Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,024	5	6.5132	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57860	A rational defence of non-conformity wherein the practice of nonconformists is vindicated from promoting popery, and ruining the church, imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of separation : also his arguments from the principles and way of the reformers, and first dissenters are answered : and the case of the present separation, truly stated, and the blame of it laid where it ought to be : and the way to union among Protestants is pointed at / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1689 (1689)	Wing R2224; ESTC R7249	256,924	294

the 3d. Sort if there be no other cause of separating from him but that I think under correction of the more Wise and Learned that they should rather cede of their right with a Salvo than break the Peace and Unity of the Church or disoblige the Magistrate and therefore they ought to give their consent By this means their right that Christ hath given them is not alienated it being by them on that occasion Asserted and the Rending of the Church is prevented Sect. 15. Let us now hear what the Dr. will say to make good against us his charge of our separating on this Head. He saith They have a Legal Establishment and Law and Vsurpation are contraries Ans. Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of a Civil Office are contrary Also Establishment by the Gospel and Usurpation of a Church-Office are inconsistent but Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of an Office in the Church are very consistent one with another Because the Office of the Ministry is no institution of Man but of Christ and he giveth Laws to regulate that and other affairs in his House and hath not left these to be ordered by the Laws of men I thought the Dr. had been for Episcopal Government in the Church not for Erastianism Mr. B. is cited p. 134. asserting That all that come into the places of Ejected Ministers the people not consenting are Vsurpers that the Magistrate's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church without or before the Peoples consent nor will it always oblige the People to consent and forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismatical because they do it not For disproving of this the Dr. first leaveth it to others to judge of the dangerous Consequences of this an Act being passed by King and Parliament for removing of some Pastors and putting in others And I desire that these others who judge of this matter may consider that the ordering of the Ministerial Call and the fixing a Religion between Pastor and People do fall directly under the Cognizance and Laws of him who is the Head and Lawgiver in his Church even Jesus Christ and under the Laws of men only as the Civil Peace may be concerned therein and let them also consider that we by owning or disowning a Pastoral Relation which the Magistrate hath passed an Act for or against do manage our principle and order our practice with that peaceableness and caution that the Magistrate may as little as possible either know it or be offended at it and if we be Convicted of a Transgression of the Magistrate's Law we patiently suffer the Penalties Let them I say Consider these things and withal Consider that to differ from the Magistrate in Principle and Practice of Religion was the Lot of the Primitive Christians and then let them judge if they be Impartial Men whether any such dismal consequences as the Dr. insinuateth are like to follow Sect. 16. He objecteth next On those Grounds when Solomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadock is his room any part of the People might have pleaded they never consented to Zadock's coming in The Question is whether it belonged to the King or the People Ans. There is so little shadow of Reason or affinity to the question in Hand in this Argument that it is no small Derogation from the understanding of so Learned a Man once to mention it for the chusing of a High-Priest belonged neither to King nor People but the Succession was fixed in one Family by the Lord and it was neither in the Power of the King nor People to chuse any but the nearest Heir of that Lin● Wherefore what Solomon did in this Case was no more but to inflict a Civil Punishment on Abiathar to wit Exile from Jerusalem where only the Office of High-Priest could be Exercised and Confinement to Anathoth And this was done for his Accession to Treason against Solomon And Solomon's putting Zadock in his place was no more but obeying the Commandment of God who had promised the Priest-hood to Phinehas whose nearest Heir Zadock was And it is the opinion of many Divines that Abiathar's right to the Priesthood was not so good as Zadock's Another Argument like the rest he hath p. 135. is That it follows that a smaller part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and chuse other Governours in opposition to those Established by Law and they may do it in one case as well as in another Which makes me wonder saith he at those who dare call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any men do enjoy their Estates This is a Confounding of things most disparate one from another a taking away all distinction of Civil and Church power We utterly deny his consequence That because people notwithstanding of an Act of Parliament may adhere to their Pastors therefore they may chuse other civil Governours for of these he must speak or speak nothing to the purpose They may not do it in the one case as in the other because the one case is regulated by Christ's Law the other by Mens Law. But I now smell out a mistake in the Dr. that maketh such Choler and Zeal against us That we count them Usurpers of their places that is their Benefices Let him no more fear that we own their Title to these to be as good as Men have to their Estates both being disposable by the same Law But all that we have said is about their Usurping the Charge of Souls Of which we Assert two things 1. That there is no necessary Connexion de facto between a good Title to the one and to the other though de jure I mean divino beneficium sequitur officium 2. That the same Law may give a Title to an Ecclesiastick Estate which giveth Title to other Estates but another Law and not that must give a Title to having the charge of Souls and must make a Relation between Pastor and People And the reason of this Difference I bring from that famous saying of Constantine the Great to the Church-men that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 17. He hath yet another Argument to wit That this overthroweth the Reformation for the Papists had the very same Plea that these Men have now to wit that the Magistrate had no Power to dissolve the Relation between them and their former Church-guides Ans. If the Dr. will say that the Popish Clergy had no otherwise forfeited their Title to the charge of Souls than by the Magistrates Law then their Plea and ours were the same But I suppose he as well as we will fix that forfeiture on another Foundation to wit their Heresy and Idolatry that they led the People into warranted the People to withdraw from them as none of Christ's Ministers and disobliged the People from owning any further Relation to them as their Pastors And this not only warranted

