Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	call_v	law_n	moral_a	2,598	5	9.2562	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26964	The nonconformists advocate, or, A farther account of their judgment in certain things in which they are misunderstood written principally in vindication of A letter from a minister to a person of quality, shewing some reasons for his nonconformity, modesty answering the exceptions of two violent opposers of the said reasons.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1680 (1680)	Wing B1318; ESTC R1328	72,144	90

faithfully be paid and discharged shall not this Chief and indeed sole Debtor be called upon and that too in the first place to pay his Debt In right reason he should and you your self would be of the same mind were you in some great Bond only Collateral Security to a Friend and this too in little more than a Complement Now therefore that the Principal and sole Debtor is not once mentioned or called upon for the payment of the Debt but only the Collaterals this is my Exception and I think not without cause But you say Nature and Religion call upon the Principal Debtor viz. the Father of the Child and that is sufficient without any further Call from the Minister I know what you would reply in the case but I am not so spirited Nature and Religion call upon us to keep the Moral Law or ten Commandments and therefore the Ministers Call to keep them is needless and out of doors This is to make composita to be opposita The more Obligations are upon us from Religion and Nature to fulfill any duty the more we are to be called upon by Arguments out of those Topicks to perform the same and all little enough If not always Nature yet always Religion does bind Godfathers and Godmothers quae tales to perform the promise made on the behalf of the Child baptized for if it be not from Religion there can be no tye in the case yet the Church thinks not Religion enough to bind them without the further help of additional Exhortation why therefore should not the same be thought necessary to the Father himself to bind him also to his duty notwithstanding any preceding Obligation of Nature I approve not of the Sign of the Cross nor that Sacramental mystical way of signing with this Sign as if baptizing with Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost were not sufficient but moreover the Sign of the Cross needful to bind the Conscience and confer the Blessing You say The sum of my Argument against signing with the Cross is because lest by a perverse interpretation it may seem to the vulgar people what it is not and what I my self dare not affirm it to be but herein you are either wilfully blind or grosly in the dark for though I mentioned my fear lest the action then done by the Minister for then the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Childs Forehead and the words then uttered by him We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his Banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Souldier unto his lives end might be taken in a wrong sense and mistaken by the generality and do fear it still yet the presumptuous addition of the Cross to Baptism and this too after the manner of another Sacrament the devised Sacrament of man to the instituted Sacrament of God was the grand cause of my exception against it for if we may add at our pleasure the Sign of the Cross why not also with some others Cream Salt and Spittle yea whatsoever else the daring invention of man shall think meet to devise and conjoyn Who in this case shall set the limits and say Ne plus ultra As for mine own part I would sooner yield to have my Child baptized with Cream Salt and Spittle yea though Snow and Sope also were put into the Laver than to have it signed with the Sign of the Cross in such a mystical manner We are neither to add nor diminish in the matter of Gods Worship and particularly this holds good in the Sacraments of the Gospel which in their own nature are Signs and Ceremonies wherefore if we shall arrogate to our selves the license of adding Sign to Sign and Ceremony to Ceremony in so doing we boldly set Threshold against Threshold and proudly usurp no less than the place and Dictatorship of God himself This likewise more than faintly and covertly speaks the Baptism of Water to be lame and wanting of it self alone which I have the courage to speak out in the hearing of all according to your command yea I promise you if you will be at the charge to procure me one of Sir Samuel Moreland's Stentorean Tubes I will take the pains to go up to the Monument and at the top of it I will trumpet it out as a truth all over the City and if I could I would cause it to ring and eccho from one end of the Nation to another Why else is this dedicating sign of the Cross at the time of the Infants Dedication by washing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost thought so necessary and constantly co-applied But you have a Church-Canon by you mounted and bent on purpose to discharge upon me prim'd with the Rubrick and ready to give fire upon all occasions with a loud contrary report Well be it so yet after all it is but brutum fulmen I mean only protestatio contra factum and therefore ipso facto void and of none effect As if you should vow and protest you were no Idolater and yet at the same time worship a Crucifix adore the Host or bow your knee to the Image of Baal You indeed baptize the Child with Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and you say the Child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized yet notwithstanding at the same time you sign him with the sign of the Cross in token hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and manfully fight under his Banner against Sin the World and the Devil c. Now this is the answer of a good Conscience and the main End and Obligation of Baptism as to the party baptized which the Cross and the signing him with that sign and not washing alone must at least mind him of if not spirit him in and ingage him to with the greatest manhood and courage else signing with the sign of the Cross is a meer insignificancy and a ridiculous nothing Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate What need the Cross if washing with water could sufficiently bring about its own ends The Cross therefore as it is there used loudly proclaims washing of and by it self incompleat and imperfect Something was spoken further by me about laying aside the use and custom of signing with the sign of the Cross to distinguish our selves from the Idolatrous Papists who superstitiously adore the Cross foolishly fondly and wickedly signing themselves with it upon every occasion putting no little confidence in it to free them from evil and to furnish them with all good But upon this score to leave off Crossing you call it vanity and affectation which is peculiar to

