Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	aaron_n	bless_v	blessing_n	51	3	7.7923	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69753	The generall demands, of the reverend doctors of divinitie, and ministers of the Gospell in Aberdene, concerning the late covenant, in Scotland together, with the answeres, replyes, and duplyes that followed thereupon, in the year, 1638 : reprinted in one book, by order of Parliament.	Forbes, John, 1593-1648.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.	1663 (1663)	Wing C4226; Wing C4225; ESTC R6298	125,063	170

things were left indifferent by the negative Confession yet may we not forbear the practise of them because since that Confession Lawes have passed on them which remaining in vigour require our Obedience as we said before 7. The other horne of your Dilemma is that if these points were abjured for ever before Pearth Assembly then wee who practise them are perjured To which we answere That it followeth not for we never did swear to that negative Confession And therefore though these points were abjured therein yet are we free from all guiltinesse of Perjury And in the mean time ye have not resolved how he who is perswaded of the lawfulnesse of those points can swear the negative Confession if by it the Swearer be tyed to the abjuring of those points which was the other part of our Dilemma Thus if ye will consider rightly ye may perceive that our Dilemma standeth unmoved with the hornes of it still towards you Ye farther insinuate that our Reasons are not solide and grave but velitations of such a sort as ye looked not for Let the judicious Reader pronounce his sentence of this only we wish that ye had chosen rather to satisfie then to contemn our reasons That which ye here againe adde concerning the change of Cōmissioners is answered in our fourth Duply 8. To give light to your former discourse ye subjoine a distinction of discipline into three members First ye say it is taken for the rule of Government of the Church and censure of manners by office bearers appointed by CHRIST and thus ye say it is unchangeable Secondly for constitutions of counsells and Acts of Parliament about matters of Religion And thus ye say it is alterable or constant according to the nature of particular objects Thirdly for the ordering of circumstances to be observed in all actions divyne and humane and so ye say it is variable First by these distinctions the matter seemeth rather to be obscured then cleared For ye doe not expresse in which of these senses the discipline mentioned in the negative Confession is to be taken which was the point required of you 9. Secondly ye seem by this distinction to intangle your selves yet more For first if ye take the name of discipline in any one or any two of these senses what say ye to these following words of your dispute against the English Popish ceremmies Parte 4. cap. 8. Sect. 8. The Bishop doeth but needlesly question what is meaned by the discipline whereof the Oath speaketh For howsoever in Ecclesiasticall use it signifieth often times that Policie which standeth in the censuring of manners yet in the Oath it must be taken in the largest sense namely for the whole Policy of the Church For 1. The whole Policy of this Church did at that time goe under the name of discipline and those two Books wherein this Policy is contained were called the Books of discipline And without all doubt they who swore the Oath meaned by discipline that whole Policy of the Church which is contained in those Books 10. Secondly when that little Confession was framed the government of the Church was only by Presbyters and not by Bishops and therefore if ye think that the name of discipline in that Confession comprehendeth under it the first part of your distinction which as we conceive ye will no● deny ye may easily perceive that we are urged by you to sweare and subscrive against our Consciences since we think the rule of the government of the Church which then was to be changeable and that the Government was lawfully changed by following Assemblies and Parliaments from Presbyters to Bishops 11. Thirdly If these Constitutions of Counsells concerning objects alterable mentioned in the second member of your distinction be one the same with ordering of variable circumstā●es mentioned in the third member why have ye distinguished the one from the other But if they be different then ye grant that Ecclesiastick constitutions may be made concerning some alterable matters of Religion which are not bare circumstances which is repugnant to your ordinary doctrine whereby ye mantain that nothing changeable is left to the determination of the Church in matters of Religion but onely circumstances of Actions We can not see how ye can mantain this doctrine and yet oppose the determinations of the Church concerning Ceremonies which are indifferent 12. We had reason to inquire your judgement concerning Rites or Ceremonies which are not of divine Institution whether they be lawfull or not though ye still shun the declaring of it Since by your Covenant ye intend a reformation of Religion and a recovering of the Liberty and Purity of the Gospell as ye speak if ye in your judgement condemne such Ceremonies as ye insinuate we can not expect but that if ye obtain your desires all such Rites shall be expelled and condemned especially since by this your late Covenant ye tye your selves to that old Covenant wherein ye disclaim and detest all Rites brought into the Church without the word of GOD. Now we can not concurre with you for promoving this end because such a judgement is plain contrary to ours yea contrary to the universall judgement and practise of the Ancient Kirke repugnant also to the judgement of the Protestant Churches and most famous Divines therein as may appear by the quotations on the margine But if ye be of the same mind with us and think that there are some Rites of that kind lawfull why doe you hide your minde from us and others since the acknowledgement and manifesting of this Trueth would be no small advancement to your cause by removing this great offence Of Matrimoniall Benediction and God-fathers in Baptism 13. As for solemn blessing of Marriage we asked what warrand ye had for it by precept or practise set down in GODS Word In your Answere ye insinuate that it is a blessing of the people commanded in the Law and more plainly we find this set down in the Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies Part. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. Yet plain it is from Scripture it self that Matrimoniall Benediction ought to be given by a Pastor for GOD hath commanded his Ministers to blesse his People Numb 6. First who ever before you did ground the necessity of solemne blessing of Marriage upon these words Numb 6. 23. Speak unto Aaron and unto his sonnes saying on this wise ye shall blesse the children of Israel saying unto them the LORD blesse thee and keep thee c. Learned Melanchton was not so well versed in Scriptures as to see this For he sayeth in his Epistles Pag. 328. Ye see that the Rite of the Ancients is that the Bridegroom and Bride are joined before the Altar in the sight of GOD and with the incalling of GOD. Which custome undoubtedly hath been ordained by the first Fathers that we may consider that this conjunction was appointed by GOD and is assisted by Him 14. Secondly By this

