Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	find_v	holy_a	scripture_n	3,248	5	5.4817	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93887	Zerubbabel to Sanballat and Tobiah: or, The first part of the duply to M.S. alias Two brethren. By Adam Steuart. Whereunto is added, the judgement of the reformed churches of France, Switzerland, Geneva, &c. concerning independants, who condemne them with an unanimous consent. Published by David Steuart. March 17. 1644. Imprimatur Ja: Cranford.; Duply to M.S. alias Two brethren. Part 1	Steuart, Adam.; Steuart, David, fl. 1644.	1645 (1645)	Wing S5494; Thomason E274_14; ESTC R209896	100,836	110

yet promiseth an Answer M.S. his first Answer is that the Five Ministers ayme at no separation but as their Brethren the Scots did from Prelaticall coaction A.S. If it be only from Prelaticall coaction wherefore separate they themselves from their Brethren the Scots their Sacramentall Communion and the Scots from theirs if they separate not themselves from us wherefore are they suitors for a Toleration or approbation of their Religion since ours is already tolerated and approved as appeareth in the French Italian and Spanish Churches in this Kingdome Neither are you compelled to be Actors in any thing against your Consciences as your Brethren were by Bishops M.S. He saith the Church from which the five Ministers would separate testifies a great desire to reforme Defects yet saith he those Defects are but pretended A.S. Our meaning is to reforme Defects if any there be such as we acknowledge to be in manners as amongst you also or in the administration of Discipline as may be amongst us all But as for any Defects in the principall parts of our Ecclesiasticall Discipline we see none as yet that we travell not to reforme but believe such as hee objects us in them to be rather pretended then Reall Neither can we or shall we judge them to be any other thing but pretended till he make it appeare that they are Reall Will He that we beleeve them to be Reall because that he only sayes so but it is not the first untruth has falne from his pen. M.S. He would have the Five Ministers quit the Assembly A.S. This M.S. supposes that this last Proposition crosseth my Supposition But they may stay in the Church to reforme Abuses if there be any really as it is pretended by the Independents and live out of the Assembly as many others who are no wayes their Inferiours Neither said I that I wished them to be out of the Assembly only I propounded a question whether in consequence of the publishing of their Apologie they should not resolve themselves to quit the Assembly Now courtcous and conscientious Reader be thou judge I pray thee whether this man hath answered any of my Questions yea or not which are all the main points here to be debated Quest I. Whether it had not been honester and fairer dealing to have added the Author and Licencer's Name to M.S. his Booke then to have omitted them I Affirme it 1. because it testifieth a greater sincerity especially in these Times 2. Because it makes it appear more probably to the world that it is not a Libel 3. And that it conteineth nothing against the Law 4. Because the Name of the Author giveth authority to the Book if he be either learned or honest and the omission thereof may cut off the Authority of it and bring discredit unto it especially when the Law for this effect ordaineth it to be added 5. Because when it is suppressed and the Book a Libell it giveth too much adoe to the Magistrate to find out the Author to censure and punish him condignly according to his demerits 6. Because the Holy Writers did so and if their Names be omitted in some Books we know not whether it was with their consent or whether they did not put to their names howbeit not in quality of Canonicall Scripture or peradventure it was because they were not the Authors but as it were Gods Secretaries or Scribes for the Holy Ghost dictated them what they had to write 7. Because it hindreth men from being deceived in their moneys for sundry times men because of specious Titles put before Books buy them and afterward find nothing worth their money 8. The adding of the name of the Author and of the Licencer with the Licence will hinder the common people to be deceived in reading of hereticall and unsound in stead of Orthodox and sound Books So that this being confidered this Author should have done better that he had added his name and the Licence to his Book Quest II. Whether Mr. Cranford might not justly Licence A.S. his Consid and Answer to the Libell c. I Susteine the first part of the Question and deny the second As for the first it is evident 1. Because it is conformed to Gods word as we shall see hereafter 2. Because that Answer is nothing else but an Apologie for the Discipline of the Reformed Churches 3. Because it containeth nothing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England or any other true Reformed Churches only it hath some new Sectaries for Enemies 4. Because the Church of England evermore entertained Union with the Reformed Churches that were ruled by that Discipline and they refused not one another to the Communion of the Sacraments 5. Because that a