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
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

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