Enemy alone and fights against his own shadow as if it were an armed man and then triumphs like a Thraso in his wonderful Manhood for vanquishing such an Appearance But say you Do we not think we may safely assent and consent to the Contents of any Writings that pass an Estate for fear of Errata which by frequent copying out and transcribing the enrolled Deeds may happen to be there I answer I never yet heard of any such Writings of Conveyance or Charters of Liberties and Properties where the Parties concerned were called to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in them or else should be punished with the loss of their Temporal Rights which yet is the penalty of all those who will not assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer I have sometimes seen the Accounts of Merchants adjusted and subscribed by their names but with this Proviso saving all errours in them unknown to our selves Now upon this condition you and I will quickly compromise the difference let me insert these words Saving all errours which may be found therein as your Fore-man was good at inserting and I will readily declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common-Prayer But I charge my Governours at least by insinuation with a pretending to an Infallibility in their requiring an unfeigned assent and consent to all things devised and prescribed by them but this is an odious Inference I answer How odious soever yet if the Charge be true the odiousness is not at all to be imputed to the Insinuation but wholly to the Injunction But say you This is destructive to the reason of all Laws and by this Argument every Law-giver must be supposed to be Infallible the end of all whose Injunctions are to be assented and consented to I answer This is nothing destructive to other Laws because Law-makers in making those Laws never require of the people any such unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by their Institutes but only submission and obedience Secular Laws reach only to compliance of the outward man and not meddle with our thoughts and Conscience whereas this Declaration requires the inward approbation of the mind will and heart as well as the outward observation in matter of practise which is one great ground of our Quarrel against it But say you If it be necessary there should be a Rule of Uniformity 't is necessary that men subscribe to it not as an absolute Rule of Conscience but as a Rule of Peace and Ordor and this is all the Church requires that they so far submit their wills and understandings to their Governours as for these ends to conform to what they have prescribed I answer We must and ought to submit our will and understanding to the prescription of our Governours both in Conformity and in every case so far forth as Conscience will allow us and no further Conscience will intermeddle and be inquisitive into all our actions whether we will or no and if Truth and Right be not at the bottom Peace and Order which otherwise in general should prevail much with us will never be able to free and justifie us from the inward severe censure and condemnation of it The Composers of this Book of Common-Prayer thought all things therein right and good in every particular but unto this I replied Though this was their perswasion yet it might not be every mans perswasion and therefore I said I thought it not equal to compel all others jurare in verba Magistri to declare themselves to be fully of the same mind and judgment with them my reason was Hast thou Faith have it to thy self force it not upon others compel them not to think as thou thinkest and to declare as thou declarest Now you would know of the scrupulous Non-conformist whether this rule be given to the publick Officers of the Church or to the private Christian I answer This Rule is given to all Christians whether publick or private according to the several occurences which may befal them You should have rather queried About what this rule is given I would have told you that it was given concerning things which are not evidently and certainly true and good in their own nature beyond all doubtful disputation now such are many things contained in the Liturgy as the reading of Apocrypha signing with the sign of the Cross c. these things are not of an infallible truth nor are we sure of the goodness of them in their own nature by the Word of God wherefore here the forementioned rule is most apposite and necessary Hast thou Faith have it to thy self in these uncertain doubtful matters compel not others to judge as thou judgest nor to affirm what thou affirmest But say you Why or how then can there be any publick Sanctions in the world I answer There should be no publick Sanctions especially in the matters of God and his Worship unto which every private Professor shall be called and necessitated to give his unfeigned assent and consent as we are bound to do in all things with reference to the Liturgy but the truth and goodness of them in their own nature should instantly and apparently be seen by every eye beyond all scruple or doubtful hesitation for otherwise whosoever shall so declare his unfeigned assent and consent will either do it blindly at all adventures or else unfaithfully with a wavering uncertain judgment or else wickedly against his own mind and thoughts Wherefore the highest of publick Magistrates may not abuse their Power into any oppressive compulsion but are bound for Peace sake and for Conscience sake not to bind the Consciences of the people to believe and imbrace their private particular Sentiments as if they were Oracular and beyond all questioning but leave them to their own liberty to judge as they please until such time as they are better informed and more fully convinced But say you A publick Church-Officer may reject an Heretick I answer What is this to the matter before us Because he may reject an Heretick that is one who denies the Fundamentals of Religion and Godliness therefore he is above this rule Hast thou Faith have it to thy self and may compel those under him to believe what he believes and say what he saith From such a kind of wild reasoning libera nos I profess I am at my wits end here as in several other places to find what you drive at how then shall I fence my self against you I wished as to the Liturgy our Law-givers had required no more than use and submission as preceding Governours h●d done before them You say And what is more required I answer Very much for when I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing c.