Bishop and the rest of the Commissioners from England at the Synod of Dordrecht approved that Discipline in the name of the Church of England 6. Because in England it selfe it hath been evermore approved by the King and Parliament who granted the Exercise thereof unto the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches in this very City of London and sundry other parts of this Kingdome 7. At this present Episcopall Government being put down it standeth by Law approved both by State and Church as conforme unto Gods word 8. The Kings Majesty likewise by consent of Parliament Licenced it in Scotland The second part of the Question may be proved by the contrary Arguments 1. Because it maintaineth a Discipline that is not conforme to Gods word which hath not one word of particular Churches Independent one from another of particular Church-Covenants distinct from that of Grace of not Baptizing Christians Children of not admission of Faithfull men and women who are without Scandall unto the Lords Table c. 2. Because the Discipline it maintaineth is repugnant to all other Disciplines of all other reformed yea of all Christian Churches 3. It containeth many things contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England as they confesse themselves 4. Because the Church of England never entertained any Union or Communion with any Church ruled by that Discipline 5. No Commissioners from England ever approved it 6. It hath never been received in England by King or Parliament 7. It hath never been put up here nor standeth here Legally as the other And therefore the first Legally might have been Licenced and the other could not be Licenced QUEST 3. Whether any man may not state and determine Questions agitated in Synods before the Synods Determination M. S. BLames me mightily for stating some Questions now in agitation in the Synod To the contrary I conceive that herein I have done nothing amisse But for the better stating and determining of this Question we must observe 1. That there are two sorts of Questions some that are already determined in Gods Word and his Church also Others that are not 2. That there are some Determinations by publick Authority as Lawes Statutes Ecclesiasticall Canons c. and others particular proceeding

direct Charity beleeve and Faith love the Sense desire and the Appetite feele It is utterly false that hereupon it followeth that the will is an unreasonable Faculty for howbeit it be not a reasonable directive yet it is a reasonable imperative Faculty And this I pray you most considerate Philosopher as you call your selfe to learn of me for however you inconsiderately judge that we take our Principles up upon trust yet could I have helped you with a dozen of Arguments more probable then that ridiculous one that ye have brought us P. 21. Sect. 8 He saith that I contradict my selfe in these following Propopositions viz. 1. The five Ministers Discourse is most learned 2. The five Ministers Discourse commeth very short weak and slender and no wayes satisfactory 3. The five Ministers discourse is errour 4. The five Ministers are most learned 5. The five Ministers are less learned then I am A Contradiction is between two propositions consisting of the same termes the one affirmative the other negative both singular or the one universall and the other particular If any such Propositions be found in my Book hee saith true and I will confesse it if not he is bound to acknowledge himselfe a lyer Now in all these five Propositions see whether there be any such thing yea or not As for the first which he imagineth to be contradictory to the next two 1. They are all affirmative 2. Never an one of them has the same Attribute 3. In the second he omitteth some words of mine viz. these to their Arguments 4. The third Proposition is not mine In the 4. and 5. Propositions which he calleth contradictory 1. They are both affirmative 2. The fifth is not mine but falsly attributed by him unto me So see courteous Reader whether he has more reason to say of me The man maketh nothing of Contradictions or I to say of him This man with the power of piety maketh nothing of falsifications and lying What he saith more to my Epistle it meriteth not an answer since it conteineth nothing else save only some stories of his Independent Gossips more fit a great deale to be told to old wives mislead by prejudices then to be read by men of judgement As concerning the 3. sect pag. 22. I repent not my selfe at all but thank my God that I have written against your Sect And I promise you God willing to continue all my life long so doing if he call me not to some other employment wherein I may glorifie him more Only here I pray thee Reader to observe this mans vanity and madnesse who thinking it but a small thing to offend me all along hitherto with his injurious Pen has run out of the links to pursue His Majestie because of the name which he hateth in my person and therefore that all the world may take notice of him how couragious he is he concludeth All that I have to say to A.S. here is only to sigh over this name S. in four men as fatall to this poore England and Scotland c. Well I will not say the rest for feare that if ever