Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	holy_a	scripture_n	1,651	5	5.5616	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62125	A defence of the peaceable and friendly address to the non-conformists against the ansvver lately given to it. In which the obligation to conform to the constitutions of the established church is maintained and vindicated. The answerers objections solv'd; and his calumnies refuted.	Synge, Edward, 1659-1741.	1698 (1698)	Wing S6377; ESTC R221946	57,215	64

know not His last Argument is this Fear or Worship of God taught by the Commandments of Men is not only vain Matth. 15. 9. but brings Plagues on them who abuse their wisdom that way Is 29. 14. Where tho' he very crudely and indistinctly represents the meaning of the former of these two Texts which he alleges yet I freely grant the truth of what he asserts if the thing be rightly understood But where the fear of God proceeds from an awful sense of his Greatness and Majesty and the Worship of God is such as he himself has taught and prescribed consisting in Confession Prayer Thanksgiving and the Celebration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper without omitting any thing which is of divine institution And Men are taught and urged thus to Fear and Worship God because God himself has commanded them so to do And the Law of the Land which may be termed the Commandment of Alan interposes no farther but only to enforce and not to alter the Law of God and to settle and regulate the outward Circumstances of this Worship which the Law of God has not determined I cannot see what from either of these Texts can with any colour be objected against such a constitution of things as this except it be where prejudice and not sober and impartial reason is the Interpreter of them To strengthen these his proofs from Scripture which of themselves I am sure are very weak our Author adds that we are lately taught what he has asserted to be the Doctrine of the Established Church by the B●shop of Derry in his Vanity of Humane Inventions And after having recited some of His Lordship's words out of the Introduction of the Book mentioned he concludes thus Now if Cross Ring c. be not expr●sly contained in Scripture or warranted by the Examples of holy Men therein they must according to the Bishop of Derry's reasoning be displeasing to God and so forbidden by him p. 101 102. But here sure our Author cannot but know that he is guilty in a most palpable manner of a double piece of disingenuity For neither does my Lord Bishop of Derry there teach us that what is contained in those words is the Doctrine of the established Church but only offers his own judgment of those things as being highly reasonable nor does our Author faithfully recite what his Lordship has said but omits part of the last Sentence without which it is not possible fully to understand the meaning and design of that Paragraph His Lordships Conclusion is this S●nce God has vouchsas●d us a certain Direction or his Worship in the holy Scriptures it is to be supposed that all ways of Worship are displeasing to him that are not ●●pres●ly contained or warranted by Examples of holy Men mentioned therein OR MAY NOT BE DEDUCED BY PLAIN CONSEQUENCE OR BY PARTTY OF REASON FROM THEM which last words our Author has very unfairly left out so that altho' our Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●xp●●sly contained in the Scriptures or warranted in particular by the ●xamp●●● of ●oly Men therein Yet still according to my Lord Bishop of 〈◊〉 in that very Paragraph which our Author quotes they may 〈◊〉 be 〈…〉 to God if they can be deduced by plain Cons●●●●rce or by 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 And that all our Forms and Ceremonies are justified by plain 〈◊〉 or an evident congruity and parity of Reason either from the Rules or ●●amples of holy Men in Scripture is what his Lordship has partly proved in the Seq●●l of that Book and may very e●●ectually be made good touching those other things of which he has not there had ●ccasion to speak From what our Author has hitherto been discoursi●● he p. 1●2 ins●rs an Answer to this Question which I had put viz. Can a●y thing be called a Sin which God has not sorbid And he tells me It may 〈◊〉 ●a●s he uncommanded Worship is Sin Now see how an ill cause runs a man into Perplexities and Contradictions He had just before been proving that uncommanded Worship is ●●rbidden and yet almost in the same breath he gives it as an Instance of a thing that is a Sin altho' it be not 〈◊〉 But altho' I have already granted that the use of any uncommanded thing 〈…〉 part of God's Worship is unlawful and the only reason why it is so is because it is forbidden yet neither does it follow from hence nor has our Author proved that uncommanded Circumstances of Worship are sinful And upon a Supposition that they were sinful yet upon what other account they could be so besides their being forbidden I should be very glad to learn from him But he gives another Instance To Baptize says he without the Sign of the Cross Communicate without Kneeling c. are not forbidden of God and yet the Established Church account these Sins To which the Answer is very easy viz. That the Established Church accounts these things to be no farther Sins than as they are forbidden by God Disobedience to lawful Authority in such things as are in themselves lawful is most certainly forbidden since then the Cross after Baptism Kneeling at the Communion c. are in themselves lawful and commanded by lawful Authority For any man wilfully to omit any of these Circumstances in the performance of these Offices as long as the Laws for them do stand in force is an Act of Disobedience to the higher Powers and upon this account and no other is reckoned as a Sin by us But Nonconformity with us is punished more severely than some gross Immoralities I answer that tho' this were true yet makes it nothing to our present Controversy nor can it any way be proved from thence that Conformity is unlawful and therefore for what purpose this is here mentioned except it be to raise the passion and thereby more effectually to cloud the reason of his own Party I cannot imagine What ever errors there may be in the Discipline of a Church as no Humane Constitution perhaps was ever throughly perfect if some part of it be too strict and other too loose or whatever else the fault may be I think it is the Duty of every good Christian fairly to represent such things to those who are in Authority that they may in a due manner be rectisied But as such defects as these are no just ground to refuse the Communion of any Church whatsoever so to upbraid her with them upon an improper occasion and when such a reproach makes nothing to the Argument in hand in my apprehension seems not altogether agreeable to the true Christian spirit of meekness and Charity That this hint then which he here gives is not to the direct purpose of our present Dispute is most plain But what if after he has affirmed it so positively and that too with an Asseveration it should not appear to be so clear and evident a truth as he supposes it He tells us that for Nonconformity Men are to be Excommunicated Ipso