Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	spirit_n	worship_v	worshipper_n	8,943	5	13.1108	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51624	A Review of Mr. M.H.'s new notion of schism, and the vindication of it	Murrey, Robert, fl. 1692-1715.	1692 (1692)	Wing M3105; ESTC R5709	75,948	74

to imagine that they should all go once a week from the most distant places to Jerusalem unless they had very little business at home or were extraordinary Travellers They had their Proseuchae and Synagogues for publick worship and their private devotions which might be said any where All inferior Altars and places of worship were in communion with the supream one and the persons who did legally and regularly communicate at them were likewise understood to partake thereby of that one Altar and therefore if the Synagogues be certainly the patterns of our Christian Assemblies Ibid. pray Sir assign us an Altar with which we must hold communion which will surely be that of the Bishop according to the sentiments of the primitive Church Nor was the precept of offering only upon one Altar so purely ceremonial but that it was founded upon very rational tho mystical principles according to tne sense and interpretation of the Hellenistical Jews the end of it was to distinguish the Segullah or peculiar people those that were in special Union and Covenant with the Deity from those that were not or had broken off from it The principle and archetypal head of that Union was God himself to whom none but the Segullah were united The Segullah were united by Sacraments which were the legal Symbols and Ratifications of that Union the High Priest was the representative of the Archetypal head so that none could be in Union with God unless united to the High Priest None united to the High Priest unless they did partake of that Altar where he offered and those which were dependant upon it And therefore the Sacraments belonging to Schismatical Altars viz. that of Samaria and its dependents erected in opposition to that of the true High Priest did not unite them to God neither consequently were the Worshippers at that Altar to be reckoned of the Segullah or peculiar people but rather as the Altar of Samariah was against the Altar of Jerusalem so were the Samaritan worshippers against the true Israelites Now the Christians I hope are as well united to the Father and the Son as ever the Jews were They are as truly the Segullah or peculiar people and the ways of transacting that Union by the Evangelical Sacraments and Priesthood as certain And therefore have been maintained by the Primitive Fathers and Mr. Dodwell upon the same manner of reasonings which the Jews used See his one Altar And if this way of reasoning be good there are two other Texts in the old Testament which will help to discover the notion of Schism one relating to that Altar of the Tribes beyond Jordan Joshuah 22. the other to those of Jeroboam 2 Kings 17. Nor is any thing in this foolish paragraph conclusive against these reasonings which it was either designed to Answer or else it is very impertinent No man ever denied that Christians might pray every where in any Kingdom City or place wheresoever they come only we desire it may be remembred that the Jews had the same liberty And if private Christians may pay their devotion to Almighty God any where in the Church in their Families in their Closets in the Fields and any other place they certainly have the liberty to pray every where and yet this cannot vacate the obligation of holding communion with one Altar for the Jews themselves had the very same liberty while they were under that obligation If Christians have a liberty to build their Oratories and Churches for the public service of Almighty God wheresoever they please without being excluded or confined to any place they may certainly fulfil the Gospel rule of praying every where and yet this will be no prejudice to their holding Communion with the Bishop of the Diocess For if Uniting our Selves to a Congregation in communion with the Bishop be any violation of that Gospel rule because they meet in a particular Church and the Bishop lives in a particular City I cannot see how Mr. H. and his Vindicator will acquit themselves from the same guilt whose Congregations are confined to a particular house or a particular stable Their people must be with their Teacher where ever he assembles ours with their Priest at the place of publick worship And if we are to be condemned for breaking this Gospel rule I can see no reason why Mr. H. and his followers should plead not guilty 'T is true we are not confined to that one Altar at Jerusalem the obligation was taken away by the authority of our Saviour Joh. 4.21 in his answer to the woman of Samaria The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father Not that it was forbidden to worship at either of those places in the times of the Gospel but the true Evangelical worship should not be confin'd to either the Jewish dispensation was to be laid aside and a more spiritual one introduc'd the literal to be exchanged for the mystical Israel The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth v. 23 24. That which under the Gospel was to answer the High Priesthood should not be confined to one City or one Mountain and that which corresponded to the worship she then discoursed of namely the sharing in the same Sacrifices should be henceforth so spiritual and free that all people might partake and communicate in it however distant their residences were which they could not do before This as it is the genuine sense of our Saviours discourse so methinks these following observations may be drawn from it 1st That there is something under the Gospel which does really correspond to that solemn worship at Jerusalem for it being that only which the woman discoursed of to our Saviour his answer must necessarily bear a relation to it And therefore the worship at Jerusalem and the spiritual worship were a type and antitype one of another So that as all the Jews did communicate at one Altar in the like manner Christians must partake in the same spiritual Sacrifices 2dly That as the design of those anniversaries was to keep 'em in the same Communion so that spiritual worship here spoken of is for the very same end 3dly That as the Priesthood and Altar were the principles of unity amongst them so there is a mystical Priesthood and Altar which do the same thing among us 4thly That as he who broke the communion with that Altar was off from the Church of the Jews So he who separates from ours is divided from the body of Christians And 5thly That as in one case they forfeited the Jewish priviledges so they do likewise the Christian in another These two last observations were included in the discourse as is plain from our Saviours confining Salvation to the Jews For the conclusion bearing a