So that the Church in all Ages agreeing that an Easter must be kept it was not taken up upon Error Nor secondly was it upon worse than error i. e. as our Author affirms a point of Judaism grounded on the Law of Moses to the Jews that the observation thereof was by some Churches solemnized

on the 14th day of the Moon For the Eastern Churches alledging the practice of S. John and Philip for the 14th day had a better ground for it than a Jewish custom namely that of Christian Charity and Baronius notes it as worthy of our observation that the Apostles had anciently appointed that though Easter were observed on the Lords day by the generality of Christians yet they should gently tolerate the Judaizing Converts which were of the circumcision and were in great numbers in the Eastern parts See Baronius's Annals ad Ann. 167. p. 168. Now the Western Churches pleaded for their practice which was the observation of the Sunday following the Authority of S. Peter and S. Paul who had fully convinced the Gentile converts that all Jewish rites were to be laid aside as having had their full completion in Christ but yet as in other like cases they were instructed to bear with the Jews as for some time they did for the first time that this controversie was agitated was between Anicetus Bishop of Rome and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who according to the custom of other Asian Churches celebrated Easter day on the 14th of the Moon For which practice Polycarp alledged the Authority of S. John And Irenaeus in an Epistle mentioned by Eusebius l. 5. c. 18. tells us that Polycarp came to Rome to discourse with Anicetus concerning this and other different observations between the Eastern and Western Churches and having after some conference amicably agreed other controversies they still differed about this observation but without any violation of the bond of Charity for they communicated together Anicetus giving leave to Polycarp to perform the offices of Divine Worship in his Church and it was then concluded That both Churches should be at liberty to observe the Ancient customes delivered to them from their Predecessors But about the year of Christ 198. Victor Bishop of Rome revives the controversie with Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was then 65 years old and came within a little time of S. John being cotemporary with Polycarp Victor pleads that the custom of his Church was derived from the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul and that all his Predecessors had celebrated Easter on the Lords day See Eusebius lib. 5. ch 21 22 23. And Nicephorus l. 4. c. 36. Polycrates in his Epistle mentioned by Eusebius l. 5. c. 24. replies That all the Provinces of Asia observed it according to an Ancient tradition received long before i. e. before the second Century from S. John and S. Philip from Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna from Thraseas Bishop of Eumenia Sagaris of Laodicea Papirius and Melito Bishops of Sardis who always practised according to the same Canon and all the Bishops of Asia then living consented to and subscribed his Epistle Upon this Victor beginneth to storm and threatneth to Excommunicate the Bishops of Asia as Heterodox and to that end he assembleth the Bishops under his Jurisdiction who with one consent declared for peace desiring his forbearance and disliking his too great severity The Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor on this occasion is yet extant in which he declares That although for his part he was resolved to observe the Feast of Easter on the Sunday according to the practice of the Western Church in which he lived yet he could not approve that the Eastern Church should be Excommunicated for observing an Ancient custom and mindeth Victor that the Bishops before him had never broken the Churches peace on this occasion But no mediation would prevail Victor was Victor still and proceeds to denounce an impotent sentence against the Asian Churches Baronius says something to excuse the severity of Victor viz. That as long as those Churches were Catholick and incorrupt they of Rome thought it expedient to tolerate that custom but when from that custom Schism and Heresie brake in upon the Asian Churches for Montanus having diffused his Heresie through Asia those Asians began to plead that they had received this Tradition from their Paraclete that the Pascha ought to be celebrated on the 14th of the Moon and on no other day and that all such as practised otherwise were in an error then Victor thought it his duty to restrain this error 2. This Opinion of keeping Easter after the Asian manner was taken up by many Hereticks and so spread it self that it invaded the very bosom of the Roman Church and pluckt thence one Blastus who in the face of that Church maintained the Asian against the Roman Custom Tertullian speaks of this Blastus in his book de Praescriptionibus c. 53. saying that he endeavoured to bring in Judaism affirming that the Christian Pascha was not to be kept otherwise than was prescribed by the Law of Moses And this opinion of Blastus drew away so many after him that Irenaeus wrote a book of Schism directed purposely against Blastus but could not recal him And now let the indifferent Reader judge whether the subject of this controversie were most unnecessary most vain as our Author declaims Victor indeed did prosecute it with too much heat insomuch that the Cardinal knows not what to say in his excuse An verò quod potestate jure faciebat recténe fecerit dubitatum est saith the Cardinal Doubtless the Asian Churches were sui juris not under the jurisdiction of Victor or if they had been yet was he not unblameable in Excommunicating all the Churches of Asia for the fault of some few that had crept in among them whom in due time they would have restrained by their own authority He was also too precipitate in not yielding to the mediation of his own Bishops in behalf of those Churches And lastly he was much more culpable for imposing this observation on the Asian Churches as a matter of Faith and judged them to be heterodox and excommunicate that would not submit Baronius his words ad annum Christi 198. p. 191. of the Antwerp edition are Totius Asia Ecclesias cum aliis finit imis tanquam alterius fidei opinionis à communi unitate Ecclesia amputare conatur Nor were the Asian Churches without fault for yielding so long to a Jewish Ceremony which might long ere that time have been decently buried as other Jewish customes had been And also for suffering some among them to teach a necessity of observing the Christian Pascha on the 14th day and no other So that to conclude though the Roman Church was in this particular stronger in the Faith yet as our Author saith they should have born with the imbecillity of their weaker Brethren a thing which he observes S. Paul would not refuse to do p. 218. To which I say that S. Paul did comply for a while with the Jewish Converts in the Case of Circumcision but when some of them pleaded for a necessity of Circumcision he thunders against that Opinion as loudly as Victor did against this saying That if they were Circumcised i. e. with an Opinion of the

