Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	church_n	true_a	worship_n	4,989	5	8.3710	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86500	The mischeife of mixt communions, fully discussed. All maine arguments on both sides, are largely canvased. Many difficulties demonstratively cleared, as that Judas was not at the Lords Supper, &c. When, and how was the originall of parishes in England. Severall cases of conscience resolved. As in case unworthy ones thrust into the Lords Supper; what single Christians should doe, and what the congregation should doe. A discovery what is the originall, and rise of all these disputes, and how a faire end may be put to all. / By Doctor Nathanael Homes.	Homes, Nathanael, 1599-1678.	1650 (1650)	Wing H2569A; Thomason E607_8; ESTC R205868	24,915	24

Communion and keeping of the spiritual feast 1 Cor. 5.2 2. Though to come to the Lords Table if it may be had according to Christs institution is an undoubted duty yet it is not an undoubted duty that any should come to take a sin upon them that they should come to known mixt Communions where other mens sins some how as we have shewed become theirs 3. The company of unworthy persons at the Communion is more then a circumstance for the contrary namely Saints meeting in faith and charity to partake of the Communion is of the essence i. e. of the matter and forme of the Churches right receiving But where there is a mixture of evil persons there is no ground of Scripture to beleeve I do doe wel nor any vertuous object in such unworthy persons for me to love them as fellow Communicants 4. To except against unworthy persons and because they are admitted for me to forbear the Communion is not a mistake that cause is just as we have shewed afore and shal after There is a mistake at least or more by your own intimation in them that having authority doe not keep unworthy ones away and in those unworthy ones that they keep not themselves away And if the former will bring a defilement on themselves and the latter wil bring judgement on themselves I cannot be excused if I may keep my selfe free from both and will not Distinction of Parishes in England were made by Pope Honorious about 1200. years since and so of no divine institution nor inforce any divine obligation for me to receive only in mine own Parish The Scriptures send me to a true Church not to a Parish If one Church be polluted and there is another not farr off that is free from that known pollution in ordinary prudence one would choose pure things afore polluted It s a stated case in Casuists as in Doctor Ames cases of conscience c. that a man may goe from a polluted Church to a pure Church and yet here is no danger in such a particular person of separation upon separation as you after object if Churches will doe their duty If a Church wil separate from the rule of the Word what would your conscience troubled at it doe in such a case Would you against conscience offend and transgresse with the rest For fifthly If a matter about religious things be against my conscience though by mistaking the godly Casuists resolve that till I be informed I shal sin against conscience to doe it So Doctor Ames and study Rom. 14.22 Yea so Saint Paul Rom. 14.23 whatsoever is not of faith is sin For the Apostle speaks of things indifferent and so of matters that I might have done and 't was my ignorance that I was not perswaded I might have done them and therefore Paul exhorts Brethren not to eate any thing to the offence of a weak Brother Rom. 14.20 21. although t is his weaknes to take offence about kinds of meats And therefore sixthly we say why doe not Churches that use mixt Communions more tender the consciences of them that cannot bear these mixtures They keeping out the unworthy would prevent all this adoe Save your words and Paper and Ink in writing in behalfe of mixt Communions what need we plead for rubbish We cannot be too pure in our practise according to the Scriptures If the Church and Officers be they whom you meane have authority to keep out unworthy ones from the Communion so had the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5. And I know none else but the particular Church by joynt consent have the immediate proper power why do not they doe their duty Why must there such load be layd upon a particular tender conscience that out of conscience doth abstaine from a mixt Communion whiles the whole congregation goe on in their sin of admitting sinful mixtures and suppose against conscience and against admonition For sure no Minister and People more or less in any congregation but could wish that unworthy persons were kept out And the case here as before touched is not onely of one private person as private For we put the case as men according to rule ought to act in case they were so imprudent as to incorporate to a congregation that shunned not such mixtures a godly man sees a neighbour that came to the Communion transgresse he admonisheth him of it c. according to Matth. 18.15 The matter at last by these two or three Brethren is brought afore the Church Here is more then one And in the Church they act as publick persons fellow members As three Justices on the Bench are publike persons though there be twenty more there If these three brethren with some other that no doubt will adhere to the rule cannot prevaile against the Officers or major vote to cast out the unworthy a withdrawing from such a congregation is not upon so private a consideration Yea the matter is of so publike a concernment that other Churches must blame that Church if they reforme not and countenance such as withdraw according to rule in 2 Thes 3.6 14. because they cannot attaine the end of that rule Matth. 18.15 Sure if we must withdraw from any one Brother walking disorderly contrary to rule as t is in that 2 Thes 3.6 14. then much more from a whole Congregation of Brethren walking contrary to rule and so offending Christ and the consciences of his Lambs The design then is not separation upon separation but to keep Churches to the rule But to speak al in a word Parish congregations for the most part as in relation to the communion have so il a constitution that they cannot tel where to begin to reform and then they must defend it seeing they cannot amend it and so break Christs Commandements and teach men so But if it be separation upon separation or a taking Churches out of Churches t is a thing I think not contrary to all rule 2 Cor. 6.14 to end Revel 18.14 explained afore and the best Saints generally in all ages have practised and they also I mean the Presbyterians that cry out against it There was a true Jewish Church and particular Jewish Synagogue-congregations among which Christ Preached for three yeares and an half yet Acts 2. and thence forward out of them was a separation and a gathering of Christian Churches Therefore simply and absolutely to go from Church to Church or gather Churches out of Churches is not unlawfull Again the Romish Church was a true Church as famous Polanus proves though a most polluted one it was essentially a true Church till in the Councill of Trent they pronounced an Anathema against all the maine truths of Christ and so gave him a bill of divorce yet justly when Luther Preached more light and holinesse many Nations and among them anon England did also separate from them and their congregations departed from them in Doctrine in part and in forme of worship Many corruptions remaining

