Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	great_a	law_n	write_v	2,881	5	5.4884	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62252	Toleration with its principal objections fully confuted, or, An answer to a book intituled, Sions groans for her distressed, &c. offered to the Kings Majesty, Parliament, and people wherein is pretended to be proved by Scripture, reason, and authority of fifteen ancients, that equal protection under different perswasions is the undoubted right of Christian liberty, but, hereby confuted : wherein the power and proceedings of the Kings Majesty and the Church are vindicated / by H.S.	H. S. (Henry Savage), 1604?-1672.	1663 (1663)	Wing S765; ESTC R24513	70,771	96

our Church before mentioned sayes That she has not power to impose any thing contrary to the Word of God yea or besides it as necessary to salvation I agree That the soul of man should be free and acknowledge no Mast●r but Jesus Christ And yet may it be subject to humane Laws which do bind the conscience in themselves not for themselves but for and on the behalf of God and Jesus Christ who commandeth every soul to be subject to the higher power Rom. 13. and in this regard matters spiritual may be restrained by punishments ●orporal as we have already said I agree too that meeknesse and charity and longanimity should be exercised towards those in errour and lastly That the infirmity of man and difficulty of things should be both put in the balance to make abatement in the definitive sentences against mens persons But what is all this to idolatry sedition and blasphemy which our Adversaries have herein endeavoured to maintain as not punishable by the Magistrate And what is this to those steams of opinions breathed out of the bottomlesse pit against which they would not have the Magistrate as much as hold his nose Therefore they go on and say That the best of men and most glorious Princes were alwayes ready to give toleration but never to make execution for matters disputable as Eusebius in his second book of the life of Constantine reports Ans All this we grant But what is all this to horrid opinions or practises against which severe Laws were made by glorious Princes These were not of things disputable de quibusdam v●culis as they are termed in the title of the Chapter of the said second Book of Eusebius concerning which there was no Law made nor like to be made against which any toleration or whereupon any sentence might be given upon which any execution might be suspended But they were of matters of higher concern as will appear by the Laws themselves The first was that of Constantine the Great who after the Nicen● Council commanded the books of Arius to be burnt and that he who neglected it should be put to death as is observed by Alphonsus a Castro de justa Hereticorum punitione l. 2. c. 15. So Theodosius commanded the Donatests to be put to death as Minus Celsus Senensis himself witnesseth But the Cod. of Justinian l. 1 Tit. 5. testifies more in this matter then I need now to write wherein we find that there is a Law made by the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius for the perpetual silencing of heresies and Hereticks ut Haereses perpetuo quiescant Another for interdicting all Conventicles of them to be held either night or day made by Arcadius and Honor●us Another against the Manichees in particular That they be Out-laws suffer a publication of their goods barred of all liberality of or succession to others that all power of giving or selling or contracting be taken away from them and much more Another made by Theodosius and Valentinian against the Artans Macedonians P●●umatomachi Apollinarians Novatians or Sebatians Eunomians Tetradites or Tessarescaedecadites Valentinians Paulians Papianists Montanists or Pricillianists the Ph●yges or Prapusites Marcionites Borborites Messalians Euchites or Enthusiasts Donatists Audians Hydroparastats Tascod●ogites Batrachites He●mogenians Photinians Paulianians Marcellians Ophites Encratists Carpocratites Saccophorites qui ad imam usque scelerum nequitiam pervenerunt the Manichees that they have no place either of abode or convening in Romanum locum As for the Manichees they were not only to be banished the Cities but they were to be tradendi ultimo supplicio delivered to death least the Elements should be infected with them or injured by them Another Law was made by them That they that adhered to the opinion of Nestorius should not be called Christians but Nestorians from their Author Nestorius whose impious books written against the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus every man was forbidden to have to read or to write out but were diligently to be searched for and burned All places of meeting were thereby forbidden these Nestorians and whoso offended against this Law was to suffer publication of his goods Another Law was made by Valen and Marcian against the followers of Eutyches whose opinions were condemned by the Council of Nice consisting of three hundred and eighteen Fathers and in the Constantinopolitan Council consisting of one hundred and fifty other Bishops These were called also Apollinarists and were to ordain no Presbyters under pain of confiscation they were to have no Monasteries nor meetings by day or by night under pain of forfeiture of the house if the owner were aware of it or else ten pound in gold they were to have no room in the Militia c. Divers other Laws are there to be seen whereby the Manichees are punishable with death other Hereticks with confiscation or the like Now albeit the capital punishments here mentioned were seldome inflicted yet others doubtless were even those of banishment and confiscation Nay as we have noted before that severe Laws were made against the misbehaviour of the Jews So Soc. Scholast tells us Hist 7. 