Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A40719
|
A review of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully declare and subscribe as by the late act of uniformity is required? : in reply to a book entitled A short surveigh of the grand case, &c. : wherein all their objections against both the declarations are considered and answered / by the same hand.
|
Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing F2514; ESTC R20121
|
61,527
|
240
|
stoln are called Holy 11. In a strict sence Sacriledge is a Robbing or stealing things out of the Church or any Holy or Consecrated place and then Sacrum in Sacrilegium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Church which very words carry Consecration or Holiness in them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly quid sacrum As sacrum is that which Is Holy and the Church is therefore called both because it is Holy 12. Yet in very usual and generally allowed speaking Sacriledge is a larger Notion and intends any spoiling or alienating any thing devoted or dedicated to God in order to his Service Thus the things are called Holy that are given to an Holy Vse or the service of the Holy God and separated from common use to that special purpose and he that steals and spoils the Church of the same is Sacrilegius or one that Robs God and commits Sacriledge 13. Thus Churches Lands Table Chalice Cup may be said to be Holy not in themselves but their end and use Therefore to dedicate a thing after this manner is by the Latines called Sacrare by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may in English I think without any just offence if well understood be expressed by Consecrating or making Holy 14. I am sure the Apostles word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sacrum in it which from the Caldie is rendred diripis aedem sacram making an house Holy The Syriac furaberis vasa Templi intimating that either the Temple or the Vessels thereof or both are Holy The Aethiopic Expilus Domum Dei calling the place of Worship the House of God and consequently Holy 15. What remaâ—ins but that you no longer startle at the Holy Table which you know is set apart for the Supper of the Lord to bear the Cup of the Lord to serve the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord and the Holy Communion or the Communion of Saints SECT 5. Of the old Translation of the Psalms 1. AS to your Exceptions to the old Translation of the Psalter and the pointing of it they are not strengthned with any proof at all nor so much as an Instance 2. It yet lies on you to evince that this Translation is corrupt as you have asserted that the pointing makes manifest Non-sense which indeed serves not the sence at all but only the Musick that it varieth the Text from the Original yea from Truth it self 3. I confess that such strange exceptions have been thrown against it heretofore by the old Non-conformists but I suppose you know they never wanted Answers 4. Yoy add the corrupt Translation of the fourth Commandment where in the close of it the seventh day is put for the Sabbath day 5. But though I do not vindicate this Translation yet I cannot but observe the extream emptiness of this Objection Was not the Sabbath day then the seventh day It is said God rested the seventh day and blessed the Sabbath Yea was not the seventh day the Sabbath day it is also said the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God 6. Besides the Septuagint the Arabic and the Syriac do all agree in the same Rendition with our own Translation so that if it be so gross an errour as you pretend it is a very old one But indeed whether the not altering of the word were an overfight in the Examiners or not the sence must needs be yielded by you to be the same either way 7. However here again I must needs remember you that you could submissively bear these things that iâ— by conforming to use them as Ministers and that this your bearing of them doth undeniably suppose such an Assent and Consent unto them as the Law requires which I doubt not to Evidence in its due place SECT 6. Of the Salvation of Infants 1. I Am now arrived at the laâ—â— of your exceptions of this kind and that is taken from those words in the Liturgy touching the Salvation of Infants It is certain by the Word of God that Children being baptized dying before they commit Actual sin are undoubtedly saved 2. You say you can Christianly believe the Regenerating Nature and Efficacy of Baptism but that the undoubted Salvation of all baptized infants dying before they commit Actual Sin is certain by the Scriptures you say you cannot sâ—â— 3. But truly my brother I cannot sâ—e that So much is required of you And therefore I must be bold to minde you that the universal Note All is of your own inserting It is not said â—ll Children but Children 4. It is an indifinite Proposition aâ— it is a Proposition and consequently neither Rubrick for direction nor any part of Administration it is not of a practicable Nature and I humbly conceive it will appear anon we are not required by the Act to subscribe to it the Act makes the Object of our Assent and Consenâ— in the Declaration to the use of the things contained and prescribed in the Common-Prayer 5. Again as it is an Indefinite Proposition I conceive you need not scruple it seeing you allow and believe with a Christian belief the Regenerating nature use and efficacy of Baptism 6. For upon this belief we must agree thus far that this Efficacy of Baptisme hath its Effects upon some of its Subject and if this belief be grounded upon the Word of God then so much is certain from the Word of God that some Children being Regenerated 〈◊〉 put in a state of Salvation by Baptismes and therefore dying before they commit Actual sin are undoubtedly saved 7. But you reply it is not said some Children but that is Children all Children 8. I therefore proceed upon this Foundation to inquire whether the Proposition in Controversie be to be understood in a Universal sence or not This is indeed the Question yet by my consent you have liberty to Answer it your selves 9. For first if this Proposition be to be understood Universally as to all such Children that are mentioned in it the matter of it must be necessary For the form of the Proposition is indefinite and an indefinite Proposition is not equipollent with an Universal but in Materiâ Necessariâ 10. You have yet your choice to say whether the Matter of this Proposition be necessary or not 11. If you say the Matter of it is not necessary then the meaning of the Proposition is not Universal and the difficulty is over seeing it is agreed that Baptisme is regenerating and some such Children are saved For if some Children then Children thus dying are saved and that is sufficient if the Matter be not necessary and consequently the Proposition not to be understood Universally 12. Again if you urge that the matter of this indefinite Proposition is necessary then I am content you conclude it universally extend it to all such children 13. For what is the matter of the present proposition but
