Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	call_v	church_n	national_a	2,044	5	11.4074	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45152	A plea for the non-conformists tending to justifie them against the clamorous charge of schisme. By a Dr. of Divinity. With two sheets on the same subject by another Hand and Judgement.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1674 (1674)	Wing H3703A; ESTC R217013	46,853	129

Church Catholick Visible Do we break Charity with our Brethren do we Revile them or Reproach their Persons or Societies Let them bear the blame who do it we plead not for them in the mean time let not all other Non-Con be called Schismaticks for their sake We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by those three famous Authors of the Friendly debate Ecclesiastical Polity and of Knowledge of Communion with Christ have they rendred reviling for reviling though the Masters of Morality have so treated their Brethren as if Veracity Comity and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues When the Author opens himself a little plainer and tells us what he meaneth by a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the Church Catholick Visible we shall better understand him § 23. But he saith we sinfully separate from the Organical National Church of England and indeed this he must mean or nothing by what he said before for it is not possible to separate sinfully from a National Church considered only as a large part of the Church-Catholick Visibles while they keep in the profession of Christ and his Gospel and in the practice of the same Acts of worship with them and in the same Doctrines of Faith unless they fail in love refusing all kind of occasional Communion with their Brethren condemning them as no parts of the Church of Christ The worshipping of God by different phrases and forms of Prayers in different habits of Vestment by different rites and ceremonies c. will not do it for these are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Christ left no Liturgy to his Catholick Church nor any such rites and ceremonies and habits nor was ever the Catholick Visible Church uniform in them our Brethren themselves confess these mutable things wherein several parts of the Catholick Church differ each from other These things proceed from the Church considered as Organical not as a part of the Catholick Visible Church for then the major part of all particular Christians must consent to the imposition of them § 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church it is possible we may have separated from it for we never knew there was any such Creature and at last our Author doth confess that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree That the Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to a National Church he should therefore first have proved that there is such a thing under the Gospel as A Stated National Organical Church and we should then have tried whether the same Arguments would not have served the Papists to have proved a Catholick organical Church and that something better than they serve our Author because they have found out a single head for it which we find our Author p. 43. at great loss to find for his particular National Organical Church § 95. He knows not whether he should fix it upon the King for he is to be considered as a mixed person Or The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury because he is Primate of all England or all the Bishops and Pastors That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governour of the National Church of England is our of doubt to all Protestants but such a one as will not claim Authority to any one strictly called Ecclesiastical act neither to Preach nor administer a Sacrament nor Ordain Ministers Are we discoursing of such a head think we The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury indeed may do all these but may he execute any acts of Discipline in the Province of York must the Arch-Bishop of York be taken in Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads yet that is better than 26. for so many must be if all the Bishops make the head and that yet is better than 9000 heads as must be if the Pastors of all Parishes be the Head In short none of these can by an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction influence the whole body and what kind of head is that The King indeed as Political Head of the Church may influence the whole with his commands relating to Ecclesiastical affairs but surely we have no Arçh-Bishop Bishop or Pastor can Excommunicate from Dan to Beershaba Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point at last tells us It is not material for it is a certain Vanity to say 43. Because I cannot find the the Head I will deny the Body Is it so can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head It is not the body we are discoursing of but an Organical Body We may know our Mother as our Author saith though we do not know our Father but we must know we had a Father and that Father is or was a visible Creature or else he could not be known § 26. Well but what is this same National Organical Church of England He p. 42. gives us this Description of it It is a community consisting of professed Christians united in the same Doctrine Government and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worship of God And p. 45 Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or dissolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governours Worship Members or Assemblies We can neither allow his descriptis on of the National Church of England nor yet of his description of Schisme or sinful separation from it and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reason either of them can be made good § 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church we deny the description of it for Non eus non potest definiri Now we do believe that under the Gospel there never was nor can be a stated National governing Church unless what is indeed somtimes though far from the sense we are now speaking to and perhaps not so properly called a Church according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Messengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation in an Assembly for deliberations advice and determinations in some weighty emergent cases to obviate which we put in the term stated for this is only an Occasional National Church or Synod which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ and meets and acts at the pleasure of the Prince the Supreme Political Head § 28. When we speak of a Church we understand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious usage of it applicable to no body of people but such a one as the Scripture calleth so So that if there be any such body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church we must either find it in the New Testament or at least find some directions there for the constitution ordering of it some

