Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A59916
|
The infallibility of the Holy Scripture asserted, and the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome refuted in answer to two papers and two treatises of Father Johnson, a Romanist, about the ground thereof / by John Sherman.
|
Sherman, John, d. 1663.
|
1664
(1664)
|
Wing S3386; ESTC R24161
|
665,157
|
994
|
us a direct way that fools cannot erre by it For we see with our eyes whole Thousands of Men very wise and Learned whilst they follow the Scriptures with all sincerity as they most solemnly protest from their heart to follow a world of quite contrary ways in matter of highest Importance to Salvation and consequently all these Multitudes of wise men but those who go one only of these wayes must needs go astray Now if wise Men in so great Multitudes do so strangely stray whilst in all sincerity as they protest they follow this way how is it true that fools cannot erre by it Doth not St. Austin and all the greatest Doctors that ever the Church had profess themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and this after many years study in them and how then can men of such ordinary Capacities and of so mean study and knowledg of those tongues in which the Scriptures were written and so great variety of Opinions about the true Canon of Scriptures and a far greater variety about the true Interpretation of so many most Important places of the true Canon of Scripture come to know the truth the Infallible and undoubted truth and this so assuredly that they may with a safe Conscience upon their private Judgment of discretion settle their faith unmoveably in points which they know to be so mightily called into doubt by the greater Part of the world yea that whole General Councels have unanimously defined the Contrary and believed those places of Scripture not to say that to be so which for those places of Scripture they still say and firmly believe to be so Is not such a belief mainly to be suspected even in the wisest and learnedst Men And will you then say still that this is A direct way unto us so that fools cannot erre by it The contrary will yet appear far more clearly when you shall have pondered the ensuing reasons yet take this for one strong reason why the Scriptures cannot be that Judge of Controversies who is to direct us by a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it The second Reason to prove the Scriptures not to be this Judge is this There be many Controversies and may be yet very many more most nearly concerning the necessary Means to Salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by the Judgment and sentence to the Scriptures I will alledge several convincing Examples For a Controversie may be moved concerning the lawfulness of working or not working upon Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scriptures All the old Scriptures command strictly the not working upon Saturdayes and no One single word of the New Scripture doth assure us that this Command was ever by Lawful Authority taken away or that there is the least unlawfulness in working upon the Sunday We know indeed that there was such a day as the Lords day called by that name because Saint John had a vision upon that day as he had also upon many other dayes We know St. Paul preached upon the first day of the week and so he did upon many other dayes and most upon the Saturday or Sabboth For He disputed in the Synagogue every Sabboth and the exhorted the Jews and the Greeks Act. 18. We know the first day of the week was at one time appointed for the gathering of Almes for poor Christians But how doth this or any of the former Places prove the Commandement of not working on the Saturday to be taken quite away and that undoubtedly Or how do any of these places impose upon All Christians a manifest and unquestionable Obligation of not working on Sundays And yet this is All that can be said out of the Scriptures for the undoubted abolishing of a certain Commandement of God and the undoubted bringing into the place of it a New Commandement without perhaps the Rising onely of our Saviour on the Sunday be sufficient to prove both these things undoubtedly Yet how can this be For the day of his Ascension into Heaven was the final period of all he did in the world and that day was Thursday The Resurrection indeed might be a Ground for such a Change but it is nowhere in Scripture that such a Change was made on that Ground Yea if we stand even to the New Scriptures our Adversaries the Jews will be too hard for us For they will tell us that according to our Scriptures when our Saviour was asked Mat. 19. What good shall I do that I may have life Everlasting our Saviour said If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements And when that Man replyed to know what Commandement he did understand he clearly told him that he understood the Commandements of the Decalogue Those very Commandements which that Man knew well enough as it is said clearly also in St. Mark 10. Luke 18. You see here will a Jew or some new Sectary say unto us that even in our new Law our own Law-maker with his own mouth commandeth as a thing necessary to enter into life Everlasting the keeping of the Commandements of the Decalogue which that Man did know Therefore he in the New Law commanded that Commandement of keeping the Saturday to be observed as well as the rest And St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing and Prepuce is nothing but the Observation of the Commandements of God See here St. Paul even after Circumcision was declared nothing to declare the Commandements of God to stand in force and yet among these Commandements a chief one is the keeping of the Saturday or seventh day on which God rested which reason also holdeth still for still it is true that God rested on the seventh Day and he blessed the seventh Day and sanctified it for the foresaid Reason How came this Sanctification and Blessing to be lost the reason of it being still as good as ever And why then will this Jew or Sectarist say should we prefer the keeping of any other day before this which hath so good a Reason that you cannot give a better at least undoubtedly better and which hath so manifest Authority of the Old and of the New Scriptures even Three of the four Evangelists and also in St. Paul whereas for the taking away of this Commandement or for the not working on the Sunday there is not one single Place in all the Bible much lesse such a place as manifestly convinceth This Argument is unanswerable to those who make the Scriptures the sole Judge of Controversies Again these Jews and new Sectaries will presse us that our own Scriptures which we hold onely to be our Judge in all Controversies do cleerly tell us that even in the New Law it is said Act. 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us Apostles of the New Law to lay no further burthen upon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and blood and that which
