Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	minister_n	2,916	5	6.7721	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81501	The Discipline and order of particular churches, no novelty. Proved from Scripture, reason, autiquity, and the most eminent modern divines. Or, A discourse of the church, in a scripture notion, with her extent, power and practice, tending to moderate the minds of men, toward dissenters in matters ecclesiastical, and to acquit such from the charge of innovation, faction, separation, schism, and breach of union and peace in the church, who cannot conform in many things to the rules, canons, and practices of others. / By a Lover of truth, peace, unity, and order.	Lover of truth, peace, unity, and order.	1675 (1675)	Wing D1558A; ESTC R174652	61,995	98

Matter as to the particular Churches to which every Member must joyn himself to wit to the Parish wherein each Member resides for the time being and also as to the manner of joyning and being admitted that is by their being Parishioners To say nothing of the Irrationalness of this way 〈◊〉 the Apprehension of such who consider what it 〈◊〉 that makes a Society to be so and any one to ●ecome a Member thereof or of such who know ●hat it is to have Communion in Christian Societies ●s such We Answer First That there were no such Laws ●ade by the first Christian Emperors against Chri●tian Liberty in this case Secondly If any were made since it is reasona●le to enquire how such who made those Laws ●ad this Authority derived upon them from God in ●uch cases If it cannot be shewed as we think it ●annot be then the Freedom continues still to Chri●tians It is wonderful that Men yea Christians should ●hink it most just to preserve Mens Liberty of Liv●ng where they please and to remove from one place to another to choose what Society they please in Civil things And yet restrain Mens Liber●y in this case as if Soul-health Liberty Com●ort and Profit is not to be preserved above that of the Body Especially since the Law of Nature ●nd the Law of God hath left it free Thirdly That Law which makes all Persons in●efinitely Living or that shall Live in such a Pre●inct to be a Church and Members one of another ●n a particular Society and puts them under a ne●essity of joyning together as one Body in the Matters of God can very hardly be defended from oppugning the Laws of Christ which forbids Fel●owship in such things with such and such Persons many of which may be found in every Parish amongst us But to prove by some particulars now That the Power in Church-Affairs was for some Ages Exercised in and by these particular Churches and no● else-where without any Interruption or Controll considerable And without any additional or Superiour Authority Bish Nicholson Vindication of the Church of England p. 26. agrees this of Deacons after the Apostles days An● first as to the choosing of their Ministers Acts 6 2 3.5 6. The whole Church there the Multitude by the Apostles own Direction did choos● their Deacons and were Judges of their Qualifications The Apostles told them what the Deacon● should be the Multitude were Judges whether they were such For the same seven without Examination or Exception which they chose were by the Apostles set apart for the work The Apostles being then the only Officers of that Church which was then but one Society or Congregation Lorinus Salmeron Gasper Sanctus upon Act. 14.23 Deer Part 1. dist 62. See Assembly of Divines upon Act. 24.23 So for the Elders or Bishops Acts 14.22 23. Paul and Barnabas ordained or appointed them Elders in every Church but for the manner it was by suffrage i. e. by the Peoples choice or Vote thus the very Text is rendred in some Translations and so by Magdeburg Divines Translated They created Presbiters in every Church by suffrage Cent. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Col. 401 402. and this could not be but in particular Congregations who could meet together to this end The Apostles carried no Men with them but passing from Church to Church they appointed such of every Church whom they found there and who were more capable of Judging than the Church of which they were Members and who had experience of and acquaintance with them That this was so is yet more evident by this That afterwards for many hundred years together this way only was continued in the Churches for the Congregations or particular Churches to choose their own Bishops and other Ministers and they ●ccounted it as their Right without any controll as ●or instance in Euseb Eccl. Hist Lib. 3. Cap. ● 1. p. 44. It is said that after the death of James ●he Apostles and Disciples of our Lord gathered ●hemselves together to consult who should succeed ●nd they all with one voyce judged Simon worthy So Euseb Lib. 6. Cap. 28. p. 110. when all the Brethren of the Church of Rome had gathered themselves together for the Electing of a Bishop their Bishop being dead and many had thought upon Notable and Famous Men Fabianus being present the whole Multitude with one accord and the same Spirit of God agreed upon him and made him Bishop The People of a Church in Constantinople being by their Bishop before his Death desired to choose one of two Men he named because of their Vertues did after his Death meet and choose one of them Soc. Eccl. Hist Lib. 2. Cap. 4. p. 253. So did the People of a Church in Millan being met together with one voyce chose Ambrose to be their Bishop which the Emperour concludes there to be the work and will of God Socrat. Lib. 4. Cap. 25. p. 335. There are such Multitudes of Presidents and Instances of this Practice that it would be endless to mention them Only see some Instances in the same Histories of Socrates Lib. 2. Cap. 9. p. 256. Lib. 4. Cap. 13. p 324. Lib. 6. Cap. 2. p. 359. Lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 377 378. Lib. 7. cap. 12. p. 380. cap. 26. p. 390. Evagr. Eccl. Hist Lib. 4. cap. 6. p. 473. Lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 436. This continued unquestioned 500 Years at least And though attempts were sometimes made by Bishops and the Civil Powers they engaged t● Depose Ministers and thrust in others upon Churches yet still the Churches refused them and chos● others themselves when they wanted them a Soc. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 254 One Emiseus there refused at two several places by the People a Alexandria and Emisa So likewise Socrat. Lib 4. cap. 7. p. 318 319. when one Eunomius wa● sent to Cizicum by a Bishop of Constantinople an● commanded to be placed there by the Emperour yet was he refused and Eunomius went and Live with him that made him Bishop So again Socra● Lib. 7. cap. 12. p. 380. One Salvatus rejecte● by a Church in Constantinople So again at Cizicum where a Bishop at Constantinople appoint Proclus to be their Bishop The Church at Cizicum understanding what was done prevented it an● chose Dalmatius a Religious Man to Govern and Proclus being not admitted there spent hi● time at Constantinople Socrat. Lib. 7. cap. 28 p. 391. and many more Instances of this Nature might be given Yet we find no complaint made thereof as any irregular Act of the People which doubtless would have been had it not been their known right Cyprian agrees to this that if any were intruded upon the People he was taken for a false Bishop no● a true Pastor for which he is quoted by the Magdeburg Divines Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 175 176 Moreover the Emperour Constantine acknowledgeth this right to be Lodged in these particula● Churches See his Epistle to the Church in Antioch where

Word sometimes the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto and when any were sent by the Apostles or other the People of their own voluntary will with thanks did accept of them not for the Supremacy Imperial Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good People ready to Obey the good Councellors and to accept any thing necessary for their Edification and Benefit And again that the People before Christian Princes were commonly did Elect their Bishops and Priests thus far of Bishop Cranmer which words of his as Mr. Stillingfleet there affirms he put his own Hand to and gave it in in answer to certain Questions put to him in King Edward the Sixths Time and now remain upon Record Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester in his Vindication of the Church of England p. 27. grants the Truth of this That the People did choose their Pastors in the Primitive Ages of the Church in express terms and saith it was taken away from the People by Christian Princes when the Fathers disliked the use So far of him in this place Polanus in his Sintagma Lib. 7. Cap. 15. fully proves and affirms this Right to be Lodged in these Churches Under this Head De Electionibus seu vocationibu● Ecclesiasticis First he saith That the Liberty or Power of Election calling or sending of Ecclesiastical Persons is a Right which the whole Church hath in choosing and calling to themselves approved and fit Ministers and in placing them into Sacred Order p. 542. After in his next p. 543. under this Question a quibus Electio seu vocatio Ministrorum Ecclesiae fieri debeat By whom the Election or calling of Ministers of the Church ought to be made He saith That unto the Legitimate or Lawful Election of the Ministers of the Church especially of the Pastors is requisite a free and ingenious consent and Suffrage of the whole Church whose business it is that is of the Elders and Flock The which consent must not be had by intreaty or sold for a price much less forced and extorted so that it is the part of the whole Church to choose Ministers for themselves And there he gives these following arguments to evince it First because even in the time of the Apostles the whole Church whose business it was did choose Ministers for themselves or to it self Neither did the Apostles themselves saith he Ordain any one for Ecclesiastical charges only by their own Authority but always by the Church consenting and approving Acts 6.2 c. and 14.23 Secondly because by this means the Churches own Liberty which Christ hath given to it is kept For a Pastor or Minister of the Word of God is not to be obtruded upon the Church of God against his will Can. Null invit distinc 61. Thirdly because it serves to this That even the Ministers may with a good Conscience Rule the Lords Flock by whom he is Elected and the Flock of the Lord may in like manner yield themselves the more easie to him to be Instructed and fed than to him who beside or against their will is thrust upon them and again he is not to be acknowledged for a Lawful Pastor of the Church who hath been intruded on the Church by the Authority and Command of the Prince Quod testatur Concil Parisiense primum Can. Octavo Tomo Secundo Concil And after he saith in the same p. That fit Persons are to be nominated and presented to the People before the Election and should be openly proposed in the Assemblies And again in p. 544. Under this Question Qualiter seu quomodo Ministri Ecclesiae Eligi vocari debeant How the Ministers of the Church ought to be chosen and called Acts 14.23 Those Persons are to be Nominated of whom the Election and Calling ought to be made to this end that the Church by the free Suffrage of the whole Congregation or such to whom she hath committed a Right and Power of