Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A67836
|
An apology for Congregational divines against the charge of ... : under which head are published amicable letters between the author and a conformist / by a Presbyterian : also a speech delivered at Turners-Hall, April 29 : where Mr. Keith, a reformed Quaker ... required Mr. Penn, Mr. Elwood ... to appear ... by Trepidantium Malleus ...
|
Trepidantium Malleus.
|
1698
(1698)
|
Wing Y76; ESTC R34116
|
83,935
|
218
|
discovery Now you think you have hit it and stopt our Mouths 1 I am glad you are not yet come so far as to say God loves their Sins 2. But the strain of Scripture is Gods hating the wicked not their wickedness that they are Enemies c. 3. So God hateth the Sins of the Elect after Conversion as well as before and if no more was meant then hating their Sins God might say I be said as truly to hate them after Conversion as before Cp. But doth not God Love them as his Creatures Ct. Yes and so he doth the Non-elect and if you please you may say the Devils themselves what is that to our purpose Cp. I could bring you good Authors that thus assert Ct. Yes jnst as Colonel Danvers would meddle openly with Divines work who citing the Magdeburgensian History about Baptism mentioning a place where they were said to confess Sin when baptized Hence drew this Inference They knew nothing of infant-Infant-Baptism for Infants could not confess Sin when the next Words prove they baptized Infants Nisi propter aetatem loqui non poterant What shall we call this So is it as false That the old Waldenses were against infant-Infant-baptism tho the Papist charged them so they not baptising their Children sometimes so soon as they they sometimes wanting an Administrater their Preachers being abroad For Perin who wrote the best History of them tells us these words in their Confession of Faith and Catechism and for this reason we baptize Infants The learnedst Anabaptist once in England told me he advised the Colonel to confess this Fault and that he replied No I will do as Mr. Baxter when a thing is out make the best of it But where did Mr. B. so grosly corrupt History I am sure my Lord Lambert when he heard of the Book said Had Mrs. Danvers wrote a Book on that Subject he had not wondered but thought him unfit for it But by such ungodly Tricks and Cheats he made many go down into the Water he had his end and that was enough Mr. Tombs and my Lord Laurence took no such base Methods yet I grant a very few not many seem to say what you plead Cp. Return then to the Scriptures Ct. He that believeth in him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already 1 John 8. Are not they Sons Children of God so by Adoption How then before sure you dream not as yet of an Eternal Adoption 1 Cor. 6.11 He shews they were not justified before Such were some of you 26 Acts 18. They are turned from Satan to God that they might receive Remission of Sin The Doctors Story of the Deer-stealer and such nasty Comparisons as Having a Knife in thy Hand to cut the Throat of Christ are loathsome And that I may appear impartially it was bad in Dr. Twisse to say God could not be such a Fool As in Parker to say an Almighty D. Or Twisse again As we cut the Throats of Fowls for our pleasure so c. Cp. You say we are justified by Faith we say freely without it and Beza puts the Point at the end of Justified 5 Rom. 15. being justified by Faith we have Peace with God But the Stream of the Chapter proves our reading and other places 3 Rom. 20.28 30. Therefore we conclude a Man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law He justifieth the Circumcision by Faith and Uncircumcision through Faith if we have by Faith Peace with God is not this what you will not always grant Cp. But is not a Sinner as a Sinner justified and pardoned sure you will not deny this Ct. Sure I will deny it A Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia then would every Sinner be justified and pardoned for all Men are such It is the believing Sinner that is justified the repenting Sinner that is pardoned Cp. But we are grosly belyed As if we made our selves the Subjects of Christs Mediatorial Righteousness Ct. Your Adversary did not say it plainly but thought it the Consequence of your Doctrine tho I wish he had let it alone seeing you are irreconcilable about it Cp. Well Man is in no Sense justified by Works it is meer Popery Texpect no such thing Ct. I believe we may think you are no Papist you think not to be saved by good works for none do you do Read Was not Abraham justified by Works when he offered up Isaac on the Altar 2 James 21.25 Was not Rahab justified by Works when she received the Spies So that saith James a Man is justisied by Works and not by Faith only 24. ver Cp. But Luther called this Epistle the Strawy one and said Homo non justificatur ex operibus ut delirat Jacobus Ct. Whether Luther continued in that mind I know not The Learned Whitaker proves against this Charge of the Papist many of the Ancients not accounted Hereticks denied this Epistle And Willet as I remember in his Synopsis proves the same this was therefore Luther's Error Man is justified declaratively before Men Shew me thy Faith without thy Works I will shew thee my Faith by my Works 18. verse 22. Faith wrought with his Works not his Works with his Faith As the Body v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Breath is dead so Faith without Works ik dead also The breath maketh not Man alive but proves him so They who plead for a Faith that worketh not are a scandal to the Protestant Religion James describes Religion from its Effects 1 Jam. 27. Pure Religion is to visit Fatherless c. having to deal with the Libertines or right Antinomians of that Age. Dr. Tully hath proved well that there is a declarative Justification 1. Coram hominibus 2. Coram Angelis 3. Coram ipso Deo Hereby I know thou fearest God 22 Gen. 12. God knew it sure before but Abraham gave another Proof of it before God This is evident was not the first Act of Justification that was long before Cp. I cannot get over what you said before 1 Rom. 23.24 Tho they were not beloved yet God might Love them before they were called or they might be loved tho not called Beloved Ct. Beloved is passive as Love is active To say tho they were not beloved yet God might love them will not hold here and to say God called them beloved pray mind the next Words Who were not beloved not Who were not called beloved Yet according to you they were called beloved Jacob have I loved Before he knew God did love them when in Sin before Conversion 2 Eph. 4. It is plainly said but it was not a complacential Love as I named before but with a Love of purpose or good will Cp. But you make Obedience good works the way to the Kingdom when Christ is the way the truth and the life You act for Life c. Ct. So Old Protestants before us plead that of Austin against the Papists Bona opera sunt via
