A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society [by Thomas Sprat] as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England / [Henry Stubbe].

  • Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.
Date:
1671
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society [by Thomas Sprat] as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England / [Henry Stubbe]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    48/150 (page 36)
    as that the abfence of the former, ihould extinguilh the latter. They were religious before the Arkg was made •, and there is not any ground in the Text to imagine that Samuel lofh all fenfe of Reli¬ gion during that Interval, but rather to the contrary : The gene¬ rality of the Israelites had been wicked and Idolatrous, ferving Baalim and Ajhtaroth after the deceafe of JoJhuah , Judg. 2. 11. 1. Sam. 7. 3,4. but that they did rather amend, than grow worfe during their overthrow , and the [even Months abfence of the Arke , appears by the Hiftory. Befides, the Prophets and other Ifraelitet that were not Idolaters in Samaria , were deprived of the Arke, yet ’cis manifefl they did not loofe their Religion , 1, Kings 19. 18. I fhall conclude this Animddverfton with one Note , that the Arians long ago, to overthrow the Council of Nice, and the Catholick. faith, made ufe of this pretext which our Virtuofo purfues here, andelfe- where more that one in the Hiftory. They defired that the un¬ couth words of Homouft os, Hyp of: aft s, &c. might be fofborn , as not Hilarius dc to be found in Sciipture, nor to be underftood: Evitant Homufton Synodis adv. atqu'e Homocufton , quia nufquam fcriptum fit. And becaufe the anfwer An*nos’ ,of S. Hilary will juftifie the Church of England in her Articles, in id. ibid. her Liturgy, and in her Scholaftick^ controverfies , I fhall fee that down. “ Oro vos ne ubi pax confcientire eh , ibi pugna fit fufpicio- “ num. Inane eh calumniam verbi perrimefeere : ubi res ipfa, cu-’ “ jus verbum eh , non habeat dijficultatem. Difplicet unquam in Syn- Malo (tU]uidCi do Nicaena Homufton eiTe fufeeptum l Hoc fi cui difplicet needle novum comme- ‘‘ eh placeat quod ab Arianis eh negatum. - Si propter ne- mordffc , quam “ gantium impietatem pia turn fuit intelligentia confitentium : qutero mpie refpuifftc. “ cur hodie convellatur , quod turn pie fufeeptum eft , quia impih id. ibid. “ negabatur ? Si pie fufeeptum eh, cur venit conftitutio pictatk in “ crimen , quae impietatem pie per ea ipfa quibus impiabatur ex- “tinxit? -Under the Emperour Conftantin, there was a Peered made, that the word Homuftos, and fuch other terms as fill the Athanaftan Creed, fhould be laid afide and difufed, as which with their novelty , and difficulty , did very much diftrad and puzzle the Church : this the Arians gained , and it proved an infinite advan¬ tage to the growrh of that Her eft e; &. the rehoring of thofe tran¬ scendental notions, Scholaftick^ terms, did refettle that Peace in the Church, which could not be effeded by the prohibiting of them, and acquiefcing in the Grammaticall meaning of plain words. “ Nolo “verba, qua non feripta funt dici. Hoc tandem rogo quis Epifcopis “jubeat? & quis Apoftolica pradicationis ;vetet formam ? Die prius “ fi rede dici putas : Nolo adverfum nova venena , nomas medica- Hilarius contra “ mentorum comparationes, Nolo adverfum ntmos holies nova bella, Conftantium “Nolo adverfum novas infidias confilia recentia. Si enim Ariani jim vita defim-(< hxretici ideo idcirco oy.oivQiov hodie evitant, quia prius ne- ihim. “gaverunt : nonne tu hodie idcirco refugis , ut hi nunc quoque 11 denegent ? Novitates vocum , fed propbanas devitari jubetApoftolus; “Tu cur Pi as excludis ? It is but too apparent, that thofe in our dayes, who joyn with the Arians in decrying new words , and fuch as are not in Scripture, who think that Chriftianity ought not to be confined