Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	law_n	parliament_n	7,328	5	6.6868	4	true

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

forbidden by the Law Had that been separation And how cometh when and where to be in When we are forbidden every time and in every place to preach to more than four Is any time or place allowed us to preach in You mean He is a separatist who preacheth being forbidden by Law But I am ready to give you a fuller proof than is now to be offered on this occasion that no man hath authority to forbid a faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-power to perform the office to which he is ordained And Secondly that we remain under a Divine obligation to it which such a Law 〈◊〉 dissolve As Bishop Bilson before saith if Princes forbid us we must go on with our work what if the King had turned against Episcopacy and Liturgy and forbad all the Episcopal to preach Would you think it sinful separation to preach By this you shew how easily you would lay down the work you are Vowed to if the Law did but forbid you How much then are Papist and Protestant Casuists mistaken that say the Law is null that is against the common good and that all power is only to edification And what limits do you set to this Till you tell us how can we judge of our separation what if an interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdome must all obey What if it be most must most obey What if it be more then can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that so binds us Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists Arrians Eutychians c. or only the Orthodox And do you set the people all to judge whether the King be Orthodox as the rule of their obedience to his Laws If I prove not that God bindeth me to preach call me disobedient but yet that will not prove me a separatist By this rule you may be a separatist as oft as the Law changeth if you will not change as fast as it Yea though you Judge the Laws impositious to be hainous sins yet you must do them all or give over your Ministry And so God must ask leave of the Rulers to be worshiped as God If he were a God of their making they might put him down And I think it will prove confusion and worse disobedience than our preaching is to lay all the peoples obedience herein on their opinion of the Rulers Orthodoxness no doubt but the heathen and heretical Rulers are Governours even of the Church though none hath power for destruction or against God The Duke of Brandenburghs Subjects judge him not Orthodox Are they therefore absolved from obeying him in matters of Religion Calvenists Subjects think Lutherane Princes not Orthodox and Protestants in France Hungary Poland judge their Papist Kings not Orthodox Yea what if we judge the Bishops not Orthodox that made the Cannons or Liturgy are we absolved from obeying them And what if any Subjects think that the King is not Orthodox And Parliaments who also make our Laws contain men of many minds And the Parliament of 1640. is said by the Bishops to have been far from Orthodox even to have been Presbyterians and Erastians and even for Rebellion and yet they made divers Laws which the King consented to and ratified Were not men obliged by those Laws And indeed if the Lawmakers being not Orthodox null his Laws about Religion why not all his other Laws But it may be you will say that it is not all the people that must judge whether the King and Parliament be Orthodox but the Bishops for them Ans But who shall judge whether the Bishops be Orthodox And if all be resolved into the implicite belief of the Bishops why not of the civil Rulers as well Or why not as the Papists on Pope and Councils I suppose to avoid all this you will not say that he is a separatist that preacheth when forbidden by any Prince whatsoever Turk Heathen Arrian Eutychian Idolater Papist Where then will you fix the notifying Character All men are heterodox in some degree How shall we know the degree which absolveth us from our obedience And how cometh an Orthodox man to be authorized to do mischiefs and forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than a heretick or a Christian more than a heathen I think he is bound to do more good then they and not authorized to do more hurt God never made him a judge whether the Gospel shall be preacht or not nor whether the people shall be saved or left to perish in their ignorance and sin Either then all are separatists that preach against the Laws of Heathens Hereticks or Papists And so the Orthodox Churches have in many or most Ages and places been separatists or else we are cast upon confounding impossibilities to know who the separatist is Especially in Aristocracies and Domocracies where the Rulers are of many minds and the people can never know them all nor when the Orthodox have the Major Vote And I would know whether it be only Rightful Princes or also Usurpers whose Laws are the bond of the Churches Unity If of Usurpers then all the Prelates that conformed not in the times of the late Usurpation were Schismatical separatists by your definition But to do them right few of my acquaintance that could by conformity slay in did then refuse conformity I hear that you were then no separatist But Bishop Guning Dr. Wild Dr. Hide and a great many more took another course and will not thank you if you stigmatize them with us But if it be not the Laws of Usurpers in the Roman Empire by your measure How few were the Emperours that came not in by meer conquest or by killing putting out the eyes or ejecting their predecessors or without any justifiable right And what a case Rome Italy Spain and Africa were in after the first conquests of the Gothes and Vandals and all the Western Empire in the days of the Henries Frederick and many others while men were fighting for the Empire and Popes claimed the making and unmaking of them all And even in France ever since the days of Chilperic for many Ages especially among the progeny of Charles the great it is not to be hid This way you destroy or confound the Churches I cannot imagine what you will reply to this unless you say that it is neither the Title nor the Orthodoxness of Princes which is necessary to make their Lawes the bond of Church unity but it is the goodness of their Laws at least that they impose no sin upon us Ans 1. Then if the Usurpers imposed no sin they were Schismaticks that obeyed them not ● Let that be the rule who shall be judge whether it be sin or not If I be a discerner for my self I have told you how much and great sin I fear till you are displeased with the intimation And when you have proved all those particulars named to be no sins you have