honest Citizen hath not read Ethicks in calling these Cardinal Vritues whereof we know indeed there are Four but neither of these is One of them But for the Spirit or present Assurance where-with he Writes I could never be so Confident when I wrote against Separation Nor can I look on this Separation only from the Churches of the Nation not from Christ's Church or Churches that is a Schisme of mans Denomination our Parishes being of Humane Contrivance out of Question to be such a Horrible Creature as he makes it The great Bear hath been led so long about the streets that the very Children are no longer afraid of it Neither can I think it any such Vertue for a man to give over Preaching I am mightily Flattered methinks in this Passage who if this good man be in the right should be one of the most Vertuous Non-Conformists among all our Brethren I pray God to for-give me that Vertue with my Manifold Aberations I declare my Self with the Old Non-Conformist a Conformist Parishioner though a Non-Conforming Minister and refuse not to joyn in the Ordinances of Doctrine Breaking Bread and Prayers in our Parochial Congregations Laws which are not Wholesome Laws that is not for the Spiritual or Temporal good of the Community such as our Ceremonies the like things I count be may I Presume entangle the Mind and Oblige the outward Man to suffering or to doing rather then Suffer if they be not Sinful to us as well as Vnprofitable but they do not I have maintained and must desend still what I have determined as of necessary import to tender Christians oblige the Conscience of the Subject And so I descend to my Proper Concernment J. H. s●ith that unless th● matter of the Princes Command be antecedently necessary in Judgment of the Subject it obliges not the Conscience Sir This is a mistake I say not so I say indeed that unless a Law be for the common Good it binds not in point of Conscience and I give these two reasons for it The one because the Magistrate hath no Authority from God but for our Weale nor the Bishop but for our Edification The other because we are to suppose the Superiours will or intention is measured by his Authority And when the thing commanded is not for our Good or Edification as it is destitute of God's Authority it must be supposed void also of his Ministers intention See my Obligation of humane Laws Pa. 139. with pa. 25. But that I should be made upon this to hold therefore and that for a Principle that the Conscience is only Obliged from the Matter of the thing Commanded and not from the Command of the Magistrate is such an abuse and weakness as the modesty of those Words You seem to Say will not excuse There are a Thousand things good for the Publick which being not commanded are not necessary nor Oblige any Body The controversie between Conformist and Non-Conformist is supposed to be about things indifferent in which the Conscience is Free and not bound till our Superiours Command comes It is by the Authority then of our Superiour I say derived from God that the Conscience is obliged Insomuch as that before the Command there is no Obligation and when he commands the matter of the command must be such as he hath Power to Command in or it is void It is Authoritas imperantis agnita I have noted it some-where is the Objectum formale obedientiae and answereth the question Qûare obedis But I am not aware saith the kind Dean That obedience to man in things indifferent is commanded of God in Scripture Yes I am aware that Things indifferent by which we mean whatsoever is neither commanded nor for-bidden in the Word are either for the Common good and so the subject matter of the Superiours Authority and Obedience to men in such things is commanded by God in Scripture Or they are not for the common Good but against it and in such matters neither hath the Superiour Authority I say from God to command them nor can such commands for that reason be obligatory to the Conscience But Obedience to them is also required in the Law of Nature for the common Good How Is Obedience required by the law of Nature for the common Good to things which I suppose not for the common Good Why It is for the security of the Publick peace and God's own Vicegerency on Earth I answer The Honour of the Magistrate and security of the Government is preserved and the common good thereby concern'd in our obedience when the Laws are wholesome Laws in our suffering when they are sinful Laws in our avoiding contempt and scandal when they are unprofitable Laws in our subjection to the Authority residing in the Person under all Laws so that when he will he can enforce them Upon this account there is a difference ordinarily between the Command of a Master or Parent and the Laws of a Nation A Command to a Child or Servant does suppose a do it or I 'le make you If the Magistrate sets himself to have a Law obeyed by a particular person the case is the same and seeing the honour of the Governour and the Government it self is still I count concern'd in this that he should be able to make his Subjects obey if he put his power out and the thing be no Sin Obedience being for the common good in such a case a man is obliged to it in Conscience but if he do not a Law supposes only the common good mainly to be entended prudence to be used no contempt offered and the will of the Magistrate is done When our Obedience then I say does indeed serve those ends he mentions and greater be not served or the same otherwise better served we are obliged But what if it serves them not What if my impertinent Obedience shall but disturb the Peace or the peaceable and reflect dishonour on the Law-giver what if it should do more hurt than good taking one thing with another when it is not for the common good I say and then only that we are not obliged in Conscience There are a few more words here needful because we are at the bottom How far the Laws of man do bind the Conscience was the question That the Conscience is not bound at all by humane Constitutions hath been the opinion of no few Doctors nor mean persons for in the Act for the VVednesday fast it seems to have been the received judgment at that time of the whole Nation I say these fasts or the like appointments are to be observed yet shall not the breaking them make a man to do deadly sin except in his mind be some other malicious affection therewith annexed as rashness of mind despite or such like for so much as no positive Law of man made without foundation of Scripture may bind any person so that in breaking such he shall therefore sin deadly John Lambert the