also Assayling him on every side for they were sent to Seize his person and to bring him Prisoner Alas our George and Arthur are not so much if compared with this great Heroe Razis as a Grashopper with Goliah The most renowned of such Knights have lost their Spurs Ecce homines Homunciones blancati quasi libia as he said merrily in another Case which will more notoriously appear in the conclusion of this most astonishing Tragical Exploit for behold though his blood gushed out like Spouts of water yea when his blood was now quite gone and not one drop of it left in the veins which might befall him either by the violence of the aforesaid fall or from the many wounds he had received from the Swords of the Souldiers or othewise for we are left at uncertainties Yet even then he called upon the Lord of life It is written indeed of our Saviour that after he had lost much blood upon the cross he cryed out with a loud voice saying Eli Eli lama-sabachthani and yeilded up the Ghost But this was wholly and altogether above the power of nature and therefore worthily counted one of his last Miracles because great Effusion of blood does necessarily enervate the parts of the body instrumental and requisite to speech beyond the possibility of framing or uttering any articulate voice or indeed any sound at all Which therefore as some have thought the Centurion hearing and observing being as well he might be a Naturalist and a Philosoper did convince him that the person then suffering was not only a just and righteous man but also much more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer man for he said Truly this was the Son of God Mat. 27. v. 54. Compared with Luk. 23. v. 46. Though it is evident that our Saviour had yet much of his blood remaining within him when he loudly lowed out if I may so speak with all due reverence that bitter Lamentation for afterward it is said one of the Souldiers with a spear pierced his side and forthwith came there out blood and water Joh. 19.34 Wherefore as for our Razis it may be said if it could be without unpardonable blasphemy Behold a greater than Christ is here for now when his blood was quite all gone he called upon the Lord of life and spirit yet this is no great matter if considered with what is still further reported of him For now notwithstanding all his blood was gone he had not only Power and vigour to call upon God but also to pluck out his own bowels surely they hung very loose and take them with both his hands it is strange that neither of them was hurt and disabled by his fall and cast them upon the Throng If this be not a Thumper I never heard one in my life But you will object and say these books of the Maccabees are not in the Kalendar neither are they appointed to be read I answer though they are not in the Kalendar yet they are in Apochrypha of which in the whole Lump you are a strenuous propugnator without any Limitation or Exception Nevertheless to give you all fair play imaginable I will return from the Maccabees to the History of Tobit and his Dog which hath its course in the Desk and that too by order as well as any part of the Holy Bible it self Tobit I say and his Dog For though you were pleased to flurt at me for mentioning of his dog and say I suppose this Author does not know that the Fifth Chapter of Tobit is left out that is out of the Kalendar where Tobit and his dog are found together yet how causelesly and weakly you do it will instantly appear insomuch that if Tobit's dog were yet alive he had reason enough to resent the injury with asnarl and not only so but also bite you by the heels for putting such a slight and affront upon him for why should you shut him out of the Holy place as an unclean thing since he is admitted and received as well as his Master Yet suppose I had not known that the Fifth Chapter was left out it would have no more challenged my knowledg or understanding then if you should be upbraided with ignorance because you know not to handle your needle nor how to cut out a gown in right Mode fashion as well as any French Taylour in the Town for what have you to do with such a knowledg and so what have I to do with the Curiosity and intreague of the Kalendar in this particular Yea I believe your self would be put to a stand to give a good and satisfactory account why only that Fifth Chapter of the whole book of Tobit should be left out Why this rather then any of the rest which are altogether Ejusdem farinae of the same leven And the rather because if you observe it in this Fifth Chapter the main plot and foundation of the whole Tragick-comedy is brought in and laid as it is usual upon the stage in some of the first scens For here is Raphael a great Angel of Heaven if you have Faith to believe brought in under the disguise of a servant and professes himself to be Azarias the Son of Ananias the great by what latitude of speech I will not undertake to resolve nor yet how decorously for it is not usual nor slightly that the Son of so great a man should need to turn serving-man Well notwithstanding he profers his service to Tobit the Son v. 6. And is entertained to waite upon him in his Travail and so they went forth both and the young mans dog with him ver 16. And it is this Raphael this servant which teaches his young Master those unheard of Rarities and puts him upon the performing those wonderful exploits in the following Acts. Davus Omnia Raphael is all in all and young Tobit is nothing without him Why therefore this necessary scene of introduction should be left out and omitted and this busie Davus and most extraordinary servant should abruptly and suddenly appear none understanding from whence or how is wholly beyond my apprehension I would gladly know whether Mr. Falkner unto whom you owe much in any of his great labours and learned Exercitations about the Liturgy has given us the true reason of this Chasme and Hiulcan leap in the Kalendar Surely there is some Mystery in it but what Raphael knows for all me In the interim it may well purple your Cheeks that you should rather then not twit me with ignorance betray your own for though the Fifth Chapter is left out and consequently Tobit and his Dog yet if you had looked forward unto the Eleventh Chapter ordered to be read there you shall find Tobit and his Dog again for thus it is recorded v. 4. So they went their way and the Dog went after them And for the better convincing you of the truth of what I now speak be pleased if you count it worth