of the Sabbath c. and others against these If not Is not difference in such Doctrines as great a difference as using and not useing some of your Liturgick Forms and Ceremonies IV. Are all different modes of Worship enough to make our Party Separatists Then the French and Dutch Churches are Separatists and either the Cathedrals or the Parish-Churches as to their Vestments Organs Chore mode of Singing c. And the allowed private Baptismes and Communion with the sick are Separations V. Doth every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship make men Separatists If so then when ever a Conformist disobediently shortneth his Common-Prayer or leaveth off his Surplice or giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not or receiveth one of another Parish to Communion c. he is a separatist Yea no man then is not a Separatist sometimes VI. If the Diocesane be the lowest political Church and a Parish but a part of a Church as they hold that take a Bishop to be a Constitutive part how is he said to separate from the Church that owneth his Diocesane and the Diocess what ever place in that Diocess he meet in seeing he separateth not from the Kingdom that stayeth in it and owneth the King though in some acts he disobey Nor doth every Boy that is faulty separate from the School VII Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth you to be a true Church and your communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshiping assemblies as unlawful to be Communicated with when it is not so If the former then Condemning you as no Church is a diminution or no aggravation of separation and the Local presence of an Infidel or a Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of your friends If the latter which is certain then if I can prove the Assemblies lawful which you condemne you are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them and declare such Communion to be unlawful I Communicate with your Assemblies and you utterly shun refuse and condemn Communion with ours which then is the Separatist if I prove ours to be as good as yours VIII Many English Doctors say Rome is a true Church as a Knave or Thief is a true man and we separated not from It but they cast Us out for doing our duty and not sinning as they do I say not as they for as the Pope claimeth the Headship of the Church Universally that form of Policy is not of God and we separate from that essencial form of their pretended Church But ad hominem if the Diocesane also be a true Church and we cast out of it for not sinning are We separatists or are our Ejectors such IX I have shewed you that the Canons Excommunicate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it Separation to be so Excommunicated and who is the Schismatick here And what shall be thought of such Church-men as will first ipso facto Excommunicate us for our duty and then as you do call us Separatists Would you have Excommunicate Men Communicate with you I and many do so because you shall be the Executioners of your own sentence and not I But with what face can men cast Men out by Canon ipso facto and then revile them for not coming in You can mean no other in common sense but that we are Schismaticks or separatists because we are not of the Conformist's judgment And that is not in our power And you differ more in judgment in greater matters from each other and yet call it not Schisme or Separation Yea you differ about the very essential form of your National Church one part taking it to be the Kings supremacy and another to be the Bishops or Clergy's Power And therefore you cannot be truly of one National Church that are not for one essential Form X. If men be wrongfully Excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-Communion I have else where cited you Canons enow that say the contrary and that Clave Errante the excommunication hu●teth none but the Excommunicator And I have Cited Bishop Tailor 's Full Consent Must we not then Meet and Worship as we can when you wrongfully Excommunicate us XI Are not the Laity by your Canon forbidden to Receive the Sacrament in another Parish or any other to receive them if they dare not Receive it from a Non-Preaching Minister at Home And if the People judge that he that is unable or unwilling to Preach or that is a Heretick or that liveth in such heinous Sins or Preacheth Malignantly as to do more Harm than Good may not lawfully be owned by them for Christ's Ministers nor their Souls be Committed to their Pastoral Trust Must they therefore be without a Pastors Care or all Publick Worship and Communion and be Condemned for being Wronged XII Were all those Councils Separatists that Decreed That none shall hear Mass from a Fornicating Priest And Were the Canons called the Apostles and the Greek-Church that used them for Separation that said Episcopus ignorantiâ aut malo animo opplotus non est Episcopus sed falsus Episcopus non a Dee sed ab hominibus promotus Was Guildas a Separatist that told the Brittish Wicked Priests That they were not Christ's Ministers but Traitours and that he was not Eximius Christianus that would call them Priests or Ministers of Christ Were Cyprian and all the Carthage-Council Separatists that wrote the Epistle about Martial and Basilides which I Translated and told the People It was their Duty to Separate from Peccatore Praeposito a Scandalous Prelate and that the Chief Power was in them to Choose the Worthy or Refuse the Unworthy and that they were guilty of Sin if they joyned with such Sinners Who made You a more Reverend and Credible Judge of Separation than Cyprian and this Council At least Who will think that you may Judge them Separatists or guilty of Schism XIII Are not the Laity by your Canon to be denied the Sacrament if they be not willing of your Episcopal Confirmation And when Imposition of Hands is made the Signe by which Confirming or Assuring Grace is conveyed and some Bishops assigne no less to it they fear lest it be made a Sacrament Be their Doubts just or not they cannot overcome them And Must they therefore Live without Sacramental Communion By what Law XIV Are not the Laity that dare not Receive the Sacrament Kneeling for the Reasons else-where mentioned to be denied the Sacrament by your Rule And though herein they fear Sin more than they have cause Must they that cannot Change their own Judgments live all their Dayes without the Sacrament When as General Councils Decreed That none should adore Kneeling on any Lord's Day and the Church for a

