Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptize_v	dip_v	sprinkle_v	3,693	5	10.9320	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56100	The Protestants letter concerning the re-union of the two religions to the Assembly of the clergy of France, held at Paris, May, 1685 humbly offered to the consideration of all Protestants in England, as an expedient for reconciling the great differences in religion now among them.	Kidder, Richard, 1633-1703.; Catholic Church. Assemblée générale du clergé de France.	1690 (1690)	Wing P3851; Wing K409_CANCELLED; ESTC R882	28,330	38

an unmoveable Resolution to observe it would undoubtedly damn himself he would commit a Sin against his Conscience and in some sort against the Holy Ghost Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin and a Man who in doing an indifferent Action doth believe that he commits a mortal Sin doth sin mortally He acts by a Spirit of Revolt formally against the Ordinances of God or against that which he esteems to be the Law of God None therefore can nor ought to force any Party to concede any thing in such Points which they believe to be necessary but must first instruct convince and work them into a full Persuasion that they do needlesly startle at things which are not what they do believe them to be This is our second Principle which seems to us as indisputable as the former and to be built upon such solid Reason that it will be received by all Persons who are never so little disengaged from Prejudices 3. Our third Principle is this That when the Question is of any Article whether it be of Faith or of Practice which one of the Parties doth hold to be false and so false that the Belief or the Practice of that Article would essentially concern Religion and ruine the very Foundations thereof And the other Party holds it to be true but yet so as that the Practice or the Belief thereof is not according to his Opinion absolutely necessary unto the Essence of Religion In this case I say it is clear that Christian Charity and Prudence do require that the Party which holds that Article to be true but not necessary should yield and bear with the Weakness of him who looks upon it as false as intolerable and as ruinous unto the Fundamentals of Religion or as incompatible with Edification This Truth doth seem to me to carry so great an Evidence in it that I know not whether it be necessary to prove it Is it not clear by the precedent Principle that he who gives himself a Liberty in any Point which is really fundamental or which he believes to be so doth damn himself doth act against his Conscience and ruine his Salvation But on the contrary That he who takes a Liberty in any Point which he indeed doth believe to be true but doth not believe it to be of an absolute necessity doth do nothing against his Conscience In the first place he doth not betray the Truth for as we shall see in that which follows he is not to be obliged to subscribe the Rejection of that Belief as if it were false or of that Practice as if it were evil and criminal He may keep his own Opinion he may also declare that such a Belief is good though he tolerate that which is opposite thereunto and that such a Practice is innocent though he have renounced it for the benefit of Peace Secondly He doth not betray his Conscience nor Religion in suffering such a Practice to be abolished or in leaving every body free to such a Belief because he is persuaded that that Belief or that Practice are not of the Essence of Religion and that a Man may pass-well enough without them and never thereby run any hazard of his Salvation There is nothing that can be more evident than this That there are most innocent Practices yea such as are authorised by the Testimony of the whole Church which might yet notwithstanding be very well abandoned if any great Interest for the Glory of God or for the Good of the Church did depend thereupon As for Example The greatest part of the Christian Churches have in Baptism renounced Immersion or Dipping and do content themselves with the Baptism of Aspersion or Sprinkling But now if the Turks who were disposed otherwise to their Conversion should stumble hereat and say that it was of absolute necessity to plunge in the Water as many as are baptized that Jesus Christ did institute it after that manner that such was the practice of the Apostles and that it was the constant usage of the Primitive Church would not Christian Prudence be concerned now to abandon the Baptism of Sprinkling and to return again unto that of Dipping This would not be to impeach the Memory of our Fore-fathers for we should never say that the Baptism of simple Sprinkling is a Sacrilege Neither would this be the Betraying of the Truth for we should never subscribe that the Baptism of Sprinkling is insufficient It would only be a Sacrifizing unto a great Interest a Ceremony which we do not believe to be important Now let it be remembred that there can hardly be any greater Interest for the Glory of God and for the Good of the Church than the Re-union of those two Parties which do divide the Western Church If therefore there were on either Side any Articles of such a Character and Quality that the one Side did hold them to be entirely ruinous to Religion and that the other did not look upon them indeed as meerly indifferent but yet nevertheless as not necessary with an absolute necessity it is clear that that Party which regarded the Article in question as not being of exceeding great importance ought to yield in favour of the other who did look upon it as being absolutely incompatible with Religion And this is also another Principle which ought not as we conceive to be disputed 4. Our fourth Principle is this That when the Question is about Articles or Creeds whereof both Parties do agree that they are not of the utmost importance that if they be true yet they are not of the Essence of Religion and if they be false though they are believed to be true yet they do not destroy saving Faith In this case I say the ruling Party that which is the mightiest in Number in Credit and Authority ought to be tolerated by the Weaker who must accommodate themselves herein for the Benefit of Peace and to put a Cessation unto the Scandal of Schism As for Example If the Christians of both Communions could agree together that the Worshipping of Images and Praying unto Saints were not Practices ruinous to Religion and were no way prejudicial unto Piety It is clear that in those States where that Religion which invocates Saints doth bear the sway the others ought to accommodate themselves thereunto that is to say that they ought not to separate themselves from the Communion for that thing alone On the contrary in those States where the Religion which will not admit the Invocation of Saints doth rule they who are of a contrary Sentiment ought to accommodate themselves thereunto and not to seperate themselves from the publick Worship although the Saints were not there worshipped This is also a Rule of Sovereign Justice whose Equity seems unto us to be most manifestly evident the weaker Party would do nothing against his Conscience by adhering unto a Worship wherein he should see the Practice of Things which he doth not indeed believe to be either