thou be exalted thou say not that I have been the cause in accusing thee Only I know not what Schooles of Magick thou hast frequented or curious Arts thou hast learned or what occult vertue thou conceivest to be in Names none but Magicians and they who are given to curious but unlawfull Sciences are of thy opinion My name I thank God is no shame to me I pray God thou be not a shame to thy Name and thy Profession both And so much for the justification of my Epistle consisting of halfe a sheet of paper in a very faire letter in the pretended refutation whereof what with language jeers injuries c. this man hath employed no lesse then 22. pages in quarto of a small Print if the cyphers mark well All which I have fully refuted with sundry Reasons howsoever I found none at all or very few in his writing in lesse then three leaves in 4o. as I beleeve Now let us see what he will say to my Observations Consideration 1. A.S. VVHether in any Ecclesiasticall or Politicall Assembly of the Christian world wherein things are carried by Plurality of voyces it be ordinary for any inconsiderable number of men to joyne in a particular combination among themselves and therin to take particular Resolutions and to publish them unto the world and so to anticipate upon the Resolutions of the whole Assembly Answ 1. M.S. We have heard of some Parliaments in Europe that the House of Peers is so constitute that if a Vote pass where som's Consciences amongst them cannot yeeld to they may modestly enter in the House their dissent from it Rep. A.S. But your five Ministers have not done so there was no Vote at all passed upon all the Articles that are debated in their Apologeticall Narration 2. And therefore neither entred they nor could they enter their Vote of dissent 3. If the House of Peers be so constitute it followeth not that the Assembly of Divines should be so constitute 4. The Apologists have not contented themselves with these Priviledges of the Peers or that are granted to any Parliament or Synod men viz. to enter modestly their dissent from it but they have gone further for before that ever things were Voted they published them to all the world 5. They did it not modestly but with great insolence insulting over all Protestant Churches as if they alone had the power of piety or as if they in their Churches had it in a higher degree then all other Christian Churches 6. When the Peers do so they doe it not as your Quinqu-Ecclesian Ministers viz. by Conventicling themselves in secret and a part not imparting their designe to their Brethren and subscribing an Apologie together 7. If it was not to crosse the proceeding and Disputes of the Assembly wherefore I pray could it be 8. Neither could it be to tell the Kingdome de facto what they held and practised 1. For if it be so wherefore are they Petitioners in the last page of their Apology for a latitude and Toleration in Religion 2. Wherfore travaile they in all their Book to refute the Presbyterian Government received in the best Reformed Churches 3. If you Sir can procure of your five Ministers to sweare that what you say of them here is true you may be better beleeved then yet you are 4. And I pray you tell us if they have told you that they had no other draught in all their Apologie then what you declare here 5. If they affirme it in Conscience certainly their mind has not been like to their Book 6. If it be so what is the reason that they declared not themselves before that they were Members of the Assembly or before such time as these matters were debated there 7. I ask you whether in that Book they declare not what was their opinion and what they

were resolved to maintain 8. And whether it was the duty of those that were to be judged before that ever matters were propounded or debated in their Assembly to propound them and debate them themselves before the people before all the Water-men Mid-wives and children yea and the whole Kingdome Was there ever any such way taken in any Synod or Assembly in this world before this time M.S. But they declare themselves to close neerer with the Assembly were they all Presbytortans as we know the contrary then thousands ever thought they would A.S. This is but your fiction for if I should tell you some mens judgement mine own concerning you before the beginning of this Assembly I must say wee never thought that your Opinions could have been so absurd as we have fince found them in your Books we beleeved that ye were all to-gether conform with the rest of the Protestant Churches and that what ye did in separating your selves from Episcopall Government it was meerly out of necessity because of their persecution And I can assure you that this was the charitable construction that thousands of the Scots and French Protestants made of your proceedings 2. This your pretended Fact is grounded upon a Supposition contrary to your knowledge as you declare in your Parenthesis as we know the contrary and therefore is de ente possibili non de actuali M.S. they do profess themselves so unwedded to their former prastises that upon discovery of more light they are most willing to let it in A.S. This is the common tone of all Sectaries so did the Arminians say would