16. that condign punishment was undergone by some of them upon the command of the Emperour for scoffing at Christ and Christianity in their Crucifixion of a Christian Boy To these Laws it is probable that King James had an eye in his Declaration against Vorstius sent by an Embassadour to the States of Holland wherein he manifesteth his detestation of Vorstius's horrid opinions as deserving the banishment of the Author rather then the honour of his being a publick Professor in that famous University of Leyden And this learned King of happy memory I mention the rather because our Adversaries alledge him wrtting to the United Provinces and advising them to maintain peace by bearing one with another in such differences of opinions and judgement Answ This is true if by such differences be meant disputable things and such perhaps as were meant by Constantine in the foresaid 55. c. of the second book of Eusebius though not the same wherein he would have men perswaded to a pious Syncretisme rather then a Schisme which might occasion the Magistrate to make use of his Sword which wholesome counsel it were to be wished men would take amongst us where one party decryes the other for Arminian which is it self as fast decryed for Calvinist on the other side both though they differ in their Doctrines agree in their Uses and Applications and take all the Articles of our Church to be for them as is observed by the Kings Majesty of blessed memory in his Declaration set before the book of Articles But that they might as well agree in Doctrines as Uses they should do well to take up that excellent moderation prescribed by our Church in the close of the seventeenth Article which is That Gods promises are to be received not to curious disputes but as they are generally set forth in the Scripture and

say they if Magistrates as such have such an authority then all Magistrates in all Nations have the same power Then if we lived in Turkey we must receive the Alcoran and be worshippers of Mahomet if in Spain be Papists as in Hen. 8. his daies sometimes Protestants as in Edw. 6. his daies c. Ans This is the very argument of the Papists in Calvino Turcismo l. 4. c. 10. and improved by Champnaeus But it s answered by Mason de Ministerio Anglicano l. 3. c. 5. And hereunto I further say That as all Magistrates in all Nations have power in matters of Religion so they have the same power but not the same skill to govern nor the same Rule to go by in governing as for instance ones Rule is his will another's is the Law and of those that are limitted by Laws some rule by some Laws others by other Laws different from them So 1. in matters of Religion Magistrates do rule according to the book delivered unto them some have only the book of Nature put into their hands and these have a faculty thereby given them to rule and order Religion according to that such hath the Turk and all unconverted Magistrates Some have the Book of the Old Testament delivered into their hands and those were sometimes to rule according to that So Dent. 17. 18. it is said that when the King sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom he shall write him a copy of the Law in a book out of that which is before the Priests and Levites and it shall be with him and ●e shall read therein all the daies of his life And in 2 Chron. 23. 11. it is said that they brought out the Kings son and put upon him the crown and gave him the Testimony and made him King c. Some have the book of the New Testament put into their hands and these are to order matters of Religion according to this such are all Christian Kings Princes and Governours Now whereas they would infer that therefore we must receive the ALCORAN be Papists and I know not what according to the sole will of our Governours whatever perswasion they be of This is not so for albeit whatsoever they enjoyn according or not contrariant to these Books be firm and inviolable yet whatsoever they determine without or against these Books is void so that the Turk hath not a stable and inviolable power given him to impose the ALCORAN and to enjoyn worship to Mahomet in as much as no such rule is given by the book of Nature delivered unto him Nature dictates no such thing and therefore such a thing must be given by God himself who is above Nature or else it must be acknowledged to be as it is indeed a meer Imposture The Kings of Israel had power given them to Rule by the Book of the Law