of thinges variable in particular Congregations We aske Into which of the Members of this distinction ye referre Episcopacie and the Articles of Pearth that is whether they most necessarilie be omitted in all Churches and at all times or not If ye say that they must be necessarilie omitted and that the Negative Confession confirmed with an Oath doth tye us to the omission of them then both ye would make us to sweare and subscrive against our Consciences for we are perswaded that these things are lawfull as also ye would make us to abjure Episcopacy and the Articles of Pearth in perpetuum which is ●latlie contrary to your Declaration in your Answeres 1. 5. c. If you say on the other part that we are not tyed by the negative Confession to the omission of these things then why have ye in all your wrytings against us exprobrate to us Perjurie in violating of the Oath con●ayned in the negative Confession 5. We would gladly have known your minde concerning the lawfulnesse of such Rites as are nor of divyne Institution expressed in GOD'S Word For we ingenuously professe that none of your Answeres which hitherto we have seen to the Instances or Examples brought by us in our sift Demand of Rites used by your selves in your Churches as lawfull without divyne Institution to which we could adde many moe doe give us any satisfaction nor yet as we thinke can give satisfaction to any indifferent man As for example is Blessing of Marriages a meere circumstance who can be so impudent as to say ●o or if it be a Ceremony what praecept or practise have ye of it in GOD'S whole word If it be alleadged that we have a warrand from that Blessing pronounced Gen. 1. 28. upon Man and Woman after their creation we aske by what consequence can that Solemnitie of blessing of Marriages used in our Churches with all the Ceremonies of it be drawn from that effectuall and operative Blessing of our first Parents or rather of whole Man-kynde Is there here an institution of a perper●uall observance or Rite to be used in the Church more then in the 22 verse of the same Chapter when GOD blessed the Fowles and Fishes and said Be fruitfull and multiplie and fill the waters in the Seas c. If againe it be answered that Pastorall Benediction is mentioned in Scripture first what is that to Blessing of Marriages And secondly why are not all other pactions as well as Marriages blessed in the Church chiefly seeing Matrimoniall Blessing hath been is abused in the Romane Church which holdeth that Marriage is a Sacrament and consequently Matrimoniall benediction ought as it would seeme to be secluded from the Church rather then other Blessings The Sixth Demand Whether or no it be fit to subscrive such an Interpretation as in matters of lawfullnesse and unlawfulnesse and consequently in matters of Faith contradicteth the Judgement of so many Divines most famous of the reformed Church both Ancient and Modern who did and doe holde that these Rites and Ordinances brought into this Church by the Assemblie of Pearth are in their own nature lawfull and such as ought not to make a stirre in the Church of GOD and also condemneth the venerable practise of the Ancient Church and the most eminent Lights of it even in those purest times unto which we apeale against the Papists in our Disputes ANSWERE We trust that no sound Divyne Ancient or Moderne would in this case denye the expediencie of the forbearance of the practise of Pearth Articles And further then this nothing at this tyme is required Replye Your silence in not answering that which we affirmed concerning the judgement of Divynes Ancient and Moderne of the reformed Church anent the lawfulnesse of the Rites and Ordinances which were received in our Church by the ordinance of the Assemblie of Pearth as also concerning the judgement and practise of the ancient Church doeth make us thinke that ye acknowledge the trueth of that which we affirmed there 2. We have already showne that the Oath which ye requyre of us importeth more then the forbearance of the practise of Pearth Articles for a tyme. 3. The forbearance of some of them seemeth to us to be meerly unlawfull and contrary to that Pastorall duetie we owe to our Flocke 4. The forbearance of any of them considered with a relation to the Authority enjoyning them in our judgement is plaine disobedience The seaventh Demand Whether it be agreable to Charitie or Pietie to requyre us to abjure these Rites as Popish which in the sinceritie of our hearts following the light of our Conscience whereof we take GOD to witnesse we have hitherto practised as lawfull and laudablie following the same light doe yet practise them but suppose this might be requyred of us by any Quaeritur Whether or no it becommeth them so peremptorilie and upon such a suddentie to urge us to this who these by-gone twenty yeares have desired earnestly to enjoy the freedome of their Consciences in their Ministerie even in denying obedience to these things and standing Lawes for them and when they were urged to obedience did so often protest and earnestly request that they might have a tyme to be well enformed and maturelie advysed of the matter which to the most part of them was most graciously granted Let them therefore looke to that naturall Maxime Quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris and to our Saviour's Precept of the same sense and almost of the same wordes Matth. 7. verse 12. ANSWERE We hope that such a Forbearance of the practise will prejudge the libertie of no mans Conscience Replye It would much prejudge our Consciences to sweare and subscrive the negative Confession taking it according to your conception and meaning who requyre our Oath 2. How can we sweare to labour by all means lawfull as ye require in your Covenant to expell those thinges whereof we holde some to be necessary and all the rest to be lawfull and laudable The Eight Demand Whether it be fitting to sweare to defend the Kings Person and Authority with this Limitation In the defence and preservation of the true Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome As if their Persons ought not to be defended against all Enemies although as yet they embraced not the Trueth or having before embraced it yet have fallen from it or as if their Royall Authority were not to be acknowledged although commanding thinges unlawfull and as if we were not subject thereto in yeelding to suffer under them when we give not active obedience to them ANSWERE 1. The Answere of the first Demand may give satisfaction here 2. The Specification of the defending the Kings Person and Authoritie in the defence of the true Religion Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome is warranded by the Confession ratified in Parliament by other Acts of Parliament by the other Confession and by the generall Band joyned with it 3. No man will