to God that they and others of that Sect were so minded and thought not it rather derogatorie to the honour of so Independent Spirits to receive any light at all from others whose Spirits are subject to the Spirits of the Prophets But yee receive honour one from another c. But all this is not satisfactory to my Question in this Observation M.S. Seeing all he has said to be little or nothing to purpose and not answering to my Question he bringeth here his pretended Achilles his main answer The Assembly is not saith he to conclude things by pluralitie of Votes if you dare beleeve the Ordinance of parliament whose words are to confer and treat touching Doctrine Discipline c. and to deliver their Opinions and Advices as shall be most agreeable to the word of God And in case of difference of opinions among the said Divines they shall present the same together with the Reasons thereof to the Houses of Parliament This taketh away in his conceit pluralitie of voyces and doth more then allow so much as is done in the Apologeticall Narration A.S. I deny that the Assembly is not to conclude any thing by Plurality of Votes for they conclude by Plurality of Votes even those Opinions and Advices that they are to deliver to the Parliament and if it were not so they could not at all conclude their Opinions and Advices 1. And as for the Ordinance it commandeth one thing viz. to conferre c. but it forbiddeth not the other viz. to conclude things by Plurality of Votes 2. Howbeit it should forbid them in some manner to conclude some things by plurality of Votes yet should it not follow that it forbiddeth them absolutely and altogether 3. If any thing can be indirectly inferred of against concluding of things by pluraelity of voyces it is only this viz. That the Assembly in case of dissent amongst themselves shall conclude nothing before that they present it together with their Reasons to the Houses of Parliament and the reason is because howsoever the Church may conclude things by Ecclesiasticall authority yet cannot her Authority make it to be received in the Kingdome by Law and it is the Magistrates duty before that he establish it by Civill Authority and make it to passe as a Law that may oblige his Subjects in foro civili that he first informe himselfe throughly and know well upon what ground he passes it and this may be cleerly proved by the practice of the Primitive Church for howsoever there the Ministers of the Church concluded many things by their Canons without civill Authority in foro Ecclesiastico yet the Civill Magistrate afterwards after due information concluded the same things in foro civili as wee see through all the first 14. Titles of the first Book of the Code But out of this it cannot be inferred that after they have delivered their Advices to the Parliament they cannot conclude it if they have the power of a Synod 4. Yea I may say more that the Ministers of the Primitive Church in the first three hundred years after Christ exercised this Authority against the Civill Magistrates will in foro Ecclesiastice But praised be God our Ministers have no cause to doe so 5. Neither is it credible even according to the Independents their own Tenets that those they hold to be Lay-men only should by their lay-Authority build us up a Confession of Faith create and depose Ministers exercise the power of the Keyes in Censures and Excommunications c. Neither read we of any Prince or Civill Magistrate that ever usurped that power Neither remember I any that ever maintained it besides Sectaries 6. Yee your selves will not admit them to be ruling Elders how then admit ye them to bee Supreame Ecclesiasticall Judges in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall matters viz. in matters of Doctrine c. Some will object but what if a Ministers Conscience cannot assent to that which the Assemby passes by plurality Votes in such a case may he not oppose himselfe to the rest Answ He may oppose himselfe in reasoning the businesse all along till it come to be concluded by Plurality of Votes but after that it is once concluded he must in foro externo according to Gods ordinary providence let it passe yea subscribe unto their Iudgements for in such a subscription he subscribes not that it is his particular judgement or according to his private Conscience but that it is the publick Iudgement of the Assembly 2. And if ye will oppose the whole Assembly because that it is against your particular judgement and Conscience so shall they all oppose you silly man and so nothing at all shall be concluded 3. Yea were it not as I say no Senate no Councell no Parliament no Ecclesiasticall or Politicall Assembly could ever conclude any thing for very hardly will ye finde any wherein some man doth not dissent from the rest And finally how ever one man in an Assembly dissenting from the rest might oppose the Iudgement before it be given or after the Iudgement for some scruple of Conscience which yet is not lawfull yet might he not at any hand doe it in writing of Apologies against their Iudgement much lesse before that they give out their Iudgement and for feare they judge otherwayes then he would have them judge 10. All this Answer is only against