Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n holy_a scripture_n word_n 2,805 5 4.1192 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A59790 An answer to the request to Protestants, to produce plain Scriptures directly authorizing these tenets Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1687 (1687) Wing S3264; ESTC R16978 12,957 22

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

AN ANSWER TO THE REQUEST TO PROTESTANTS To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these Tenets LICENSED December 16. 1686. LONDON Printed for Tho. Basset at the George near St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVII An Answer to the Request to Protestants a To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these their Tenets a Ans. WE do indeed make the Scripture the Rule of our Faith because we believe God gave us the Scripture to be our Rule and we know not where to meet with a better and therefore we do not quarrel at this Request to produce plain Scripture proofs for what we believe but we may justly quarrel at the fallacious or unskilful way of stating it as if we pretended to own no Doctrines but what are contained in the express Words of Scripture and therefore to understand this matter we must consider the several kinds of Doctrines professed in the Church of England and what kind of proof from Scripture they are capable of 1st The positive Articles of Faith such as are contained in the Creed and expresly taught in Scripture we prove from plain and express Testimonies of Scripture and are ready to give our proofs of them when they are demanded But besides these 2ly we have a great many Negative Articles opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome Now to believe a Negative is only to believe that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture and it would be a very wise Request to desire us to prove by plain and express Scripture that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it in Scripture and those who pretend it is there cannot shew it there which is proof enough and all that the thing is capable of 3ly There are other Doctrines which it may be are not in a strict Sense Articles of Faith but great and useful Truths which cannot be proved by express Words of Scripture but by immediate and necessary Consequence and it is ridiculous in these Cases to demand a direct Proof if by that he means the express words of Scripture for we never pretended to that in such matters but think it very reasonable to believe an evident Consequence as well as express Words Since our Saviour proved the Resurrection it self by Consequence Matth. 22. 32. Having premised this I shall examine what it is he would have proved in which also he has betrayed great want either of skill or honesty as will appear from particulars I. Scripture is clear in all Necessaries to every Sober Enquirer A. He begins well with demanding a Scripture proof That the Scripture is clear in all Necessaries as if we Protestants wanted a Scripture proof that the Sun shines when we see it Can there be any better proof that the Scripture is clear and plain than its own plainness And therefore every plain Text proves its own plainness If this Proposition Scripture is clear in all Necessaries to every Sober Enquirer were contained in express Words in Scripture yet if we could not find it plain we should rather question whether those Words are plain than believe the Scripture to be plain when we do not find it so But if I find the Scripture plain the plainness of the Scripture proves it self and needs no other proof And yet this is one of those Propositions which may be proved by plain and necessary Consequence from the Scripture For if the word of God be a Light unto our Feet and a Lamp unto our Paths then it must be clear if Light be clear Psal. 119. 105. If it be able to make men wise unto Salvation 1. Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation II. The Secular Prince hath all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority immediately from and under God. A. What Authority the Church of England grants to Kings in matters of Religion which he here calls all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority we are taught in the 37th Article of Religion The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not and ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction Which is further explained That we give not our Princes the Ministring of God's Word or of the Scraments but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers Which signifies no more than that the King is supreme in his own Dominions and therefore there is no Power neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him for if there were he were not Supreme Must we then prove by express Scripture that the King is Supreme Do men want Scripture to prove That Supreme Power is Supreme Thus some men are always in the Extremes either the Scripture signifies nothing or it must be every thing Grammar and Dictionary and Logick and Statute-book and all but can they prove by express Scripture that the King has the Supreme power in Civil causes Then I will prove That he has the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical causes and I think Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers is a sufficient proof of both III. Justification by Faith alone viz. a Persuasion that we are justified is a wholesome Doctrine A. Our Church does teach That Justification by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort Article II. but she does not teach That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified and sure we are not bound to prove that by Scripture which we do not believe IV. The Substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before Sacerdotal Consecration A. Our Church teaches That Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ Art. 28. But she does not teach That the Bread and Wine remain after what they were before Sacerdotal Consecration Their substance is the same that is they are Bread and Wine still but by virtue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not meer Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death and to such as rightly worthily and by faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The substance of Bread and Wine is the same but the Institution gives it such a new relation and use as is equivalent to changing its nature and makes it the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. And this the words of Institution are