Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	certain_a	deserve_v	great_a	50	3	2.1268	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45122	An answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's book of The unreasonableness of separation so far as it concerns The peaceable designe : with some animadversions upon the debate between him and Mr. Baxter concerning the national church and the head of it.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.; Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. Peaceable design.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. Of national churches.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. Unreasonableness of separation.	1682 (1682)	Wing H3667; ESTC R28713	17,588	40

Neither Church or any Members of Either shall Unchurch one another and That no Man should depart from the One Church to the Other but upon a sufficient peaceable Reason under the pain of Ecclesiastical Censure They should not permit any person unlearned till come to very grave Years which are past Heat and Ostentation to Exercise in these Meetings They should decree the Doors of such Meetings to be kept open that the Magistrate may be secure against Sedition They should determine many things of such a Nature but especially that when a Man hath his choice to be of what Congregation he will in regard to Fixed Communion as he finds it most conducive to his Souls Edification yet should he be allowed and enjoyned to come Occasionally also to the Parish Meetings so far as he can in point of Conscience for the testifying his Union with the Body as the Church is National in this Kingdom And I would have persons likewise who come for their Stated Worship to the Parish Church to go sometimes to the Meetings also without scruple by the way of Occasional Communion I will here deliver my own Soul I know that the Laws of the Magistrate that are Good do Bind the Conscience but there are two Cases that Loose a Man from Obedience One is When that which is Commanded is against his Conscience and the Other is When that which is Commanded is Superseded by a Duty of greater concernment I cannot say for my part that to go to Church and hear Common-Prayer is against my Conscience though a thorough Conformity in all things on the Ministers part is like still to be so seeing the Doctor himself does shrink from a Defence of the Lawfulness of That but this I can say that when it is my duty to go to Church and my duty also to go Preach supposing I am called to one of these Meetings the leaving undone that Duty which is the Less for the doing the Other that can't be done otherwise is no Sin or Evil as I am perswaded in my Judgment And it is upon the Plea of the Greater Duty that the Peaceable Design does stand I know well how my Brethren state Their Case They will have going to Their Meetings to be for their Fixed Communion and allow Occasional Communion with the Parish Church to defend themselves from Schisme but I for my part must confess that I see not and cannot see my Defence to be so Safe unless I take the Parish Assembly where I have convenience for my Fixed Communion and my Preaching in the Meetings and the Peoples going to them to be Occasional only for our Greater or Farther Edification The Doctor therefore should indeed have taken particular Notice of this and Providing only against such Preaching to be at that time when Publick Authority requires the General Attendance otherwhere he should by giving an Approbation to such a State of Our Cause have consulted his Own both with more Judgment and with more Moderation then for ought I see he hath done or was able to do Indeed if the Scene were altered I need not be so wary If these Separate Assemblies were made Legal the Schisme presently in reference to the National Church were at an End Schisme is a Separation from that Church whereof we ought or are bound to be Members If the Supreme Authority then loose our Obligation to the Parish Meeting so that we are bound no longer the Iniquity upon that account is not to be Found and the Schisme gone It is one Act of Parliament would give a full Answer to all Mens Arguments In the mean time the Non-conformists I know have other Pleas besides One for what they do They think themselves bound in Conscience to Meet and Preach and account it Serving God and Doing their Duty The Doctor and others call it Sin and Wickedness When I Hear such Sayings therefore and Read such Books I may still bear Reverence to the Persons but I do not in my Heart care one Penny for what they say for there is a Conscience within quite above such Words They may cry This is Schism There never was such Horrible Schism as this Practise heard of before in the Christian World sayes one very serious Author whom I name not but I am not moved for all that I cannot think a Nonconformist Meeting such a Horrible Creature considering