Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	catholic_n	church_n	communion_n	2,595	5	9.8911	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

Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them

endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of