choosing may approve and accept of one of them That the Suffrages are collected by some Pastor of the Church or of another to whom he shall commit it And they are given either in Order by every Elector Vivâ voce or joyntly of all or many by lifting up of hands or either way c. For if by giving their Suffrages Vivâ voce there were variance and they go into many Sentences of unprofitable and tedious prolixity Those who had any Votes for Ordination were again named and every one being named they who chose him were commanded to lift up their Hands At the Nomination of whom either all or many lifted up their Hands this Man was concluded to be Lawfully Elected After this manner saith he Paul and Barnabas did Create Elders Acts 14.23 And after under this Question By what Rite or Ceremony c. he saith He who was Elected by the Church with free Suffrages at length received Ordination of the Pastors of the Church 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 the whole Multitude of the Church being present Then Polanus concludes with these words They do therefore grievously sin who do manifestly drive away the Ecclesiastical People or Flock from the Election of their Ministers which saith he the false or Counterfeit Popish Bishops do yea they do grievously sin who do impose Bishops and Pastors upon the Church against their will Thus far Polanus agrees in his own words From some of the former Authorities The African Synod Athanasius Cornelius and others The Presbyterian Divines in their Book called Smectimnius admits this power to reside in the People of particular Churches and that by Divine Authority They say First That the especial power of Judging of the Worthiness or Unworthiness lay in the People Secondly That the power of choosing or refusing them upon this Judgment resided in the People Thirdly That the power descended upon them by Divine Authority Athanasius say they in his Epist ad Orthodoxos blamed the Intrusion of Bishops as against the Apostolical Precepts against the Canon and compelled the Heathen to Blaspheme Mr. Prin in his Book of un-bishoping Timothy and Titus p. 69. affirms this out of Alcuvinus de Diviniis Officiis Cap. 37. That Ministers of all sorts were made to the Year 800 by this Election of Clergy and People and that they were all present at their Ordination and consented to it Also he affirms in p. 72 73. That Martin Bucer in his Book of recalling and bringing in again the use of Lawful Ordination saith That this power is in the People Much more might be produced to prove this particular See only Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. col 43. Concil Trident. in English Lib. 8. p. 725. Lib. 7. p. 591. 598. Lib. 6. p. 404 405. And as to imposition of Hands upon these thus chosen Mr. Prin in the same Book p. 72 73. quotes Jerome Epist to Evagr. and his Comment upon Titus for this That the Ancient Consecration of Bishops

he tells this Church in general that they did affect Eusebius and would have Elected him to be their Bishop and then he perswades them to choose another seeing all did not agree therefore saith he not Lawful because saith he he that is Elected to a Bishoprick by the general Suffrage of Wise men assembled to deliberate thereof ought by Gods Law to enjoy it This is Recorded in Eusebius of the Life of Constantine Lib. 3. cap. 58. p. 52. Yea the great Nicene Councel agree it in these words expressed in Socrat. Lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 225. Speaking about some who might be in a Capacity of being made Ministers they say if they be found worthy and the People choose them they may Succeed the Deceased c. Yet further it 's manifest by the same History That where any one Congregation did divide into two Bodies each apart chose their own Bishops for themselves as in the Case of the Church of Antioch Socrat. Lib. 5. Cap. 9. p. 343. Lib. 4. cap. 1. p. 316. So in many other Cases when those of the true Faith had Bishops imposed upon them by the Arrians they divided themselves from the Arrians and chose to themselves Bishops and Assembled alone And it is observable That all these Bishops thus chosen and appointed of the People of these particular Churches were still acknowledged as Lawful Bishops by all and in all the Councels mentioned in those Histories Nor do we find the least Objection any where Recorded in those days against such who came thus to this Office as being unlawfully called To this Practice of the particular Churches and their Right thereto the Fathers give in their Testimonies also a touch of them therefore Tertul. in his Apol. to the Gent. Cap. 39. p. 137. English Translation saith That in these Assemblies there are Bishops that preside they are approved of by the Suffrage of them whom they ought to conduct So saith many others Possidon in vita Aug. Cap. 4. Leo. 1. Epist 95. quoted by the Magdeburg Divines Cent. 2. cap. 7. col 134 135. Cent. 1. Lib. 1. cap. 4. col 179. Cent. 3. cap. 6. col 146 147. The Roman Presbiters in their Epistle to Cyrian affirm that every Church hath a like Power of Choosing Calling and Ordaining Ministers and for just cause again to depose them Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. Aug. Epist 100. Cyprian Epist 68. And Cyprian himself saith That the right of choosing such as are fit and refusing the unworthy belong to the People and whole Church and that by Divine Authority And that the Officers and People did consult about it with common consent And for these things he is quoted by the Magdeburg Writers Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 153.173 174 175. Cap. 6. col 135 136.146 and also that the People did consider the Life and Manners of the Persons