following instances to be of the necessaries I deny the antecedent in both branches if not I deny your supposition Taking you in the former sence I say that there are not now many Controversies necessary to be determined unto salvation which may not undoubtedly be decided by Scripture and also I say there may not be yet many more The first branch I deny because though many things which are res questionis are not decided by Scripture yet many controversies in things necessary cannot be said not to be undoubtedly decided by Scripture because in things necessary there are not many Controversies And the second branch I denie because we cannot expect any new necessaries and a new Tradition is a certain contradiction Now to answer to your particulars for the proof of the antecedent Controversie may be moved you say concerning the lawfulness of working and not working of Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scripture c. So you To which we return you this answer that there is enough in Scripture to ground the practice of the Church for the observing of the Lords day First by the proportion to the Equity of keeping one day in seven which wee have in the fourth Commandement There is in the Commandment morale naturae that there should be a time set a part for publicke worship and this by the Light of Nature the Heathens did see as Tully Non ut Consilii sic Sacrificii c. There is not a day appointed of Counsel as of sacrifice then there is a positive determination to the Jew of the seventh day to be the day in the week of their solemn service and to this is agreable by good analogle that Christians should keep one day in seven as well as the Jews Now the moments in Scripture for the Translation of the day are several the appellation of the Lords day most likely of the day we keep the meeting of the Disciples and breaking of bread on the first day of the week the order for the provision for the poor by Saint Paul to the Corinthians To these we add the Syriack Interpretation which in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 11. Chapter and the 20. Verse expresseth it thus when therefore you meet you do not as it is just on the Lords Day eating and drinking which is to be understood of the Communion according to the scope of the place And therefore may we think that this point of practise was so competently set out in Scripture as that we cannot suspend the usage upon the Authoritie of the Church since we may conceive that the Church was bound by the former Considerations to celebrate the Day of Christs Resurrection which is the Hope of the new Creature The seventh Day to the Jew was Positive and Ceremonial and therefore upon that account under capacity of being altered and the Equity of one day in the week is now under practice upon the former intimations Secondly If the Jewish day ceaseth not in the Obligation to Christians then the time when Christians should keep is under the Divine Commandement and is none of those things wherein the Church hath power because as you will confesse it hath no authority to rescinde a Divine precept So then if by necessity of mean it is necessary to keep the Lords day it is lawfully done and upon duty if it be not necessary by necessity of mean then is this Example of yours impertinent And so this argument unanswerable as you esteem it is without much labour answered by those who make the Scripture in which God speaks by him the sole Infallible Judge not excluding subordinate Judges which are to regulate their decisions by the rule of the word unto which the Scripture is not silent and in other things no need to be sure of such a Judge as you would have And this second Answer to your first instance may be available for your satisfaction in your second instance from the 15. of the Acts. For if those precepts of the 〈◊〉 in that Council do binde all alwaies then is We matter determined by Scripture if they do not then are we at our Christian liberty from them without a formal discharge thereof from the Church And secondly that we are not held under obedience to those Lawes appears by the intention of their imposition for that time since they were imposed upon occasion of scandal to the weak Jew the reason whereof now ceaseth and therefore the Laws ubi ratio cessat lex cessat as the rule is Onely as the Ceremonial Laws binde yet quâ—ad genus as they speak that there should be a decent publick worship in the Church of God not quoad speciem that we should continue the use of the same Ceremonies so even these precepts which were in their nature Ceremonial do yet binde so far improportion of kinde that in things of indifferency we should have respect to our weak Brother Thirdly Neither can you say that either he that does abstain from those things forbidden or he that does not abstain is upon that account in danger of damnation And therefore as quoad hoc we distinguish of your term Necessary if you take this matter Necessary as absolutely so by the morality of it or perpetual by appointment then we deny it to be necessary so and why do not you keep them if onely necessary as to present practice then doth it not come up to our question for it is none of those things necessary to Salvation which are determinable by the Church and not by Scripture In your tenth Number you give us another case not umpired by Scripture whether the King is Head of the Church And this you say we thought once to be determined by Scripture affirmatively now not so you in effect this point is now no longer ascertained us by infallible judgement of Scripture so you in terms We answer First What is infallibly decided in Scripture will ever be so although we do not alwaies finde it but we cannot find any thing infallibly decided by the Church Secondly We do not say that every point is Infallibly decided in Scripture because it is not at all decided therefore if you mean us so you mistake us And now premising these considerations we answer that we do hold our principle still if you will understand as according to our mind Head of the Church as you hold the Pope to be Head of the Church so as that we are bound in Conscience as upon his Infallibility to be ruled by his dictates in matters of Religion we never held the King to be but to be Head of the Church so as to be the chief Governor thereof as being appointed by God to be the Keeper of both Tables so we hold him to be still This distinction makes an end as it may seem of your objection and yet secondly we do not pretend the King to be head of the Universal Church as you pretend