in matters of Religion But they that did set up Idolatry contrary to the contents of that Book did abuse their power and in that regard their Injunctions were of no force The King of Spain hath the book of the New Testament put into his hands and consequently the moral part of the Old Testament but he permitting Idolatry and giving up his power into the Popes hands whose Vassal he becomes as all Popish Princes do he abuses this power If any other Prince does the like he is not to be followed therein He is neverthelesse passively to be obeyed that is a Christian-Subject is not to resist him but he is to submit to such punishment as he shall inflict upon him in as much as an errour in the understanding upon which proceeds the abuse of his power which is accidental does not make void his power which is essential to him and whereunto every soul is subject in foro externo The Spirit of God sayes in the same breath Fear God honour the King He who doth any thing by command from the King contrary to the command of God does not fear God and he that rebelleth or resisteth for it is all one the King upon any pretence whatsoever doth not honour the King but despise him yea and resist the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13. The same may be said of the Turks forbidding a man to believe in Christ or any thing of absolute necessity to salvation wherein he is not to be obeyed in as much as it is not a thing contrary to the Law of Nature but of the Institution of the God of Nature that we believe in God and in him whom he hath sent Jesus Christ his Son 2. Secondly they say that since our Saviour tells us that all power is given him in heaven and in earth if the Magistrates have any such power it is committed to them from the Lord Jesus Christ and written in the New Testament I answer That no power could be given to Christ which he had not before being God eternal and therefore we must say that all power was in Christ naturally and essentially But there 's a power given him which he had not but by gift dispensatorily as he is the Mediatour which is nothing else but a Rule which he observes in the salvation of men as a thing added to his essential power Now infidel Kings receive their power from Christs natural and essential power only being not bound to believe in Christ nor to observe the Rules he gives till revealed unto them but to observe the Law of Nature given in Paradise according to which they and their subjects infidels shall be judged Wherefore I hope they will not send us to find this in the New Testament Though they should I have a text for them there too Rom. 1. 19 20 21. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them Kings that believe receive their power not from Christs natural and essential power onely but from his dispensatorie power as he is Mediatour and great Lawgiver to his Church by which power he does not take away the former but establish it rather Let them shew me where he takes it away If they do they must shew me a contradiction to the words of the Apostle who saies Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Oh but these were heathen Magistrates say they Whereunto I answer that if every soul must be subject to Heathen Magistrates much more then to those that believe in Christ who came not to destroy but to rectify and perfect the Law of Nature 3. The third thing that they say will fall to the ground upon what has been already spoken viz. That the Apostles themselves refused to be obedient to their Rulers Act. 4. 19 20. When they were commanded to forbear that which they judged to be a part of the worship of God Ans That their Rulers enjoyned them not to preach Christ and therein they did well to disobey for otherwise they had not

Religion God never loves to plant his Church by violence and bloud King James Aphorism 124. This his Majesty leaves to the Spanish cruelties in the Indies and to their Inquisition at home And as for the Apostles 't is true they did not propagate the Gospel by force though mischief enough befell those at whom they shook off the dust of their feet but yet they did govern established Churches by force which was a delivery over unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5. for the punishment of the flesh And no other manner of punishment could be inflicted on offenders by them while there was no temporal Magistrate to impower them or at most none but such as was like their beloved Gallio who cared for none of those things yet this TAKE HIM DEVIL a man would think were more terrible then TAKE HIM JAYLOR which they have printed in capital letters Hence saies St. Paul Gal. 5. 