among the Lutherans partly in Doctrine namely that of Consubstantiation and partly in ceremonies many Christians gathered themselves into purer Churches at Geneva c. And here in England of late the Presbyterian Churches were a little refined in some things out from the Episcopal congregations So then to tell me there must not be separation upon separation and that if another discerne not the Lords body yet I doe and if another hath no right to it yet I have c. these are all contrary as well to former practice as well as rule and are impertinent to our point in hand Churches that will be called and counted Churches must be constituted as Churches and act as Churches they must be godly persons joyning together and setling their officers among them with one unanimous consent to keep out unworthy persons and upon due complaint and proceeding as aforesaid to cast out unworthy persons So the dispute is at an end Consciences shal not be troubled No danger of separation Good mens consciences shall be cherished and bad men shall be shamed till they repent the dogs shall not have opportunity to snatch the childrens bread nor the children afrayd to goe to their meals lest if they let not the dogs take share with them they bite and teare them Is he a wise governour of a Family that will say Children Servants goe to dinner let the Dogs alone to share with you though they take of your meat doe you take your meale When he may far easier by help of his Family shut the Dogs out if they be so unruly And t is at least as unwise an exhortation to stir up godly men to goe to mixt Communions as to incite them to goe thither when t is known that there are many there that have Plague-sores upon them Sure spirituall infection is worse then corporal and the soule more precious then the body But in your second Reply to our Objections you say ●…ir se●…d Re●… that that 1 Cor. 5. about Leven and that 1 Cor. 10. of one bread doth not signifie any spriritual pollution by reason of society at the Lords Supper But that in 1 Cor. 5. only signifies that the Church of Corinth might be corrupted by the incestuous persons evill example if he were not cast out And that in 1 Cor. 10. cannot signifie that either the wicked man can become a true member with me ●…r Du●… or I a false member with him by reason of fellowship at the communion To which we duply and answer thus to both places distinctly 1. To that of 1 Cor. 5. t is evident that the Apostle speaks in the past time of things past not of what in future that evill example might effect but of an evill past that 't was their sin all the churches sin that they had not been humbled for letting such a one abide a member amongst them v. 2. Secondly That he speaks in the Present tence of their present condition that the whol lump of them was now at present levened by that person being one of them though they were unlevened in their persons in regard of regeneration or else they could not be sayd to be levened but rather to be very leven yet levened in their actions in regard of polluting mixture and polluted worship 3. For future 1. The Apostle cold not imagin that by example all the church of Corinth could become incestuous persons but Paul speaks of the danger of the levening the whole lump 2. He speaks of keeping the feast purely and of not eating with a Brother walking disorderly Therefore from all its plain the Apostle drives at more then evill example namely at evil of Church-communion with unworthy persons so likewise to the 2d. place Viz. 1 Cor. 10. we say that as there is a Anti-federall unholinesse or uncleannesse in children whose Parents neither of them are beleevers though these children may be elect and in time may beleive 1 Cor. 7.14 And a matrimonial-like or a tanquam conjugal union between an Harlot and a Christian whiles that Christian by temptation c. fals into that ditch as Solomon speaks of which union see 1 Cor. 6.15.16 18. So there is a confederate onenesse unto spirituall pollution or purity according to the matter and manner of worship men joyne in If in the due partaking of the Lords Supper t is the Communion of the body and blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 If in eating and drinking at the Idolatrous feasts they that did so though Christians are said to partake of the cup of Devils v. 20. And by the same proportion a compound of good and evil doth make the partners in the same to share in that evill mixture as we have heard much afore 2. Let us speak something to their arguments for mixt Communions a little will serve because former things have anticipated Ob. 1 1. They say it is certaine that there were great offenders at this time in the Church of Corinth some that made themselves drunk at their love feasts at the Sacrament chap. 11. some that even denyed the resurrection chap. 15. and sundry other greivous offenders 2 Cor. 12.20 21. yet are they still a Church though these uncast out and he no where blames for comming to the Lords Table because of them no not in that 1 Cor. 5. An ¦ swer To this our answer is ● That the Church of Corinth might farr better be called and accounted a Church then the ordinary Parochiall Churches here among us 1. Because Corinth for the generality were in matter a Church of such as were called to be Saints and sanctified in Christ Jesus chap. 1. v. 2. And they were altogether a Church in forme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orderly gathered and united of such according to the Apostles direction 1 Cor. 11.34 and 1 Cor. 14.40 But Parochiall Churches in the matter for the generality consist of prophane and ignorant and their forme and union is onely by the Gutters and Stones and Posts of the Precincts of the Parish making them to belong to that congregation of that Parish But when they move house but over the Gutter into another Parish they are no more of that Parish Church Here is no spirituall bond relation or mutuall owning or reciprocall watching between Minister and People or between People and People So that this Objection doth nothing helpe the now Churches that are for mixt Communion least of all these defending mixt Communions which the Church of Corinth did not If they brake the commandement of God yet they did not teach men so So that in many respects it was safer to call Corinth a Church and more tolerable to communicate with it then with the Parish Churches now extant The Church of Corinth however at a time negligent yet the rule was known and own'd among them to keep out and cast out the unworthy 2. We answer That it is not true that the Corinthians are not blamed for comming because of them uncast out