Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	catholic_n	church_n	profess_v	6,124	5	9.0713	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26859	Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denyeth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendred, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.; Answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation. 1680	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1680 (1680)	Wing B1183; ESTC R10441	92,845	104

personal presential Communion and yet they meet not all at once but some one day and some another and some not at all which is a fault in exercitio but overthroweth not the being of the Church while it is personal present Communion which they associate for and profess and that states the Church-relation And they meet not all in one place but some in the Bishop of Ely's Chappel and it is pity but you had many more and yet Chappels of Ease consist with some Obligations on the whole Parish ordinarily to have per vices sometime personal Communion in the Parish-Church If you would have told us plainly that Parish-Churches are no Churches or that God never ordained such single Churches as are associated for personal Communion in Presence in Doctrine VVorship and Conversation which have their proper Pastors we should have known what to say to you But if you deny not such which we undertake fully to prove plainly confess their Constitution VVorth and Privileges and we shall readily next debate the Case with you how far Men may associate these into larger Churches of another species But still we say that as Families cease not to be Families when they are combined into a Village or City no more do particular Churches lose their Constitution or Administration by being associated into any lawful larger Churches § 25. Serm. And if there be one Catholick Church consisting of multitudes of particular Churches consenting in one Faith then why may there not be one National Church from Consent in the same Articles c. Ans 1. I pray confess first that your National doth consist of a multitude of such particular Churches of God's Institution and cannot destroy them or their Power and Privileges Secondly And once tell us what you mean by a National Church whether Regal or Sacerdotal If you mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it If you mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as Equals we deny it not If you mean that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Sacerdotal Head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical we must have further satisfaction about this First whether it be of Divine or of Humane Institution Secondly whether if humane its Power be from the Prince or from the Consent of the particular Churches Thirdly what it is empowered to do 1. Not to make necessary Laws for the Churches of the same sort with Christ's already made 2. Not to cross any of his Laws 3. Not to destroy any Privilege of the particular Churches instituted by Christ 4. But if it be only to determine of such Circumstances as the Christian Prince may determine of we shall obey them as his Officers And now to your Why not I answer Man is not God God made the Form of the Vniversal Church of which the particular are parts whose Form also is of his making And if God hath made National Regent Churches as distinct from Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths we will obey them if not we must know what Men made them and by what authority and whether God authorized them thereto if not your Why not is answered § 26. Serm. p. 18. Nay if it be mutual Consent and Agreement which makes a Church then why may not National Societies agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation Ans 1. Is it only de nomine or de re that you ask If de nomine we grant you that a Parliament an Army may be truly called Ecclesia if de re we grant you that it is truly a Church of another kind 2. Mutual Consent makes a Church but God's Consent or Institution must go first to warrant that Consent and make it a Church which he will own Else mutual Consent may make it but Jeroboam's Church or a false and sinful Policy Prove if you can that God hath authorized Men to make as many new Church-Species Policies or Forms as they please or any against or above or equal to those of his Institution besides Magistracy § 27. Serm. p. 19. Why many of these Cities united under one Civil Government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one National Church I cannot understand which makes me wonder at those who say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Sacrileg Desert p. 35. Answ 1. Admiratio est ignorantis I am as ignorant of you as you are of 〈◊〉 therefore may answer wondering with wondering 1. That such a Man should not know the reason when I so plainly and distinctly wrote it down 2. And that while you wonder you should not vouchsafe to give me the least means of Satisfaction For I suppose few will think that you do so much as attempt it here 3. You make it still as if the Controversie were de nomine what it may be called when I only spake de re and bid you call it what you will if you will but tell us your meaning 4. Yea in my Plea sect 4 5. and in the Addition I fully shewed what we grant de re de nomine and what we deny and what the state of our Controversie is and do you think to satisfie us after all this with Wondering that we understand not what you mean § 28. Serm. In short we mean that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship Answ And will not they that know not your Heart any otherwise than by such Words deride us if we should pretend by these Words to be ever the nearer understanding your Resolution of the Controversie 1. The essential constitutive Parts of a political Society are the Pars rege●s pars subdita as is aforesaid And here is no mention of the Regent part at all can any Man tell by this whether it be the King or a Clergy Head that you take to be the Constitutive Head 2. Laws and Rules are part of the Administration and our question is of the Constitution Is this then any satisfying Definition 3. The Papists by this Definition are the national Church They are a Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship viz. Pap●l If you say They are not all the Nation I answer 1. nor doth your Definition require it 2. You are not all If you say that they are not the major part I answer 1. Whether you are I know not 2. In Ireland they are and so are there the National Church by your Definition If you say that you mean the Laws of Lawful Governours I answer 1. The Papists take the Pope for their lawful Governour 2. If a Usurper get Possession as K. Stephen and many others is the National Church then dead or null 3. There is