and therefore much more than such a foolish Ceremony 3. If this Argument prove any thing it would make it our duty rather to bow to him when his name is mentioned in Blasphemy or Swearing Then such a Testimony is more needful than when all present are worshiping him Sect. 29. Argument 3. It is superstitious Worship not only on the account of its not being commanded but also because it is impossible to make that use of a name without ascribing more to it than is due to a word or any external sign I know our Brethren will deny all respect to the word and affirm that it is only the Person of the Redeemer that they reverence And I am obliged to believe that they make not the name the Objectum Terminans of any part of their Worship yet the setting such a mark of discrimination on that name from others and giving such Reverence on that occasion is such a violent presumption of some inward Respect to that word rather than to another of equal Excellency that a man ought not to believe himself when he denyeth it of himself much less are others obliged to believe him Especially the Church-Guides who impose this must either see some Reason for it or none if none it is Church-Tyranny to impose so arbitrarily in the Worship of God If they see a Reason that Reason cannot shun to be superstitious to wit a making a difference in this name from others where there is no such difference And if it were possible to free the mind of superstitious Conceits in this matter it is altogether impossible to free the action from a●candalous appearance of superstition for what other Construction can the Beholder put on bowing so many times at the recurrent mention of a word when no such thing is done at the mention of other words of the same signification May not one rationally think that it is not the thing signified but the sound of the word that moveth men when they see them bow at that word and not at another that expresseth the same thing If I see a man frighted at the hearing the word Eusis and not moved at hearing Gladius I have reason to think that it is not the apprehension of a Sword which is signified by both words that doth so move him but some Antipathy he hath at the sound of the word E●sis This is easily applyed Sect. 30. Argument 4. It is impossible to observe this usage punctually without having the mind diverted from that attention to the other Acts of Religion that is fit Men may talk what they will but common Experience will convince the unbyassed that it is impossible to hear with serious attention toward the matter read or otherwise spoken to go along with it in the heart and at the same time to be ready at the sound of the word Jesus to catch it and to use the Reverence required I appeal to the Experience of them who do seriously mind this bowing whether their mind be not taken up with thoughts about the word waiting for it before they hear it so as they cannot at the same time mind what else is spoken as they ought Here we may apply that Adage Vides aliquem de vocibus solicitum scito animum in pusillis occupatum The mind cannot be intent on two things at once such as are one single word and the matter of a coherent Discourse Argument 5. It is an usage unknown to the Apostolick purest Primitive Times of the Church yea it is amongst the most novel Inventions of the later and more corrupted Times of the Church under the Anti-Christian Apostacy no mention of it till the middle of the 13th Century It was never injoined till Concil Lugdunens 1273. and Basiliens 1431. Argument 6th It hath been grosly abused to Superstition and Idolatry in the Popish Church and therefore being confessed to be an indifferent thing it ought to be abolished In a Council at Auspurg this bowing is injoined at the name of the body and blood of Christ of the Virgin Mary and several others of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Lugdun it is injoined chiefly in the Mass. It argueth a strange respect to that way thus to symbolize with them in their usages that have no warrant in the word and by so doing to differ from all Protestant Churches Sect. 31. I come now to attend the Doctor 's debate with Mr. A. about this matter where I am troubled to find the Dr. treating his Adversary with such Contempt and indecent Reflections on his learning which maketh him be honoured in the eyes of men as able to discern as they who despise him telleth us He had before defenced these things as required by the Church against Papists and Mr. A. borroweth their Weapons but doth not so well manage them We give the Author his due Praise for his learned Labours against the Papists but are not thereby obliged to be silent when he opposeth any of the Truths of God But I cannot understand how Mr. A. should borrow the Popish Weapons in this Controversy seeing the Papists and the Doctor are in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. A. doth oppose them both It is true a Non-conformist may say that Papists have as good reason for their Ceremonies as the Church of England for hers But this is not to use their Weapons for we think neither hath reason on their side Mr. A. blameth the Doctor in answering his Popish Adversary for saying That bowing at the name of Jesus is no more than going to Church at tolling of a Bell. To which Mr. A. replyeth That it is Motivum cultus at least and so more than the tolling of a Bell to call people to Church and he addeth that an Image may as well give warning to the eye to worship as a Bell to the ear Here Mr. A. is far from either pleading for Popish Tenets or using Popish Weapons but sheweth the absurdity of the Doctor 's opinion by a parallel opinion of the Papists which the Dr. condemneth which is a good way of reasoning ad hominem and needed not be so cryed out against The Dr. giveth some good Reasons why Images are not to be used in worship but he doth not touch the Point in hand between him and Mr. A. who never intended to parallel a Bell and Images any further than this that a Bell in the Act of Worship the sound of the word Jesus is in the same quality must be Motivum cultus and so is an Image Therefore if an Image not only on other accounts that the Dr. mentioneth but even on account of this lower use of it its being motivum cultus be evil so is the sound of the word Jesus Sect. 32. The Dr. exposeth Mr. A. as a crackt delirious man for saying that the Papists go too far in preserring an Image higher than to be motivum cultus but the question is whether they do not sin in applying