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 |
|
A79438
|
A theological dialogue: containing the defence and justification of Dr. John Owen from the forty two errors charged upon him by Mr. Richard Baxter in a certain manuscript about communion in lyturgical worship.
|
Chauncy, Isaac, 1632-1712.
|
1684
(1684)
|
Wing C3757aA; ESTC R230946
|
46,146
|
50
|
the preceptive or penal part though it justifies me before the Law R. B. What if the Creed or Lords Prayer were too rigorously imposed J. O. If the thing be my duty in obedience to a just and Supream Law I am not to neglect it because an Inferiour Governour too rigorously imposeth it 1. Such a rigorous imposition hurts me not in that which I take to be duty to do whether that Imposition be or no. 2. Christ never annexeth too severe Penalties to any of his Laws 3. If man undertake to annex too rigorous Punishments or unsuitable ones it hinders not me in my Duty to Christ As if a Magistrate make Whipping or Hanging the Penalty of not receiving the Sacrament in such a time If I upon Examination of my self and the Rule apprehend it my duty in Obedience to Christ I will do it but not in respect to Mans Laws But if the Subordinate Law-maker alter the Nature and Circumstances of the Supream the Law is another thing and my Obedience justifies the power of the Law-maker and the goodness of the Law in the Mandatory part Again good things by a lawful Authority may be too rigorously imposed and the Law may be unjust in the Penalty though the Mandatory part be good which injustice is the sin of the Law-givers loss and wrong of the Transgressor because he suffers beyond the Merit of his Transgression but this hinders not me from my Duty neither doth this rigorous Imposition hurt me so long as I stand in obligation and practice of my duty by another Righteous Law which requires the same thing If Christ commands me to say the Lords Prayer and annexeth no corporal punishment I will do it If Mans Law saith I shall be hang'd if I do not do it I do the Action by vertue of Christ's Law But let such Law makers look to it that annex Corporal Penalties to Laws of his Institution the Cries of them upon which they are Executed will be loud in Christs Ear. Manuscript This Corjunction by C mmunion by the Worship of the Liturgy is a Symbol Pledge and Token of â—n Ecclesâ—astical Incorporation with the Church of England in its present Constitution it is so in the Law of the Land it is so in the Canons of the Church it is so in the common understanding of all men and by these Rules must our Vnderstanding and Practice be judged and not be any Reserves of our own which neither God nor good men will allow of Wherefâ—re R. B. To the third Premise I answer The Church of England is an Ambiguous word 1. As it signifies a part of the Universal Church agreeing in Faith one God and all Essentials J. O. So any Church may be as well as it any particular Congregation this is no distinguishing Character but is ambiguous too R. B. 2. As it is a Christian Kingdom under one King J. O. A Church in a sence is a Christian Kingdom i. e. a Royal Nation under Christ their King But there 's no such Gospel Church in your sence for there was neither Christian Kingdom nor King in the Apostles days R. B. As it is a Confedracy of many Churches to keep concord in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals J. O. This will not tell us yet what the Church of England is 1. A confederacy of Churches is by No-body call'd a Church in your sence of a Church the Scripture no where calls a confedracy of Churches a Church nor doth any that call the Church of England â— Church owning it so to be in its professed Constitution mean thereby a confederation of Churches 2. National Churches may be a confederation of Churches and such confederation in lawful circumstantials as well as integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church Organized if this be a due acceptation of a Church R. B. If any Church go beyond these bounds and upon good pretences shall agree upon any Error or Evil it is a mistake to hold that all that incorporate with them in the three aforesaid lawful respects do therefore confederate with them in their Error This is your Fourth Error J. O. That 's â—our Error 1. In Arithmetick it s but the third by your own mark 2. In Logick for what â—ounds have you set These three things are but general Descriptions of a Church at most Here 's no definition in any or all of them of any particular Church and that is setting of â—ounds when I difference and describe a Species or Individual under its next Genus by its particular form or proper adjunct we spâ—ak of a particular Church so bounded The Church of England is so according to its present constitution by Establishing Laws in its actual form of Officers Members particular Worship and power as an Organized individual Church National Church is not the next Genus of the Church of England but remote National Church is the next Genus Now I say upon whatever pretences a particular Church calls and professeth it self a Church as the conditions of their Communion if you joyn with them upon those conditions pretended and professed that is a Token of your Ecclesiastical Incorporation in the said Church in its present constitution the Church and all others looks upon you as an Actual Member let the conditions be Error or no Error The Question is not so much now whether the terms be Error or not but whether your joyning upon the terms required is not your Ecclesiastical Incorporation with them And then if the terms be erroneous and sinful whether you do not joyn in the Error and professedly allow it by your practice R. B. I will give you a general instance and a particular one 1. You cann't name me one combined company of Churches from the Apostles dayes till now that had no Error J. O. You might as well have said any one Church for we speak of a particular Church not of combined Churches but suppose as you say If that Combination be an Error or an Error be the condition of the Combination then my coming upon that condition is an Error and an Incorporation into that combination so as to make me Confederate in that Error R. B. The Independents gathered a Synâ—d at the Savoy and there among their Doctrinals or Articles of Faith laid down two points Expresly contrary to Scripture 1. That it is not Faith but Christs Righteousness that we are justified by whereas it is both and the Scripture often saith the contrary J. O. It is a strange thing that any man should take upon him such Magisterial Dictatorship in matters of Religion to insinuate Error into Mens Minds and unjust accusations of others For 1. When the Scripture speaks of Justification by Faith doth any sound Divines or Christians understand it of the Act of believing but that the object of Faith that Justifies is the Righteousness of Faith our own Righteousness or Christs Righteousness but this dispute is not