Psalm and was against swearing and drunkenness he was made the common scorne as a Puritane and the Bishops Articles and their reproach of Non-conformists occasioned all this in the Rabble against those that were no Non-conformists If you believe not me believe a Conformist Rob●rt Bol●on that saith more of the horrid abuse of Piety by the name of Puritane And since then the same spirit hath used the Name of Presbyterian Schismatick Separatist Fanatick to the like reproach of seriousness and diligence in Religion though not so universally as the name Puritan was Yea if a man had but been for Lectures and such like helps as Arch-Bishop Grindall was for to his cost or for afternoon Sermons or would not read the book for Sunday dancing c. he was worse than suspected and reproached My neighbours that I once was a Teacher to did never presume to preach nor invade the ministerial Office nor do anything but the work of private Christians that is to pray and repeat the Sermon and sing a Psalm but because many ignorant Families that could not read could not do any of this in their houses they joyned with the Neighbours that performed it and this not at time of Publick worship yet because that more than four such met they were distrained on and laid in Gaoles Compare all this and the removal of many hundred families our of the Land heretofore with the consequents of the Bishops zeal against the Priscillians But remember that it is not in my thoughts to lay any of this upon the Bishops that came in since the Impositions and actions aforesaid and had no hand in them and cry not to Magistrates to execute the Laws much less on men of such known moderation as divers of them are nor on the Peaceable Conformists that own none of this 7. And it must be remembred that Martin was but an odd man and seemed singular against the Synods of all the Bishops and a man of little Learning like one of our Trades-men that is Religious And therefore I have wondred that Baronius and Binnius and our Rich. Hooker did so openly decry the faults of the Bishops here and take part with Martin and not rather turn the reproach on him as an unlearned Separatist and Fanatick But his Miracles silenced all reproaches with the rooted esteem which serious Christians will still have for serious Piety when the Reproachers have said and done their worst Else one unlearned Man that went in sordid attire and lived in a small thacht Cottage and lay on the ground and eat worse than our beggars do and pleaded for the Gnosticks persons was liker to have been born down as a mad Fanatick than such men as Dr. Twisse Thomas Gataker Richard Vines Anthony Burges Mr. Hughes Joseph Allen and about 2000 more 8. Lastly Let it be noted that the Cause of St. Martin was his judgement that Heresie and Schisme even as bad as the Gnosticks was not to be punished by the sword but only by Church censures and therefore that the Bishops did wickedly in calling for the Magistrates sword against them for then if the Heretick can get the Magistrate to be for him the same sword may be drawn against the Orthodox And so the Priscillianists once got a great Courtier to be for them and a while turned the sword against their adversaries which occasioned sufferings in Spain and other parts And I wonder how Baronius Binnius or you that plead for the silencing and other afflicting of Non-conformists under the name of Non-toleration and the Churches endeavours for Vniformity can possibly keep out the light which would tell you that we may give you twenty to one in weighing your case and ours with Ithacius and Martins if any impartial hand do hold the ballance Is not your whole cause who cry out for the execution of the Laws and against our Toleration that is that we are not to be endured clean contrary to Martins cause § 75. As to your 3 d. Advice pag. 55. Not to Condemn others for that which themselves have practised I Answer 1. Prove that I or any of my Acquaintance ever practised Ejecting Silencing Ruining men for things unnecessary yea or for greater things Whom did we ever forbid to Preach the truth Whom did we cast out of all Church Maintenance Whom did we imprison 2. If any in New-England had done it is that our doing They that are against Christs Righteousness impated I hope will not joyn with you in imputing to us the sins of those that were no Kin to us and we never saw 3. What a pitiful Case is Mankind in if such an Harangue of confounding words can make them believe that Tolerating or not-Tolerating in Causes vastly different are the same Is it all one to deny men Liberty to seduce men from the essentials of the Faith and to forbid many hundreds to preach Christs Gospel unless they will openly profess that they Assent and Consent to three Books and Covenant never to endeavour the Reforming of the Government of the Church c Might not the Papists have said to us just as you do it is the same thing for us to burn Protestants as Hereticks as for you to expel the Subverters of the Faith But you that are for silencing us all for not consenting to You know what have less excuse for calling it the same thing unless you think Christ and a Liturgy to be same It is therefore fitter to be answered with Compassionate Tears than Words when you say pag. 56. that every one of them would practise the same were it in their Power and think it very justifiable so to do Ans O whither may he rowl that is tumbling down the Hill I was never in Power The Independents once were They used it not as I would have had them But did they or the Presbyterians Eject or Silence one another Is it a good Consequence you would silence a Quaker that denieth the Essentials of Christianity Ergo every one of you were it in your power would Silence Imprison and Ruine them that differ from you in Ceremony Form or Subscription like ours O how incredible are the words of some applauded men I remember that at the Savoy when it was said how some had used the Episcopal Bishop Walton excused and reproved me and said that indeed I had then written against Ejecting or Troubling any honest worthy man for being Episcopal or against the Parliament but that the incompetent and vicious of all sorts equally should be Ejected But saith he did not you write that if the Sword interposed not but meer liberty to Volunteers were granted to all parties the Prclatical Liturgick Church would be like a Tavern or Inne where many sober Persons come but so many others also as would make it a place of no very great inviting Fame I confessed the truth and still confess it § 76. To your 4 th Advice not to make our differences seem greater than they are I