understand Ans Now you come to your business But 1. What if you by Calumny call my ordinary hearers Separatists and they are not such 2. What if we prove it to be their duty to hear both you and us in season if they need it or lawful at least and so do commend them and not condemn them may we then lawfully Preach to them What if the fault which we blame some for be their judging it unlawful to hear such as you Will your Logick prove that we call it their fault to hear us as if hearing us and not hearing you were words of the same signification And is all necessary which is lawful Do we condemn men that do not all that is lawful to do And because you after infer that if it be lawful it is a Duty I would you had told us whether you take this universally that What ever is lawful is a Duty or only in this case for some special reason and what that is I suppose it is because it is commanded as if every lawful thing commanded were a duty But we think otherwise unless the Command be an Act which God Authorizeth the Commander to do All mens Authority is limited by God and they have none but from him For instance it is lawful to eat brown Bread and drink Water or Wine But if the King or Bishop forbid me to eat better when my health requireth it I am not bound to obey them It is lawful to were Sackcloth but none have power to forbid me fitter Clothing It is lawful to set a Son Apprentice to a Chimny-sweeper or to an Ale-seller or Vintner but if the Bishop or any other forbid one to place him better it obligeth not It is lawful to marry a Blackmore or an ugly Scold or Beggar But the Bishop or King cannot oblige men to chose no better because it is out of the Verge of their jurisdiction and belongeth to personal and family power It is lawful to put my self into the Hospital and care of an unskilful Physician till my health require better But when my health requireth it I will use a better if I can whoever forbids it For it is usurpation in them that shall take the necessary care of my health and life out of my own hands It is lawful to give the King our estates But Lawyers say we are not bound to do it meerly because He or the Bishop commandeth it But perhaps you think that men may do more against our souls than against our bodies and have more power in Religion than in civil or bodily things But we are not bound to think so if you do It is lawful for men to hear one that only readeth the Scripture and Liturgy and never preacheth But when my needs requireth more I will use it if I can whoever forbids me It is lawful to hear an ignorant raw Lad that saith over a dry Sermon as a Boy saith his lesson and hath neither spiritual Life nor Light nor is fit to take the Charge of Souls And it is lawful to hear such a Sermon as yours or one that peacheth against other mens preaching Yea we rejoyce and will rejoyce that Christ is preached though by such as do it in strife and contention to add affliction to the afflicted and not sincerely But wise men that believe a life to come and love their souls will choose better if they can whoever forbiddeth them Men have no power to hurt our souls nor to deprive us of the help which God affordeth us nor to make themselves the only Judges what is profitable or hurtful to our souls or bodies or what is best for our edification § 37. But To commit a fault in hearing us is of doubtful signification In the manner of hearing all commit faults by some defect of attention faith or application But that 's not it that you mean But that it is their sin to hear us And indeed if this were true is it above your learning to understand that it is lawful to preach to them that commit a fault in hearing them 1. What if culpably they would hear no other Is it better let them hear none at all than that we preach to them If peevishness or sickness make a Child refuse the Food or Physick which he should take by his parents command will you say that it is better that he famish or die than that you give him any other Men may be saved that hear not you But how can they believe unless they hear or hear without a Preacher The means is for the End I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice is a Lesson which I perceive more than the Pharisees are to learn Order is for the thing Ordered Parish Order is not so needful as Faith and Salvation It may be such a mans Sin that he will not hear such as he should hear and so by Consequence that he heareth me and yet also Consequently his Duty to hear me supposing that his fault hath blinded him to think that he may hear no other till his Errour be Cured Or at least it is my Duty to take him as I find him and Preach to him in his own mistake 2. The Canon forbids going out of our own Parishes suppose twenty or five Hundred Infidels or Papists of the next Parish resolved we will hear no Protestant but Dr. Stillingfleet were it unlawful for you to Preach to them 3. If I should Preach to them all against separation and for Prelacy were it unlawful One of the Doctors at the Savoy 1661. motioned that he and I might go up and down England to Preach for Conformity and if any ask us why we do not we may tell them Dr. Stillingfleet taketh it for unlawful If it be a Sin to preach to them it is a sin to preach to them against Separation or for Conformity 4. It is ordinary for men of other Parishes to hear you and Dr. Tillotson and others such as you esteem And I suppose most weekly Lectures are Preached most to men of other Parishes and yet you take it not for sin to preach to them 5. It is ordinary for many Protestants to go hear and Communicate wi●h the French or Dutch Churches which differ from you in the Mode of Worship And yet I never heard it proved that it is a sin for the Preachers thus to preach to them 6. What if your Children as Prodigals over-run you or the Kings Subjects causelesly fly into another Land They ought not to be there Is it herefore unlawful for any to teach them there or receive them to pub●ike Worship 7. Almost all the Christian World is so tainted with some degree of Errour and Partiality that men will hear none but those of their own mind for their Errour sake The Armenians Abassims Greeks Papists Nestorians Jacobites Luth●rans Arminians Calvinists Anabaptists c. It is unlawful for any of these to refuse sounder Teachers than their own and to Confine themselves to