how our case in England now stands as these Church-Men generally would make it The great Bear I must count still hath been lead so long about the Streets that the very Children are no longer afraid of it Not but I am sensible of the dangerous consequence into which our Divisions may bring us but who can help it Who is the Cause of them Who is in Fault is the Question Who is it can Remedy these Terms imposed on us as necessary to Communion The Nonconformist hath no Conscience of Sin upon him in the thing and if he cannot have Peace with his Brethren of the Church upon any terms but Full Conforming it is God must be the Judg and the Bishop and Presbyterian the Doctor and Mr. Baxter shall know which of them it is that are to Blame at the Great Day And wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses The Doctor had no Need to lay out his Parts upon such a Design as that he hath under his hands Nor has he Reason I must inculcate to Despise or Scorn no nor to Slight or Neglect any body though the Meanest person There is a late Reverend Conformist for so I take him to be who in a certain Book Entituled Liberty of Conscience in its order to Universal Peace hath deserved better of us I suppose sayes he there is a Society or Societies of Christians that hold Christ the Head and the great points of Union but refuse to Ioyn in such Opinion or Practise as they conceive not Allowable by the Word of God nor can they that require their Compliance pretend on their part that the things are Absolute Necessary to make a Member of the Body of Christ In this case I say he is only the Schismatick that hath not a Love that hath no Sympathy with the Body and therefore if neither hath they must be both Schismaticks I should not fill so much room with a Quotation but that I am taken with the Genius of the Writer He is a man quite Unknown to me but he hath a fine Spirit and his Book savours of it That is so Generous so Candid so Benign towards the Dissenters as the temper is quite contrary in the Authors of the Friendly Debate the Ecclesiastical Polity and the Unreasonableness of Separation I am concern'd I must needs say that I put these three Names together Not that the Authors of either of the first Books are men of less bright Parts or that the Books have less Excellency of their kind in them than the last but because of the reason why I do it For I must confess it is a matter of real Offence to me that a man who is so Learned a man so Honoured a man throughout the Nation should prove a Proud man a Disdainful Contemptuous person Which Temper if it be Indulged is so un-endurable by God and Man that it will hurl any one into the dust And I cannot do any better Service in the Earth to this otherwise very Worthy and Excellent Doctor than to contribute the best I can to my utmost for bringing him to some Ingenuous Sense and Amendment of it And so I leave him to the World to judg who is most fit to be Pityed the Doctor himself or Mr. Baxter Thou shalt not Hate thy Brother in thy Heart but thou shalt in any wife Rebuke him and not suffer Sin upon him THE END ERRATA PAge 8. Line 11. in some of the Copies the word Last is put for First p. 26. l. 3. for shall read still p. 27. l. 18. for own read once

AN ANSWER TO Dr. Stillingfleet's Book OF THE Unreasonableness OF SEPARATION So far as it Concerns the Peaceable Designe With Some Animadversions upon the Debate between Him and Mr. Baxter concerning the National-Church and the Head of it Against whom hast thou Exalted thy Voice and Lifted up thine Eyes on High LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Three Bibles in Cheap side near Mercers-Chappel AN ANSWER TO Dr. Stillingfleet c. IN Dr. Stillingfleet's Book there is one thing I meet with that I perhaps can better tell how than another to Answer It is in his Preface where he is going about to make the Nonconformists a kind of Parties with the Papists as if they were joyning with them for the bringing in of Popery and for the proof of this he produces one Evidence I will set down his own words and Answer the Allegation In Ann. Dom. 1675. there was a Book printed Entituled The Peaceable designe or an Account of the Nonconformists Meetings by some Ministers of London In it an Objection is thus put But what shall we say then to the Papists His Answer is The Papist in our Account is but one sort of Recusants the Conscientious Peaceable among them must be held in the same Predicament with those among ourselves that likewise refuse to come to Common-Prayer What is this but Joyning for a Toleration of Popery If this be not plain enough these words follow But as for the Common-Papist who lives Innocently in his way he is to Us as other Separatists and so he comes under the like Toleration This notable Book with some few Additions Alterations hath been since Printed with great sincerity called An Answer to my Sermon And the Times