to be chosen and judge and much more to this purpose in those places before John Ferus a Fryer in his Comment upon Act. 11. and Magdeburg Cent. 5. cap. 6. col 178 179 180. Now we shall add a few Testimonies and Judgments of latter Ages and of Men otherwise differing The Papists themselves at the Councel of Trent acknowledged that this was the usual Practice of the Church of God for 800 Years together after Christ for the particular Churches to choose their own Ministers and they then affirmed that there were remaining at that day the Records thereof at Rome and they then and there desired that those Records might be destroyed lest Luther who maintained this Right to the People should make use of them to bring in the Custom into the Church again And they there also acknowledge that this was taken from the Church by the Authority of a Council only who made a Decree against it See the Conference of Rayno'ds Hart c. 6. p. 223. Hart saith out of Genebrard that Clemens took not the Bishoprick by the Councel of the Lord least the Example of taking it by nomi●ation of Peter should pass to posterity and derogate from the free providence of the Church in choosing of her own Bishop Geneb●ard Chronolg l. 3. in Lin. See more l. 4. Seculo 11. Cited in the same Confer Cap. 7. l ●76 Concil Trident. in English Lib 7. p. 590 591.598 See more of the same Council Lib. 8. p. 725. And he that wrote this History complains against Rome about this in these words The Church of Rome grant not the People the Election of their Ministers which certainly saith he was an Apostolical Institution continued more than 800 Years Concil Trident. Lib. 2. p. 163. Bishop Jewel in his Reply to Mr. Harding p. 230. Saith out of Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. That the Bishoprick was bestowed upon Sabinus by the consent and voices of the whole Brother-hood of that Church to which he was to be Bishop He there saith that Honorius the Emperour Writing to Boneface doth agree him to be Bishop whom some of the Clergy and whole Brother-hood shall choose And the Bishop himself then there affirms from hence that every particular Church is called the whole Church And after in p. 282. The Bishop affirms that Cyprian in the same place saith That the People being Obedient to Gods Law have Power especially to choose worthy or refuse unworthy Priests Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 306. quotes Tertul. Exhort Castil c. 7. for these words That all the difference between the Ministers and People comes from the Churches Authority and again p. 416. himself saith That Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for Worship under the Charge of one man nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of Bishops without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the People so much he allows there and something more in p. 339. where he useth these words speaking of Elders now the voyce of the People which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use c. by which he confesseth it to be the Primitive Practice But Mr. Stillingfleet having as he saith been at the pains to transcribe some of Bishop Cranmer's words they will serve well here and we shall again transcribe so much of them as speaks to this particular See them in the same Irenicum p. 391 392. They are these That in the Apostles time when there were no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor sins be corrected by the Sword there was no Remedy then for correction of Vice or appointment of Ministers but only the consent of Christian Multitude amongst themselves by an uniform consent to follow the Advice and perswasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of Wisdom and Councel c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundance of his Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods

themselves the name of the Church as invested with authority to make Laws to impose upon others in these Church matters For if a fourth Church on Earth distinct from the three descriptions above be not found and proved to be vested with this power and capable to execute it according to Christs mind none of these three did ever execute any such Power the two first never made Laws since they grew to big to meet in one place the third never made any to be binding or observed further than in and by the same Congregation or Society where they were made and by whom they were agreed to It is true we find That other Churches liking the Rules of some one Church did imitate them and agree of the same in their Churches also as Socrat. ●n his Eccles Hist lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 351. c. affirms That in those dayes there were diversities of Observations and Rites in several Churches without any forcing of any but every Church as it seemed good to them and that such as liked those Rites did commend them to their Posterity for Laws And Mr. Thorndike in his Book called the true way of composing differences pag. 26 27. saith That if a part of a Church speaking there of a National Church as men tearm it shall give Law to the whole such part that so doth for so doing are Schismatick If therefore any particular Church being but a part of the whole in his sence should make Rules for the whole or if it be said that the Convocation or Synod is such a Church who have this Power to make Laws for the whole these also are but a part of the Church in Mr. Thorndikes sence and but a little part too If these therefore shall give Laws to the whole then hear what Thorndike saith If yet they say This is the whole Church in their Representative Answer first cannot justly call themselves the Representative of the