Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
scripture_n authority_n church_n primitive_a 2,508 5 9.0550 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A58720 The case stated between the Church of England and the dissenters wherein the first is prov'd to be the onely true church, and the latter plainly demonstrated from their own writings and those of all the reformed churches to be downright schismaticks / collected from the best authors on either side ... by E.S. E. S., D.D. 1700 (1700) Wing S17; ESTC R25532 64,968 151

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

swallowed up in the Bishops And the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof And Fourthly That the People are depriv'd of their right of chusing their own Pastors First say they Our Parochial Churches are not according to Christ's Institution For Christ they say instituted no other kind of Churches than particular Congregations to which he gave full Power and Authority to govern themselves distinctly and Independent of all other Churches But where have they Authority for this Opinion Where do they find that Churches were limitted to particular Congregations not in Scripture for there is no tolerable Proof that the Churches planted by the Apostles were of this Nature 'T is possible at first there might have been no more Christians in a City than might meet together in one Congregation But where doth it appear that when they multiply'd into more Congregations they made new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government of this Dr. Stillingfleet says he is well assu●'d there is no mark or Footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church If they will follow the plain instances of Scripture they may better limit Churches to Private Families than to particular Congregations for of that we have a plain instance in Scripture Rom. 16. 3. 5. Col. 4. 15. in the House of Priscilla and Aquilla but not a word of the other And if they wou'd keep to these plain instances of Scripture they might fully enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences and avoid the Scandal of breaking the Laws But the Scripture is so far from making every Congregation an Independent Church that it plainly shews us the Notion of a Church was then the same with a Diocess or all the Christians of a City which were under the Inspection of one Bishop For if we observe the Language of the Scripture we shall find this Observation not once to fail that when Churches are spoken of they are the Churches of a Province As the Churches of Judaea 1 Thess 2. 14. The Churches of Asia 1 Cor. 16. 19. Of Syria and Cilicia Acts 15. 41. Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal. 1. 2. Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8. 1. But when all the Christians of a City are spoken of it is still call'd the Church of that City as the Church of Antioch the Church at Corinth the Church of Ephesus c. So that it seems plain from the Testimony of Scripture that Churches were not limitted to particular Congregations unless they will say that all the Christians in the largest of these Cities mention'd in Scripture were no more than cou'd conveniently meet in one Congregation which shall be shown to be otherwise hereafter But suppose we shou'd grant that the Apostolick Churches were Congregational as 't is plain they were not what then that might have been from the Circumstances of Times or small number of Christians in those Days must it therefore follow that they must always continue so Why do they not wash one anothers Feet as Christ did and commanded his Apostles to do the same * And if they must keep so precisely to the Practice of those Days why does any of their Ministers marry a Second Wife For St. Paul says plainly Let Bishops and Deacons be the Husbands of one Wife 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. 12. So the first Civil Government was by God's own Institution over Families they may by the same Rule think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to God's first Institution From whence it appears how ridiculous that fancy of theirs is That the Scripture is the only Rule of all things pertaining to Discipline and Worship and that we must stick so precisely to the Letter of it and to the practice of those Days as that 't is not lawful to vary from it in any little indifferent Circumstance for the sake of Publick Order or Conveniency But as this notion of Congregational Churches does not agree with the words of the New Testament so neither does it with the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church For by the ancient Canons of the Church it appears That the Notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocess which comprehended many Congregations or Parishes See Canons Nicen. 6 15 16. Constant c. 6. Chalcedon 17. 20. 26. Antioch c. 2. 5. Codex Eccles Africae c. 53. 55. Concil Gangrae c. 6. Concil Carthag c. 10 11. And thus much as to the first Objection against the Constitution of our Church as differing from those of the Congregational way and therefore not of Christ's Institution The Second Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our Diocesan Churches and Bishops are unlawful For say they 'T is making a new Species of Churches and Church-Government without God's appointment For says Mr. Baxter according to Christ's Institution no Church must be bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion And so he will have three sorts of Bishops by Divine Right First General Bishops that in every Nation are over many Churches Secondly Episcopi Gregis or Ruling Pastors of Single Congregations which are all true Presbyters Thirdly Episcopi Praesides which are the Presidents of the Presbyters in particular Churches This is Mr. Baxter's Notion of Bishops But others are not of his Mind and will allow of but one kind of Bishop and such they make the Pastor of every Congregation But that both these Notions of Episcopacy are false will appear For that First 't was an inviolable Rule in the Primitive Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City though 't were never so large for our Saviour having left no Rule about Limits the Apostles follow'd the Form of the Empire planting in every City a complete and entire Church whose Bishop as to his Power and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Matters resembled that of the Chief Magistrate of the City the Presbyters that of the Senates and the several Churches the several Corporations So says Dr. Still in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 237. and quotes Origen c. Cels l. 3. and Dr. Maurice in his Def. of Dioces Episcopacy p. 377 c. affirms the same and proves it at large And as far as the Territories of the City extended it self so far did the Diocess of the Bishop extend for the Church and the City had but one Territory But though this be a thing agreed upon by most Learned Men of all Persuasions that there was but one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church yet because some may be so hardy as to deny this I will appeal to the Practice of the African Church for which Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and the rest of the Dissenters express an esteem above all other Churches 'T was an inviolable Rule among the African Churches that there must be but one Bishop in a City