our present Province The Articles of the Savoy-Confession saith God freely justifieth us Not by imputing Faith it self the Act of believing c. Will you say That God imputes the Act of believing for Righteousness in Justification of a Sinner before God If you will there 's more good Protestants will condemn this as your Error then will say there is any Error in that Article of the Savoy-Confession I am sure we have Scripture enough against you but this is one of your Arminian Errors R. B. That Christs Righteousness imputed is our sole Righteousness whereas the Scripture doth name also our inherent and practical Righteousness J. O. Why do you not speak out now but intimate an Error Doth the Scripture name inherent Righteousness for Justification I know what you would be at you are for your Evâ—ngelical Works to come in Cheek by Jole with the imputed Righteousness of Christ for Justification and you are inforced â—o it because you will bring in the To Credere one may as well come in as the other And in this Doctrine I must tell you you have laid â—he fairest Bridg for Popery to come in that ever any Protestant Divine hath done this hundred years And that 's your Popish Error I will reherse the Savoy-Confession in its own words which is taken verbatim almost if not quite from the Assembly's so that you charge the latter in charging the former Savoy-Confess of Justification Chap. 2. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth not by infusing Righteousness into them but by pardoning their Sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but for Christs sake alone not by imputing Faith it self the Act of Believing or any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their Righteousness but by imputing Christs Active Obedience unto the whole Law and Passive Obedience in his death for their whole and sole Righteousness they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith which Faith they have not of themseves it is the Gift of God This Article we stand by and will defend against all men that shall oppose it as erroneous R. B. I asked some yet living why they consented to these and did not rather expound the Scripture then deny it And they said that it was Dr. Owens doing Now doth it follow that every one that there confederated with you owned these Errors J. O. If the bringing in this Article of Faith was Dr. Owens doing as you say you were told I am not ashamed of it 2. He did no more in this and the other than was the Act of the whole Convention 3. If any of the Members that were there were dissatisfied in the truth of it why did they not protest against it But if it were an Error all that acted silently by implicit consent were confederate if it were a confederation in the Error and there was nothing of this kind done but by most Voices which made every man concerned that entered not his particular Dissent R B. The Churches of Helvetia they are commonly such as we call Erastian for no Discipline but the Magistrates are all that confederate with them as Churches guilty of this Error J. O. They are so for subjection to such discipline is the Condition of their Communion and therefore they that are joyned upon those terms are guilty of their Error R. B. But I further distinguish between the many Parish-Churches and the Diocesan and the Church of England as constituted of such Diocesan Churches J. O. You may as well distinguish between the many particular men and Homo and Animal R. B. The Old Nonconformists commonly owned the Parish-Churches and the Church of England made up of such but not the Diocesan J. O. You and they might as well own the Church of England in the form and constitution as it is Established as the Parishes to be particular Gospel-Churches and the Aggregatum of them to make up a Conglomorate Church there is as much ground for one as for the other Methinks a Conglobate Church makes a more firm and solid Body being made of several Orbs subordinately inwraping and infolding one another Now it must needs follow that where a Church is thus constituted that you cann't take out from such a Body any middle subordinate Coat but you must make Schism of the whole and to come into the Communion of the Chuâ—ch of England which is such a conglobate Church with a denial iâ—â—our heart or mouth of a Diocesan Church is to come with Schism in your heart and mouth splitting a Church in order to Communion yea a denial of the very Establishment of that Church yea the very Pastoral standing of the constituted Pastor to whose Church you joyn for the Diocesan Bishop by the constitution is the Pastor of that Parish in which you joyn the Parson or Vicar is but his Curate or Vmbra Now to say you joyn with a quatenus and own not the very constitution and standing of the Church with which you joyn in the sence the Church asserts it is the greatest Equivocation in practice that is You joyn with them quatenus Congregational Churches such they disown as an Association of Presbyterian Churches which they disown you disown the Diocesan Bishop for your Pastor which he saith he is you say he is a Presbyterian Superintendent he saith he is none Is not this high imposing to come to Communion with a Church upon the terms of your quaterus As if I should get upon a Cow and ride it with Whip and Spur and say I ride it quatenus Equus and enter into the Society of a parcel of Pedlars and Tinkers and say I confederated with them quatenus Merchants The meaning is by a reserve you can joyn visibly with one Church and be a Communicate with another sort of Church at the same time Well the Old Nonconformists nor you are to be no Presidents to us in this case We will not injure any Church so as to impose upon them terms of Communion as we would have none impose upon us So far as the old Nonconformists and the old Reforming Conformists went forward with Reformation to bring the Church out of the Wilderness we honour them but when they turn back again and entice the people so to do we are afraid to tempt God in that manner for we have seen what God did with his people in the Wilderness of old which things were written for our Ensample upon whom the Ends of the World are come 1 Cor. 10. R. B. Also it 's a mistake to say That Communion by the Liturgy is a Symbol and Pledge of the foresaid Incorporation in the Church of England in its present constitution it is only a part of the Communion commanded but no such Symbol And here 's two Errors J. O. An Incorporation into a Species is an Incorporation into the Genus that which is Incorporated into the Species of