whole for they were neither chosen nor sent by the whole nor did the whole ever intrust them with any such Power Nor were they chosen sent and intrusted by the particular Churches of the whole without which in any rational way they cannot be supposed to be the whole Church in her Representative no nor the Church of England in her Representative if not so sent chosen and intrusted by the particular Churches thereof as above nor will they we presume challenge any authority from Christ immediately derived upon their persons to be the Churches Representative and to make Laws for them But Secondly If it should be granted though against all reason that they do indeed represent the Church of England yet then it must be proved by the Word of God or very good authority that any such Representative was called the Church and so accounted and hath such power to make Laws for many Churches or Congregations by Divine-right and to whose Laws those Churches were bound to give obedience for Conscience sake If that in Acts 15. be urged it seems to be altogether impertinent unlesse they will make the Apostles and whether all or some only we cannot determine the Elders of the Church in Jerusalem and all the brethren of that Church a Convocation or Synod And such another we can hardly find now adayes that this was so and no other is apparent from the very Text for all these met together about the matter and it is said verse 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send chosen men of their own Company c. cheif men amongst the brethren and in the next verses we find That the Apostles Elders and Brethren wrote about the matter and say It seems good to us being assembled together with one accord to send c. here the brethren were as much the Convocation as the Elders But then also consider the causes why the Church at Antioch sent to this Church at Jerusalem about this matter and why they in Jerusalem write their mind again to them they are two The first may be Supposed that is because there were some of the Apostles the second is Expressed that is because those men who came to Antioch and preached the Circumcision there pretended that they came from Jerusalem from the Apostles and whole Church there with this Doctrine therefore was there great reason why they should apply themselves to them to be resolved of the truth in that matter for about the same question Paul and Barnabas had before disputed at Antioch and also mark the matter they write about it hath a suitableness to that which they had desired to be resolved in The epistle tells them that they who wrote the Epistle had given no such commands to those men to teach such things ver 24. And further That it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay no greater burthen upon them than such necessary things therein mentioned which things were necessary to be abstained from because the use of them would then have offended and fornication was sin in it self and by the way note here are no new things required to be done of those but somewhat they should forbear to do because by doing it they may offend such who could not judge it to be lawfully done and sin Here now is not the least footsteps for such a Synod as the Convocation our Council of Bishops or Ministers as a Church to make lawes which shall be binding to any more than themselves who agree to them For the Church at Jerusalem had such a thing fallen out with them as did at Antioch That some had come from Paul and Barnabas and that Church with false Doctrine unto them might as well have written to them at Antioch to have been resolved And Paul and Barnabas and the Elders and Brethren of that Church of Antioch might have written an Answer to them with equall authority Nay but is there ground to give like credit or subjection to a Rule of any Convocation or Synod now as there was to the Apostles in those days Surely No But if it be said that they are the Churches Representative and their Lawes are the Lawes of the Church by humane authority only then it will be necessary to prove That such who take upon them to make Churches and Convey power to them by their Lawes have such a power delegated to them from Jesus Christ so to do Otherwise their Lawes will not creat such a Church with authority in these cases and to whose Laws obedience is to be expected for Conscience sake The old Rule must be remembered None can give to another that he hath not in himself But if it be said that the Governours of the Churches of a Nation or Kingdome with the Magistrates authority have power to determine of matters indifferent in their owne nature about the worship of God and in Church Government and by Law to impose them upon the particular Churches of that Nation For Answer to this first we think it a

healthfull persons withwhom I can associate again And if several other persons saith he be of the same mindwith me and we therefore joyn together do we therefore divide our selves from the whole world Thus he in this place clearly intimated a withdrawing from one Society upon good grounds and then for as many as be so withdrawn and of the same mind to joyn themselves together and associate by agreement and that is no separation And no doubt but that there is matter enough to be found sufficiently to warrant such persons in this also as well as in withdrawing Communion But if yet they shall say the Church of England is that from which these separate How pray If the Church of England be granted to be a Church in either or both of the two first Descriptions herein before given though in Truth she be but a little part of both yet there is no other Union with her as one Church nor can there be but the Union in Fa●th