the salvation of baptized Children dying before they commit actual sin Now this is granted to be true of some else the Promise is of none effect to the Children and Baptisme of no efficacy and if it be said to be necessary it must be true of all and you need not doubt to Assent unto it in a universal Proposition 14. Thus Jesus Christ the Text saith Came into the world to save sinners This is a true Proposition whether the matter be necessary or not because it it is certain that he came into the world to save some sinners 15. For if the matter be necessary then it is Universally true if not necessary then it is indefinitely true if he came with a purpose to save all he came to save sinners and if he came not with a purpose to save all yet he came to save some sinners and therefore sinners 16. Once more that Baptisme is for the Remission of sins is a certain Truth or an undoubted proposition grounded on the Scripture be Baptized for Acts â— the Remission of sâ—â—â— 17. This is a Proposition of an indefinite Nature if the matter of it be necessary it is true as I have said Universally where its efficacy is not impeded by the incapacity of the Subject as it is not in Children but if the matter be not necessary the Proposition is still true that is indefinitely 18. To conclude either all such Children are saved or some only in either sendâ— the Proposition being but indefinite is true if all such Children are saved then the Matter is necessary and the Proposition equipollent with an Universal Proposition if some only then the Matter is not necessary and consequently there is no necessity yea no liberty left us to stretch the Proposition which is indefinite both in its Form and Matter unto an Universal signification SECT 7. Of Assent and Consent unfeigned 1. HAving dispatcht your exceptions against the Objects of your Assent and Consent required by the Act. viz. The book of Ordination and the book of Common-Prayer 2. We proceed to review these Acts themselves this unfeigned Assent and Consent upon which a greater stress of Controversie yet remains 3. An Objection that I proposed and Answered in my last book seemed if not to create yet to provoke and very much to heighten this part of the quarrel 4. The Objection that I proposed was this I suppose it might be said by some that though we could use the things it is only for Peace sake and in Obedience to Authority not that we would choose or can absolutely approve of the things in themselves 5. Hereunto I answered as you well note that we may approve a thing absolutely or comparatively or respectively and consequently so give our Assent and Consent unto it and that the Act cannot be thought so strict as to allow of no Assent or Consent but such as ariseth from an absolute approbation of the things themselves without any other extrinsiek considerations that may move and sway us to such an Approbation 6. The Act requires but an unfeigned Assent and Consent and an unfeigned Assent and Consent may arise from such a comparative Approbation as a man may unfeignedly Assent and Consent to his Childs Marriage though he like not the Match very well for the avoiding of some greater inconveniencies that otherwise might happen 7. I further observed that to interpret the Act into such an absolute approbation is against charity to our selves and our Governours and against common reason seeing it is a moral impossibility that all men should be exactly of one minde in so many particulars required of us seeing also the grounds of this Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act but left to our selves and lastly seeing that the very Act it self brings motives with it to perswade us â—o Conformity which would signifie nothing if no consideration of the Case besides the absolute goodness of the things themselves is allowed any force to prevail upon us 8. I therefore conclude that we are left at liberty by the said Act to compare the Consequences of obedience with those of dibedience and accordingly to approve so and declare or not 9. Now let us examine what you say to these things 1. To my argument from charity you answer it only with less Charity 2. To my augment that the grounds of Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act but left to our selves you answer nothing because you mistake it 10. You observe well that I say the grounds of this Assent and Consent are not specified in the Act But how strangely do you Comment upon it 11. If by ground say you I mean the reasons inducing the Legislators to require such an Assent and Consent you must be bold to deny what I affirm Then you shew the grounds in the Act for enjoyning such a declaration of Assent and Consent And this is all you answer 12. Now had I meant as you suppose I confess you had answered me But if my words could not signifie any such thing as upon review you will be easily convinced you have answer'd your selves and not me at all 13. Pray then Consider is there not a difference betwixt the grounds of Assent and Consent and the grounds of the Governours to enjoyn a declaration of Assent and Consent could the scope of my argument or the very words of my proposition intend the latter or not the former 14. The grounds of enjoyning such a declaration are in the Legislators and are the grounds of the Act requiring these indeed are specified in the Act of uniformity But the grounds of Assent and Consent or of declaring the same are in the Subjects and are properly the grounds of obedience to that Act which I must still say are not at all specified in it 15. To my other argument taken from the motives which the Act it self affords us you only say that such Arguments as the avoiding a severe penalty a legal opportunity of serving the Church not shewing our selves crosse to authority c. are bad inducements to an unfeigned Assent and Consent 16. But upon second thoughts I cannot believe you will maintain the Quarrel with such motives as these which have doubtless a divine sanction what more familiar with the Spirit of Scripture then to use such Topicks of wrath threats curses death and Hell it self to disswade from sin and to move towards Heaven and yet I hope the Assent and Consent wrought hereupon is not alwayes feigned or alwayes a faint unfeigned Assent and Consent 17. Neither can I believe that you are tenacious in this because you say it might somwhat satisfie us if we had assurance from our Legislators that such a comparative approbation would satisfy the Law For I conclude from hence that what ever you say there is not even in your apprehensions any inconsistency or contradiction betwixt such a comparative approbation and an unfeigned Assent and Consent Though I can see no