amongst the Ancients As to the Second That it hinders Devotion It may be so at first to Persons prejudie'd or unaccostom'd But the Experience of others doth witness that it is a great help to Devotion to them and much more moving than Extemporary Effusions that are as much a Form to the Hearers but however the Debate goes this is no sufficient cause for Schism unless it were positively forbidden in Scripture Your fifth Reason objects somthing to be mended in the Form of our Liturgy pretended Incoherencies Tautologies Repetitions If all which were granted are no cause for Schism And such Objections might be made against the 136 Psalm where are more Repetitious than any in our Liturgy But Repetitions are ofther found in the Extemporary way But however this be determin'd there is no sufficient cause for Schism for that is the Point which I persue The Second Branch of your Paper is That Symbolical Ceremonies in Divine Worship ought not to be impos'd But before I come to the Reasons let me premise this That there are many things which ought not to be in Prudence imposed and yet when imposed are not a sufficient Ground for Schism Now to the Reasons To the first three I Answer Are not Feasts and Fasts Symbolical things For this reason they deny to the Church power to impose them at least Annually Now the Feast of Purim Esther 9.27 The fasts of the fifth and the seventh months Zach. 4.5 And the feast of the Dedication 1. Mac. 1.59 were Ordain'd by the Church and Annually and our Saviour honour'd the last with His Presence Job 10.12 Which had it been unlawful he would not have done but rather have Reproved it Again Circumcision was appointed for an initiating Sign or Right The Jews added Baptism long before Christ came and they Baptized as well as Circumcised their Prosylites But our Saviour found no fault with this Nay on the contrary He went on with and continued it John was sent to Baptize and Christ appointed Baptism for the initiating Form of his Church The Jews addition of Baptism was more Symbolical and Dedicating than you can Alledge upon the Cross in Baptism especially considering that we make it not Essential to Baptism which is demonstrated in that it is not to be used in the Office of Private Baptism Your fourth Reason That a Surplice is a Phantastical Dress and unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Minister is Gratis dictum Every Country is Master of its own Fashions and Dresses and that is unbecoming and indecent in one Country that is not so in another which is becoming and decent in another There is nothing in Nature to make White more than Black or Black more than White to be decent or indecent If you say there is you lay more stress upon Colours than we do and so will fall into the same Superstiaion you accuse us with Secondly It is hard to call that colour Phantastical which God himself appointed to the Priests under the Law And wherein Angels appeared and Christ himself in His Transfiguration Or to say It is unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Preacher or Minister Your fifth Reason That things necesiary in Genere may be determined in Specie by Human Authority doth justifie our practise in this for we do no more Vestments are necessary in Genere the colour or shape of them is no other then the determining of them in Specie and unless you can shew a positive Prohibition against the wearing of White it is as lawful as Black or ony other Colour However without such a Prohibition whatever Opinion or Fancy you or I may have as to the Decency of it there can be no Ground upon this Account for Schism or for us to make Rents in the Church which is a tearing of Christ's Body to pieces A few Hours after the Noncon sent him the following Reply THat Arguments are not answer'd is a common Complaint and often where there is least occasion you think I have not answered yours I think I have you think no doubt you now have answered mine perhaps I think you have not every thing of our own generally appears to us great tho neveso little and every thing of others against us appears little tho never so great I therefore care not for words of that nature If the Church can impose any thing short of what you call means of Grace It might impose Circumcision Holy Water for a Symbolical Sign only as I wrote Such Repetitions you know are tedious I did deny plainly your Position and am ready for more proof You then produced not your Arguments for your Assertion which now you do and I thought it not Civility in me to Anticipate them The Church of the Jews had no power to impose Liturgies or Ceremonies under the Law God somewhere forbad the making of the like by the art of the Apothecary c. I have no Concordance by me He charged them not to add as not to diminish Therefore the Church hath no power now Where is her Charter If God saw it not fit to make Prayers for the Priests to be read by them but they Prayed according to the Ability God gave them He sees it not fit to do it now when greater Abilities are given to Gospel Ministers now than to them of the Tribe of Levi. More Knowledge to Christians now than to the Jews then The Veil is taken away The Question was of imposed Forms to be read by the Priests and you answer to a Declaration made by a private Person Deu. 26.5 Do you think indeed they were tyed to Words or Sense or that they took out a Paper or Prayer Book and read I use the word Ordinary for as some manage that and other Arguments it might prove Lay-mens Praying yea and Preaching too in Publick Numb 10.35 seems to me as little Moses said Ergo What God made Forms of Prayer or Liturgy Did he read that short Sentence I do not think you believe he ever did So Deut. 32. was not a Prayer sure If such were found in your Liturgy Men would say of you as Paul says some would say That saw men pray in an unknown tongue That was a Song or Psalm which may be Historical Doctrinal Prophetical as well as Petitionary Many other Answers might be given to this The Expression there were not used together but some Words on one occasion some on another This was not a Prayer made for the Priests much less in Sacrificing That was the Question But the first Answere ss sufficient and I care as little as any Man for supernumerary Arguments The first seems to me clear but I will not say Vnconfuteable considering whom I have to deal with I remember I have heard of a Judge who demanding the reasons of one Man 's not Appearing at the Court as he was required the Assizes before One answered My Lord there are twelve Reasons The first is the Man is Dead and therefore could not come