fear many of them do so which makes them use that posture so seldom in their publick Meetings For you shall seldom see in any of their Meetings scarce one of the whole Congregation on their Knees not even at repeating the Lord's Prayer if it happen to be said which is not often Their usual postures of Praying in their publick Congregations are either standing or lolling on their Elbows And at the Reading of the Holy Scriptures nay even of the Psalms themselves tho' they are the very highest strains of Devotion you shall see them all sitting on their Breeches and many of them with their Hats on But pray How comes the posture of sitting to be the only fit posture for receiving the Lord's Supper Was that the posture Christ us'd No if we will believe most learned Men they will tell us Christ gave it leaning which perhaps he might have done on purpose to let us see that he did not require any one set posture for leaning is a mean as it were between kneeling and standing and seems to incline equally to both Why do they not take it leaning as Christ did and after Supper and in an upper Room Why do they not observe all these Circumstances If one may be dispens'd with without sin Why not another If they will not be so civil as to Conform to the Church of England Why will they not follow the Example of other Reformed Churches the Churches of France and most of the Reformed Churches take it either standing or kneeling as being postures of Adoration But because they do our English Dissenters will take it in no other posture but that which is most irreverent and farthest from Adoration in the World to wit sitting on their Breeches 'T is a Feast say they and therefore sitting being a posture of ease is most suitable to it We own 't is a Feast but not a common but Spiritual Feast and therefore we ought to take it not in the posture we use at our common Tables but in a more decent and reverent Posture To conclude this Point I shall give you the words of one of the most Eminent of the Non-conformist Preachers in this Matter Vines in his Book on the Sacrament p. 39. says 'T is no corruption to vary in occasional Circumstances in administring the Lord's Supper such as time and place and posture c. Mr. Baxter has several times declar'd the same and so has most of the Non-conformist Ministers And herewith agrees Hooker in his Eccles Polity lib. 5. p. 366. As to the Sign of the Cross in Baptism 'T is us'd only as a Solemn Rite or Ceremony of admission into the Church of England as 't is usual in admissions into Societies to use some particular Ceremonies Therefore as Baptism besides its Sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England We do not use it as 't is used in the Church of Rome for they use it as a dedicative Sign to God we only as a Token or declarative Sign to Men they use it before Baptism and make it part of it we after and make it no part of Baptism but allow the Baptism to be good without it and it to be omitted in Private Baptism if it be scrupled If it be said that since these Ceremonies are allowed to be things indifferent in themselves by the Church of England and are scrupled by the Dissenters why will the Church of England impose them I answer First 't is not fit nor convenient that such things as are thought necessary by the Governours of a Church to preserve the Order and Unity of it should be cast aside to humour some over scrupulous and restless Minds and who 't is like would not be satisfied were that granted Secondly It is more safe for the Church of England to follow the Example of the greatest part of the Reformed Churches which do allow and practise them than such a handful of People as the Dissenters of England c. And Thirdly There were as insignificant Ceremonies injoyn'd by the Apostles themselves as any of ours are now notwithstanding some Men's scruples concerning them as the Love Feasts and Holy Kiss c. till abolish'd by general consent And the Assembly of their own Divines at Westminster tell us The Apostles say they notwithstanding the difference of Men's Judgments did prescribe Rules of Vniformity See Papers for Accomodation p. 111. The next great Objection which the Dissenters make to the terms of our Communion is For that we tie up our Ministers to prescribed Forms of Prayer which is a stinting of the Spirit and hinders them from exercising their Gifts and is contrary to Scripture and the practice of the Primitive Church The Arguments which they commonly use against written Forms of Prayer are First They say that nothing but the Canonical Scripture and the lively Voice of God's Graces which they call Preaching and Extempore Prayer are to be brought into the Publick Worship of God and nothing that is Humane because subject to Infirmities and Errors But if so then must we exclude not only all written Prayers but the whole Bible too unless in the Original Tongue for all Translations of it are Humane and subject to Errors And also the Prayers and Preaching of the Pastors must be excluded for the Errors in the Sermons and Prayers of the Pastors cannot be said to be the lively Voices of God's own Graces And the Psalms in Metre must be also excluded Another Argument is That we must not make use of any outward helps in the action of Prayer for the Spirit they say helpeth our Infirmities and therefore written Forms and all other outward helps are sinful But let me ask them whether the Voice of another that Prayeth or Fasting or the lifting up of the Hands and Eyes 1 Tim. 2. 8. or Kneeling be Prayer it self or only outward helps to Prayer to make it more fervent Sure they are outward helps only and yet they are used in the very action of Prayer Again they say Reading a Prayer cannot be Praying for Prayer is the pouring forth Supplications to God the other a receiving in of such things as we Read But when one hears a Prayer pronounced by another his hearing does receive it into his Soul but yet at the same instant he doth power it forth as a Prayer to God Why then may not this be done as well when 't is read as when 't is pronounced by another But then they tell us That all Forms of Prayer are a stinting of the Spirit If so Why will they hear the Extempore Prayer of another Man is not this as much a Form of Prayer to all the Hearers as any written Form can be Doubtless it is How comes it then that the Spirit of the Hearers is not as much stinted when they joyn in this Form as if they had joyn'd in a written Form But since our