Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	church_n	communion_n	separate_v	1,835	5	9.4254	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57855	A defence of The vindication of the Church of Scotland in answer to An apology of the clergy of Scotland.	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1694 (1694)	Wing R2219; ESTC R11970	78,851	50

with her and to refuse to joyn with Her in any Ordinances could be charged with no Separation but what was caused by our Opposites For their overturning the settled and found Church of Scotland and driving away the Pastors that those Persons could freely hear did tempt them to this Course Tho' I do not approve of their Principle of not Hearing yet the blame lay not only on them but on them who had driven them on this precipice § 38. Let us now hear with what weighty Arguments he will refute the Assertion that he levelleth his Discourse against A great part of his Discourse is not fit to be answered such as That the Universal Church is not to strike Sail to the Novelties of Upstarts p. 43. This is true but wholly Impertinent Unless he can prove that the Scotch Episcopalians are either the Universal Church or in this maintained the Cause of the Universal Church And that Presbyterians are Upstarts Which we maintain have been since the Apostles days And were in Scotland since the Reformation from Popery and before the entrance of Popery But of this after That by our Baptismal Vow we are bound to keep the Unity of the Catholick Church we willingly confess But at the same time we affirm that the same Vow obligeth us not to tempt others to break it His Arguments to prove the Presbyterians of Scotland Separatists have this general fault that they touch not the Conclusion Nor contradict the Assertion that he would refute For if I should grant them to be Separatists yet this Separation may be culpably caused by our Opposites They have also another Fault that they make no distinction of the Separation on whose side soever the Crime of it was between one sort of Presbyterians and another Whereas it is certain that some did live in the Communion of that Church tho' they did not approve of all her ways and others did not His first Argument is p 44. They separate from all Churches Ancient and Modern Nor is there a Church on Earth with which they can Communicate without fear of being polluted This is false None of us refused to Communicate with the Churches of Holland France when they had liberty Geneva and many others But many of us did cheerfully Communicate with them His proof of this his Assertion is all other Churches have some things we disl●ke This is not concludent for we never thought it unlawful to Communicate with a Church which was not as pure as we could wish What we dislike in any we abstain from the practice or approbation of it but do not for that deny Communion with the Church where it is found He again argueth p. 44. and 45. That the former Presbyterians did not separate from the publick Worship in the Episcopal Church A. Neither did all the present Presbyterians and they who did were tempted yea driven into that Course by his Parties Apostacy and overturning the settlement of the Church by force without either any Act of Church Authority or indeavour to satisfie the Consciences of the People I do not approve more than he doth of all that is contained in the Apologetical Relation That Presbyterian Ministers made use of the Lords Prayer we deny not nor did we ever condemn it The same we say of using the Creed in Baptism Nor did we ever separate from the Church on these grounds For the Doxology we know it was used but I know no warrant for the constant use of it when the several parts of the Songs composed by the Spirit of God to be Sung in the Church were more seldom used It seemeth to be too great deference to humane composure and therefore we think it is better to lay it aside For the Apostolick Benediction we have Scripture Examples for it which is sufficient warrant If he can bring the same for these that he calleth Christian Forms we shall use them It is our Authors strain to talk high on slender Grounds that the use of these Forms is the Spirit and Practice of the Church and that tho' th● Canonical and Universal Methods of the Church are tempered with regard to our Infirmities yet they the Presbyterians love to flie in the face of their Mother We deny the Episcopal or Popish Church to be our Mother and we deny these forms to be imposed at least perpetually and universally by the Catholick Church So as we flie never in the face of our Mother by disusing them After he had taken notice of the distinction of occasional and fixed Communion p. 44. he falleth on it again p. 46. His Argument against it is Why may not that fixedly be done which may occasionally since the common ties of Christianity oblige us A. That there are ties on us to Communicate with the Episcopal Congregations we deny and what may be pretended in favour of such obligation is above answered The Reason that be asketh is plain because I may have other obligations which hinder me to do that constantly which I may do sometimes I may lawfully Preach in another Mans Pulpit when he calleth me to it but it is not fit I should do it fixedly and desert mine own § 39. His 2 d. Argument to prove us all Schismaticks is If they had lived saith he fifty years before the first Counsel of Nice they behoved to have separated For then were practised by the Universal Church all these things they scruple at many things he nameth Here were a large Field for Disputation if he had proved what he saith but that he confidently asserteth and we confidently deny That the Hierarchy was then in the Church However some of the Names might be the Church Power and Dominion that now is signified by them was not then in being Argument 3 d. is from the Doctrine and Practice of our Predecessors which he used before and I did answer before Arg. 4 th He requireth us to name any Schismaticks in ancient History to whom that name is more agreeable than to Presbyterians If this can be done he is mistaken The strength of this Argument seemeth to be in his Infallibility Certainly if we be not the worst Men of the World he is mistaken The Donatills separated from the Church because She admitted the lapsed on their Repentance and cast off their lawful Pastors and all Communion with the Church we do not cast off all Communion with the Church nor reject we our Pastors but cleave to them rather than to Intruders Arg. 5 th Cyprian's notion of Schism is when one separateth from his own Bishop This the Presbyterians do Ergo. A. All the strength of this Argument lieth in the sound of words A Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination if he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastor of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbytry if he can prove that we separate from our Pastors or