Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	ancient_a	church_n	father_n	2,262	5	4.7708	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65713	The Protestant reconciler. Part II earnestly perswading the dissenting laity to joyn in full communion with The Church of England, and answering all the objections of the non-conformists against the lawfulness of their submission unto the rites and constitutions of that church / by a well-wisher to the churches peace, and a lamenter of her sad divisions.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1683 (1683)	Wing W1735; ESTC R39049	245,454	419

and as it grew more ancient its Constitutions grew more numerous and so the men of this opinion had they lived then as they did not none that we read of in those times ever pretending separation from any Church on these accounts they must have been obliged to separate from all the Churches then in being Come we to all the Churches of this present Age and we shall find that this opinion will oblige the Authors of it to separate from them also For the Church of Rome and all the Eastern Churches they must much more abominate on this account than any others because their Ceremonies are more numerous and many of them superstitious The Lutheran Churches have not only Lyturgies and other ancient Ceremonies which we observe but they have also Images many other observations which these men stile Superstitious Popish Antichristian Ceremonies In the Reformed Churches they will find Lyturgies of humane invention and change of Apparel for Divine Service even at Geneva they will find enjoyned a Book of Common Prayer composed by Calvin the Wafer Cake the use of God-Fathers in Baptism bidding of Prayer with divers other Coremonies no where commanded in the Holy Scripture and so as Dr. Durel largely proves it is in all Reformed Churches of the West I am not able saith Mr. Baxter to bear the thoughts of separating from almost all Christs Churches upon Earth but he that separateth from one or many Def. of the Princip of love p. 55. upon a Reason common to all doth virtually separate from all Since then it hath been proved that separating on the Account of this principle is virtually condemning and separating from all the Churches of this and all preceding Ages of the Christian World the Authors of it must renounce the principle or bear the blame both of condemning and separating from the whole Church of Christ throughout all Ages This Tenet gives a great advantage to Popery for it asserts that nothing circumstantial must be performed in Gods worship without particular direction from the Word Now it is certain that many circumstances of worship which concern Prayer Preaching of the Word Administration of the Sacraments Church Government the Exercise of Church discipline are not determined in the written Word of God and therefore it is needful if this principle be true either to own Traditions touching matters of this Nature to be received as the Word of God or to confess he hath appointed some infallible persons whether Pope or Councils it is not much material whose determinations in these matters must be received as the Word of God Now these two Tenets are the fundamental parts of Popery on which their other Doctrins and Practices depend and which if we admit we cannot rationally reject whatsoever these infallible Judges shall determine or deliver as the unwritten Word of God I shall conclude this head with a large Passage out of Mr. Baxter who in his defence of his principles of Love speaks thus There are men otherwise very honest and truly Godly who think that the Scripture is intended by God not only as a general Rule but a particular Law for all the very circumstances of worship and that the second Commandment in particular condemneth all that is the product or invention of man in or about the Worship of God and that to deny this is to deny the perfection of the Scriptures If this opinion prevail saith he what abundance of hurt will it do For 1. It draweth men into the dangerous guilt of adding to the Word of God under pretence of defending its perfection and extent For what is adding to the Word of God but making that to be commanded or forbidden by that Word which is not there commanded or forbidden Since therefore evident it is that all particular circumstances of worship are not by that Word prescribed as I have proved already whence it must necessarily follow that some necessary circumstances not there prescribed cannot be forbidden it is plain that this opinion which saith that all circumstances of worship are particularly prescribed in Scripture and that all not prescribed are forbidden there must add unto the Word of God 2ly It prepareth men for Infidelity and the denyal of the Authority of Holy Scripture for when men are made to believe that Scripture if it be a perfect Rule must be a Rule for those things which are not found in it at all they must be tempted when they cannot find all Accidents of worship particularly determined in it to suspect it as a delusory imperfect thing The Divine Will say it tells me not sufficiently and particularly what Books of Scripture are Canonical nor which of the various Readings are right nor whether it be to be divided into Chapters and Verses nor into how many nor in what Metre and Tune I must sing Psalms nor what persons shall be Pastors of Churches nor what Text I shall chuse next nor what Words or Method I shall use in my next Prayer or Sermon 3ly This opinion which seems to plead for the perfection of the Scripture Rule doth plainly charge it with imperfection and obscurity for it asserts that it is necessary in Order to the perfection of this Rule that it should have prescribed every particular circumstance and mode of worship fit and requisite to be used in Gods Service and it is farther requisite that it should do this clearly in all the instances forementioned since otherwise we cannot be assured that we act in all these modes and circumstances according unto its directions Now seeing it is certain that it hath not done so in all the instances forementioned in answer to the former Arguments since learned pious and judicious men can find no such determinations there and therefore judge dispute and act so variously in those matters because they find nothing delivered in those cases with so great clearness and particularity as may determine them in all these cases how to act I say this being so it must be evident that Scripture cannot be according to this supposition a sufficient plain and perfect Rule 4ly This mistake tends to cast all rational worship out of the Church by deterring men from inventing or studying how to do Gods Work aright for if all that man inventeth or deviseth without a particular direction from the Holy Scripture be forbidden by it then must we not study to find out the true Method of Praying or Preaching nor must we study what to say till we are speaking nor what time gesture place or words to use there being no particular direction for these things it being only said in general Study to shew thy self a Workman that needs not be ashamed Now banish Study and you banish Knowledge and rational Religion from the World 5ly This opinion will bring in all confusion instead of pure reasonable worship whilst every man is left to find that in Scripture which never was there one will think that he findeth one thing there and another