behave himself humbly towards them as to his Brethren Secondly Both Nature and Religion agree in this Heraldry that all Families and Societies of men and therefore the Church of God also have ever born something in chief the Father was ever above the Son and the Priest who for a long time was the Father of the Family was superior to the people All did not come by composition and agreement To evince this I shall assert these three propositions 1. That God is to be Worshipped is a dictate of the law of Nature 2. That men ought to gather themselves into assemblies for the Worship of God is a result of the same Law 3. That in those Societies there should be a power and government for the preservation of it self is from the Law of Nature and by consequence from the Law of God both which have directed a Sub and Supra in all Societies and ingraven the principles of it in the Souls of men First That Nature teacheth us that God is to be Worshipped This impression we find in Adam not only before but after the fall who taught his Sons as well Cain as Abel to honour God with their substance And we read Gen. 4. 3. That in process of time that is say some at the revolution of a determined time which being described to be in the Original at the end of days others think it to be meant of the Seventh or Sabbath day Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to the Lord and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof Whether they brought it to a designed place or to their father Adam as their Priest I shall not now enquire I shall only give you an observation of the learned Doctor Outram on this place That the period of days whereon Cain brought his offering was at the end of Harvest and the time of Abels offering was when his flocks were increased at which seasons both of them being instructed by natural reason for no command doth appear thought it meet to return to God some part of the blessing given them by God And whereas it is said Hebr. 11. 4. that by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain which some think could not be said to be done in faith unless it had been in obedience to some command of God He consenteth with some others that this place doth evince the contrary because if Abel had sacrificed according to some express command we cannot conceive but Cain offered upon the same command also and so might be said to have done it by faith as well as Abel which is contrary to that text which implies that Cain did not Whence it may be concluded that they did neither of them present their offerings by virtue of any command but according to a dictate of nature imprinted on their Souls as an acknowledgment of their several blessings received from him which if Cain a wicked man was inclined to do by the light of nature how much better may it be said of Abel who was a good man But it will be demanded wherein that faith of Abel which is so commended did consist And the Answer is in that he had so great a respect to the Dominion power and goodness of God the author and giver of all blessings and Lord of life and death that he thought himself obliged to offer the best of his flocks in testimony of the Worship of his Creator and of a thankful mind towards him And indeed the light of nature might serve not only to direct the family of Adam who had so much of the knowledge of God but others also that were removed into a greater darkness and ignorance That as the invisible God had manifested his eternal power and Godhead to them by things visible so they ought to agnize and honour their invisible Creator and benefactor by offering him some portion of those visible and sensible blessings which he had vouchsafed them These and such like arguments saith Dr. Outram p. 7. did so prevail with the Ancients that they were of opinion that men did first offer sacrifice from an instinct of natural reason and not from any command of God for which he quoteth many learned Authors and concludes with the Opinion of Eusebius de demonstratione Evangelica l. 1. c. 10. That Cain did of his own accord offer the fruits of the ground but every good man as Abel Noah and Abraham did by Divine reasoning or understanding sacrifice living creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as the learned Doctor proves cannot be understood of a Divine Command I shall add but this one medium more for the proof of my first proposition That the general instinct and inclination of Mankind to worship some thing as God doth argue that the Light of Nature doth direct them that God is to be worshipped only through the decay and weakness of Reason they mistake the Object and are become ignorant of the right manner of serving him which hath been the cause of all Idolatry And it is very observable that whereas other dictates of Nature have been obliterated and disused among divers Nations this hath been constantly and universally observed by all with great solemnity which is the second Proposition viz. That God must be worshipped by Men in Society is according to the Law of Nature which I suppose our Author doth grant p. 227. where he saith It hath been at all times confessed necessary that God requireth not only inward and private Devotion when Men either in their hearts and closets or within their private walls pray praise confess and acknowledge but he further requires all those things to be done in publick by Troops and Shoals of Men. If this was always necessary then sure before there was any positive command for it God requiring it by the Law of Nature which doth not only teach us that God is to be worshipped but in such a manner as may best display his excellencies and manifest that he is glorious in praises which cannot be done in a corner but in the great Congregations and therefore God so graciously accepted the intention of David and Solomon's devotion in building him that great Temple at Jerusalem where all the Tribes of Israel at Solemn times should meet together to offer up their prayers and to give thanks to the Name of the Lord. And before we read of any precept for this purpose we find Gen. 4. 26. that in the days of Enos the Grand-son of Adam by Seth that is as soon as there was a competent number to make a Solemn Assembly Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord viz. in Publick Assemblies as the best Expositors do interpret it Which farther appears in that all Nations have built Temples set a-part solemn Festival days and instituted Priests and mysterious Rites for the honour of their Gods which they have done without any previous command or commerce with more