under one Head Jesus Christ and participation of the same Spirit and the profession of this Faith So that none can be said to separate from her as a Church or be guilty of Schism or breach of Union here but such who renounce the Faith and their Union with Christ the Head in Word or Deed and forsake their profession of it And this Church of England cannot be pretended to be a particular Church under the third Description for they never yet associated as such nor is it possible for them as a Church to meet in one intire body in one place to partake of the same Ordinances or do any other Act as a Church or Society but always met in their several Bodies or Churches for performing of all Acts of a Church as such In like manner also do these who are so blamed Therefore in this sence neither can they be by any Rule of Reason said to be guilty of Schism If these Offended ones shall yet say thus That such Men refuse to joyn with our Congregations and Ministers in our way For Answer to this besides what hath been said before to justifie their continuing by themselves First it 's thought in Charity to be presumed That these Men are convinced of the Truth of the premises That in truth all things about Church-Affairs were managed in and by particular Churches Congregations or Societies by Divine Authority and so Ordered as before Their Ministers chosen the Matter of their Worship without any addition alteration or diminishing according to Divine Rules Scandalous Persons cast out c. That these cannot judge it Lawful for them to do any thing in these matters contrary or not according to this Rule but think if they should they must sin against God And then this must needs be a sufficient plea for these in this case especially since other things to them doubtful unnecessary and sinful are made necessary Conditions of Communion with those Congregations So that none can communicate with them but of necessity he must submit to own and joyn with there things and neglect the other way Secondly Is any man bound to joyn with or partake in every Congregation in England or in more than one or must he be guilty of the breach of Union Surely no may not a Man abide in his own Parish all his Life and refuse to have any Minister but his own or Communicate with any Congregation but that whereof he is a Member Yet he shall not for this be accounted a Schismatick or Separatist It is presumed no Man will say he shall Wherein then lyes the difference These men thus accused do joyn themselves to some one Congregation or Church of God according to the Rules as was in the beginning and there they abide in the Orderly participation of Ordinances and Subjection to Christs Laws therein executed and disagree in nothing of the true Faith from other Churches So that it follows That barely upon this pretence neither can they fasten the Crime of Separation upon those who do not joyn with their Congregations and Ministers May not members of Parish-Churches be as properly said to be Separatists for refusing to joyn themselves to those Congregations Societies or Churches and Ministers in their Worshipping of God as these for not joyning with them Nor can it be said That these dis-agree with the Church of England in any thing wherein the whole Church of God is agreed or the whole Church of England but only in some things wherein the Church of God yea in England dis-agree amongst themselves as Mr. Stillingfleet in his said Book called A Rational Account p. 357 358. affirms against the Papists in these words We saith he have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed But to dis-agree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in those things wherein those Churches differ amongst themselves is not to separate from the Christian World but to dis-agree in some things from these particular Churches The case is here the same These do not separate from the whole Church of England but only dis-agree in those things wherein the particular Churches differ amongst themselves And then walk with such who can and will agree with them in these things If they say the Parish-Churches are most Lawful and right and so their Ministers Ministration and Order Let this be first decided by Gods Word and their Lawfulness better proved than the Churches Ministry and Order and Management of Church-Affairs amongst these and before set forth as the Primitive Practice and then they say something But if they justifie all by the Law of the Land only it may soon be answered by this That it was not so from the beginning That the other way is proved by the Law of God and Practice of the Primitive Churches and approbation of Learned and good Men in all Ages yea and of Men of contrary Practices themselves Therefore surely the best plea against this For if Magistrates or Governors appoint any thing in these matters not agreeable to these Rules so that Men cannot be satisfied in their own minds but doubt it's Lawfulness such doubting ones may not be in the practice of it till they be satisfied of it's Lawfulness without sin Nor will it be a sufficient Excuse in the great Day of the Lord if they thus sin To say that the Magistrate commanded me to do it If they shall yet further alledge That these Persons agree not to Walk not in those Practices and Rules in the Church of England which are prescribed by the same Church and to which the generality of the same Church agree and submit and therefore they may be said to be Separatists and Schismaticks Though a full Answer to this may be gathered from the Answer to the last Objection And what hath been said in this before to acquit them from this Charge upon such an Account That is that the Church of England as such