being Changed since the former passage is thus Altered The Papists is one whose Worship to Us is Idolatry and we cannot therefore allow them the Liberty of Publick Assembling themselves as others of the Separation Is it Idolatry and not to be Tolerated in 1680 And was it Idolatry to be Tolerated in 1675 Or Was it no Idolatry then but is become so now and intolerable Idolatry too The latter passage hath these Alterations Instead of He is to Us as other Separatists and so comes under the like Toleration These are put in He is to Us in regard of what he doth in private in the matter of his God as other who refuse to come to Common-Prayer Now we see Toleration struck out for the Papists but it was not only visible enough before but that very book was Printed with a design to present it to the Parliament which was the highest way of owning their Concurrence with the Papists for a general Toleration And the true Reason of this Alteration is that Then was Then and Now is Now. For the Answering this Evidence In the first place this Book the Doctor mentions was drawn up by One man though put out by Others and the first Mistake of the Doctor is to lay a Charge on the Party of the Nonconformists for a passage which indeed concerns but One person only In the next place the Reason of bringing that passage into the Book was because the Objection is so Obvious it could not be Baulkt and the Consequence appearing to the Author Undeniable he thought it but Honest to yeild it The Doctor then is mistaken next that believes or pretends the Reason of the bringing in that passage was on purpose only to Favour or fall In with the Papists That which is said in Right to All ought not to be interpreted in Favour to Any In the Third place for the Alteration mentioned it is to be known that when the Author had drew up this Book he left it with a Non-conformist Doctor to shew it to his Brethren who return'd it after a while telling him That they Disliked some passages in it which made him put it into some other hands who afterwards while he was Absent printed it They altered nothing but when it came out the Author indeed found his Brethren Offended at some things and that passage most obnoxious to Exception so that he presenrly made his Emendations and seeing the Book ill Printed intended in time to have another Impression Upon this it appears the Doctor is again Mistaken in regard to this Alteration which he Quotes who judges the Reason of the Change to be only because of the Times The True Reason sayes he is because Then was Then and Now is Now. The True Reason as if he knew it when you see how perfectly he is out in his Confidence as well as his Conjectures The making the Emendations which he did at the present Season is a Demonstration The Nonconformists are here Suspected or Impeached by this Doctor for Favouring Ioyning with the Papists because of a passage in that Book when the very Reason of Altering that passage was because of their presumed Finding Fault with it In the Last place we have here not only a Mistake in the Doctor which might be born but an open Wrong or Injury if it be not want of Consideration The Doctor Thinks or Speaks as if the Author in Re-printing the Book had Changed his Opinion wherein I count he most of all is Out and most to Blame He who drew up the Book is not one of that Humour as to Turn with the Times but rather against them The Opinion he offered in the Year 75 is the same with what he holds now in the Year 80. Here is an Alteration indeed as to more Words or some other words but the same Opinion or Solution with the Difference only of a farther Explication of it and nothing else therein besides avoiding offence entended The Author had been wary in declaring the Toleration he proposed to be a Limited one and provided against the Iesuite upon reason of State and shewed his dread of Popery in Dominion but had omitted the distinction of a toleration in regard to Publick Assemblies and the Private exercise of a Man 's own Religion He explains himself therefore by way of supply signifying that what he said at first should be taken in regard to the tolerating the Papist only privately as his meaning really was then and is now but fullier expressed This is the Opinion he recedes not from whether peculiar to himself or not that No Man should be persecuted meerly for his Conscience if there be no other Reason Whether a Man be a Dissenter of one kind or of another The Common Rule of Christianty must be remembred he sayes still that we do to all Men as we would be done by and that with what Measure we mete to others it shall be met to us again These Words remain in all the Impressions And now for the Title I have this also to Answer The Book as it came out An. 75. was then gone and now Re-printed against the Parliament Sate but they not Sitting was laid by till the Doctor 's Sermon comming out it was thought