12. I would that those were cut off that trouble you which had it been unlawfull to do had been unlawfull in him to wish As to the dividing of the inheritance which our Saviour refused which they have put in the margin as a Buttress to hold up the arch and concameration of their argument I say that our Saviour would not always be vacant to satisfy the Avarice of a fellow who followed him for such ends to the neglect of a business which he had but a short time to dispatch in the world though such was his zeal of Gods house that he could not forbear the ridding of the Temple of sacrilegious persons And thus their first argument falls to the ground with the improvement thereof to make the ruine of it the greater Sect. 11. FOr the further improvement of their foregoing argument they alledge that place of the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy for by faith ye stand Ans For exposition whereof we say that one thing amongst others that gave the Apostle occasion of writing this Epistle was the command given by him of delivering the incestuous person to Satan for the punishment of the flesh The Apostle having founded a Church at Corinth false Doctours building on this foundation perswaded them as these Authours would perswade others in the like cases that St. Paul plaied the part of a proud domineering fellow and of one who took more upon him then belonged unto him Hereupon the Apostle excuses himself and saies that though necessity urged to a just severity against the sin yet he assumed to himself no dominion over their faith no for that were to pull up that foundation on which they stood for by faith ye stand and it were to destroy that which he had first layed But then some may say That though the Apostle had power in matters belonging to religious practice yet it seems hereby that he had none in matters of saith Whereunto I answer that it 's one thing to have power in matters of faith and another to have power over matters of faith To have power over matters of faith is the prerogative of Christ alone he being the only Law-giver to his Church to give Laws to the Church is actio terminalis a terminal action of Christ and herein he admits of no Vicarship or Vicegerency as I have already said which is such as the Popes pretend to in making new articles of faith and that this is the meaning of this place is the opinion of some that are no enemies to our present adversaries Nevertheless to have power in matters of faith appertains to the Church as I have said before out of the twentieth Article of our Church And that the Apostle had such a power is evident in the case of Hymenaus and Philetus whom St. Paul delivered unto Satan for making shipwrack concerning faith 1 Tim. 1. 20. The same Apostle also sayes Whosoever loves not the Lord Jesus let him be Anathema Maranatha 1 Corinth 16. 22. which some call an Excommunication unto death others interpret it The Lord cometh they are both the same in effect at least they imply a greater degree of punishment then the former The delivery unto Satan being only for the punishment of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus But the Lord coming once in vengeance it is a fearful thing to fall into his hands as sayes the Apostle Heb. 10. 31. The second place they urge is Matth. 20. 25. sc The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominon over them but it shall not be so among you Answ That if it be so that in the perpetual office of Pastors the use of the Keyes has a kind of jurisdiction as I have proved as well by positive places of Scripture as by the real effects that accompany it in the Apostles we must search out some other meaning by this place then the denyal thereof to them And then it must be either this viz. you look after easie seats like those of the Kings of the Gentiles who rule in ease and pleasure but it shall not be so among you so Doctor Hammond Or else it must be this viz. That the Apostles were not to strive for Dominion one over another but to content themselves with what they had over the Churches Or lastly it must be that which I find in the Treatise of the power of the Pope touching the book of Saternelly the Jesuite written Anno 1626. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them but it shall not be so among you that is you shall not exercise dominion over the Nations by atemporal sword whereunto you your selves are subject as is learnt from the example of Paul who declined not the jurisdiction of Caesar Acts 25. But which exposition soever of these three obtains how does this prove what these men have in design viz. that no Christian Magistrate is to be a Defender of the Faith If they will grant him to be a Magistrate they must allow him a superiority and vest him in a power else they will but mock him and this power extends to matters appertaining to the worship of God as has been likewise proved The hird place 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. Feed the flock of God neither as being Lords over Gods heritage but being ensamples to the flock Answ By what has been said it is evident that they had a power over the flock of Christ and that not only a power accompanying the Word preached but a power of oversight for so much is cleat out of the very place they here quote viz. v. 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof and Acts 20. 28. they are called Overseers the very name Bishop is an Overseer This power was exercised then not in doctrine only but in discipline too This discipline reached to the punishing of the body Therefore we must distinguish of power As 1. That there is a power instituted by Christ or