Phrase That I commanded them not is only used in Scripture concerning things which he forbad or did command his people not to do and upon that account by good Interpreters is styled a Litotes that is a Figure which in Words diminisheth the thing intended as when a prohibition is intended by saying such a thing is not commanded This will appear from a perusal of the places cited For 1. The strange Fire which Nadab and Abihu offered was forbidden Fire 't was Fire not taken from the Altar to put into their Censers and burn Incense with Vid. Ainsw in locum whereas God had commanded that Fire should be always burning on the Altar to that very End And if God had no where commanded whence they should take their Fire to burn Incense and offer Sacrifice withal and yet would not allow them to use that Fire which he had not commanded it was not possible that they should offer to him any Incense or Burnt-Offering which was not an abomination to him As for their Offering their Sons and Daughters unto Baal or Moloch God most expresly did forbid it saying Lev. 18.21 Thou shalt not let any of thy Seed pass through the Fire to Moloch that this was the abomination which he hated Deut. 12.31 18 10 12. and that the Person guilty of it should be stoned with stones because he had defiled his Sanctuary and profaned his Holy Name Levit. 20.2 3. The Worship of other Gods or of the Sun and Moon and Stars which God is said not to have commanded is most expresly said to be transgressing of his Covenant Deut. 17.2 3. And therefore it was doing that which he forbid so that the import of these Texts seems only to be this that we must not perform in publick Worship or elsewhere that which God hath forbidden or hath enjoyned us not to do Question But why then is a thing so highly criminal expressed in these mild Words Which I commanded them not Answ The certain reason of this Phrase I cannot promise only I conjecture thus that whereas God had imparted to all the Heathen Nations the Sun Moon Stars and all the Host of Heaven that is had left them to the Worship of them Deut. 4 19. winking at them in the times of ignorance he had taken the Jews to be a people of inheritance to himself v. 20. and therefore saith unto them I am the Lord your God you shall have no other Gods but me wherefore for them to worship any of those Gods which he had not commanded or imparted to them was virtually to renounce the true God and to transgress his Covenant Deut. 29.25 26. and hence is that expression in the Book of Deuteronomy they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the Lord of Aegypt for they went and served other Gods and worshipped them Gods which he had not given or imparted to them § 6 Add to this that Ingenious Answer which Mr. Eccles pol. l. 2. Hooker hath returned to this Objection viz. That because the Works of God are perfect and lack nothing for the performance of the thing to which they tend it followeth that the End being known to which God directeth his Speech the Negative Argument is always strong and forcible concerning those things that are apparently requisite to the same End As v.g. The purpose of God was to teach his people both to whom they should offer Sacrifice and what Sacrifice was to be offered to burn their Sons in Fire to Baal or Moloch he did not command them he spake no such thing neither came it into his Mind therefore this they ought not to have done For when the Lord had once set down a precise Form of executing that in which we are to serve him the Fault appeareth greater to do that which we are not than not to do that which we are commanded in this we seem to charge the Law of God with Hardness only in that with foolishness in this we shew our selves weak and unapt to be Doers of his Will in that we take upon us to be Controulers of his Wisdom in this we fail to perform the thing which God sees Meet Convenient and Good in that we presume to see what is Meet and Convenient better than God himself in those actions therefore the whole Frame whereof God hath on purpose set down to be observed we may not otherwise do than exactly as he hath prescribed Thus I suppose the Force of this Objection is sufficiently assoiled Obj. 3 Moreover it is objected by Dr. Ames and others § 3 p. 298.299 that the second Commandment forbiddeth to make unto our selves the Likeness of any thing whatsoever for religious use and therefore forbids us to use significant Ceremonies of mans devising Answ 1 The Major of this Argument is false for the second Commandment doth only forbid us to make any Likeness there mentioned to be the Object of our Religious Worship by bowing down unto or worshipping it the import of it being plainly this Thou shalt not make any Resemblance c. by Picture Sculpture or Fusion in Order to religious adoration and yielding to them any such signification of respect which the Custom or Consent of men hath appropriated to Religion as bowing falling down lying prostrate before them or the like That this is the true intent of this Precept is plain by the ground of this prohibition delivered by Moses in these Words Take ye therefore good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb Lest you corrupt and make you a graven Image Deut. 4.15 16. the similitude of any Figure the Likeness of Male or Female c. 2ly This is apparent from the reason of the prohibition I am a Jealous God that is a God very tender of my Honour and of my Right who will by no means suffer any Mate or Competitor in respect to that outward Worship which properly belongs to me I am the Lord that is my Name Esa 42.8 my Glory will I not give to another neither my Praise to graven Images For who can without blushing say that God is robbed of the outward Worship due unto him by our kneeling at the Sacrament our using the surplice or making the sign of the Cross upon a Childs Forehead whereas he himself tells us that he is robbed of his Praise and Glory by giving of Religious Worship unto graven Images it being only due unto that God to whom every Knee shall bow But saith Dr. Ames p. 302. The very Phantasies or Images of the mind not prescribed by God are by most Interpreters held as well forbidden as outward Real Images Answ if so the most are not always the best Interpreters there being nothing more absurd and foolish than this Interpretation never thought of by any of the Ancients or approved