Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	good_a	young_a	youth_n	83	3	9.0174	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20770	A treatise of the true nature and definition of justifying faith together with a defence of the same, against the answere of N. Baxter. By Iohn Downe B. in Divinity, and sometime fellow of Emanuel C. in Cambridge.; Selections	Downe, John, 1570?-1631.; Baxter, Nathaniel, fl. 1606.; Bayly, Mr., fl. 1635.; Muret, Marc-Antoine, 1526-1585. Institutio puerilis. English.	1635 (1635)	STC 7153; ESTC S109816	240,136	421

commanded if of things indifferent accidentally only inasmuch as it is referred to the worship of God and therefore cannot without sacriledge be giuen to any creature 5. Theol. Pract. comp tract 2. c. 8. art 33. How then can the Popish Church vowing vnto Saints quit herselfe of notorious Idolatrie specially seing by the confession of Molanus a principall champion of hers a Vow is an act of latria that is of such worship as is due vnto God Neither can she cloake her Superstition with any shew of Scripture De cult Sanct. c. 9. for Bellarmin himselfe freely acknowledgeth that when the holy Scriptures were written the custome of vowing vnto Saints was not yet begun 6. The matter of a vow is things lawfull whether they be necessary as being commanded or arbitrary as being neither forbidden nor commanded For that duties commanded may be vowed appeareth euen by the vow in Baptisme In Psal 46. And although vertues as Chrysostom saith be due vnto God albeit they be not promised yet what letteth but what God bindeth vs vnto by precept we by vow as by a new knot may also bind our selues vnto De Monach. c. 19. 7. Bellarmin indeed is bold and affirmeth that it is the common opinion of Diuines that the Promise in Baptisme is not properly a vow Instit Mor. l. 11. c. 14. but Azorius his fellow Iesuite can tell him otherwise that the ancient Diuines together with the Master of the Sentences seeme to thinke that Baptisme is a vow properly and truly so called 8. That things of an indifferent and middle nature may also be Vowed is granted of all hands God hauing permitted vnto the Church and members thereof iudgement and dispensation of them Yet this must be vnderstood with caution for seeing as Saint Paul saith those things that are lawfull are not alwayes expedient and things otherwise lawfull may in regard of circumstance become vnlawfull those indifferent things that are inuested with such circumstances cease during the while to be the matter of a Vow 9. Iustly therefore are excluded from being the matter of a Uow first all such actions as are in their owne nature euill next such as hinder a greater good then those that crosse the generall Vow made in Baptisme farther such as are impossible and out of our power moreouer such as are friuolous and vnprofitable finally those things that are naturally necessary and if there be any other besides of the like quality 10. I adde farther by such as haue power so to doe for none may Vow but they who by their vocation haue liberty thereunto Now this vocation in regard of things commanded extendeth vniuersally vnto all and therefore it is free for euery man to vow them But in respect of things indifferent it stretcheth not so farre For first they who by reason of age or distemper haue not the vse of reason or iudgment secondly they who are vnder the authority and iurisdiction of others hauing not power of themselues because of their calling may not nor cannot lawfully vow without the consent and good liking of their superiors Num. 30. 11. This condemnes the impious practice of Popish Friers who inueigle yong youths from the obedience of their parents and without their consents intangle them in the vow of Monasticall life treading directly in the steps of their Great-grand-father Eustathius against whose wicked doctrine the Councell of Gangra thus decreed Can. 16. If any children shall forsake their Parents especially being faithfull vpon occasion of Religion thinking it iust so to doe and shall not rather performe due honor vnto them reuerencing euen this in them that they are faithfull let them be accursed 12. Finally the End of a Vow is partly to testify our affection to God as namely our thankfulnesse for benefits receiued and partly our duty in carefulnesse to preuent sinne and to preserue and increase Gods graces in vs. In a word it serues as an instrument or helping meanes to further our obedience to Gods Lawes And because the End it selfe is of greater importance then the meanes conducing vnto the End surely Obedience must needs bee better then Sacrifice that is then the Vow which fitteth only vnto it 13. The Romish Church therefore teaching that vowes are of greater perfection in this life and deserue an higher degree of glory in the next then the very works of the Morall law cannot be excused of manifest blasphemie Comment in Mat. 19. Which it seemes Cardinal Cajetan also saw when he said that Christ prescribeth no vow to him that will obtaine perfection of life because the obtaining of perfection consisteth not in the bonds of vowes but in the works themselues 14. This being the true nature and definition of a vow I conclude as touching the Obligation or bond thereof that euery vow thus made vnto God in such Forme of such Matter by such Persons to such End as wee haue said bindeth the Conscience vnto performance in so much as the breach thereof is no lesse then mortall sin and very dishonorable vnto God For if lawfull promises are to bee held with men much more with God Psal 15. And if we bee slack to pay them hee will surely require them of us and so should it be sin vnto us Deut. 23.21 15. But what if a man haue rashly vowed that which is vnlawfull Surely in such a case it is better to retract the vow then by keeping it to adde sin vnto sin For a vow saith the Canon may not be the bond of iniquity and excellently to this purpose counselleth Philo the Iew De leg spec Let such a one therefore abstaine saith he and humbly entreat God of his Clemency to pardon the vnaduised rashnes wherby he was so headlongly carried to sweare for to double the offence when thou mayst discharge thy selfe of the one halfe is extreame madnes and scarcely euer curable 16. Now let vs apply what hath beene said vnto the particular vow of virginity or single life And first whereas nothing may be the Matter of a vow but that which is lawfull and things lawfull are of two sorts eyther simply and morally good or arbitrary and indifferent surely Virginity cannot be ranked in the first order For to vse no other then Gersons reasons P. 3. de Consil Euang. stat perfect Morall vertues are commanded and are not destroyed but by vice and being lost may bee recouered by repentance But Virginity is no where commanded and is destroyed by Matrimony which is no sinne although Pope Syricius heretically call it vncleannesse and pollution of the flesh and being lost cannot possibly be recouered And therefore howsoeuer it may giue a kind of luster and grace vnto vertue yet vertue it can be none 17. Hereupon it followeth that Virginity and Mariage are not in themselues acceptable vnto God one more then another but that it is the mind which rightly vseth both the one and the other which

sitting and By sitting men become wise But how it agreeth with the affection of ioy neither doe you shew it neither can you and therefore I leaue it as a fancy vnkith vnkist as they say and passe to your second argument which you conceiue in this forme 2 Gesture according to order must be vsed 1 Cor. 14.40 Sitting is an orderly gesture for Christ and his Apostles sate so did the Iewes also eating the Passeouer Ergo Sitting must bee vsed This argument is euery way twin vnto the former and in a manner needs no other answer then is already giuen Neuerthelesse for fuller satisfaction let vs examine both the Propositions The Maior being rightly vnderstood I grant for no gesture may be vsed but that which is orderly it being the Apostles expresse commandement in the place by you alledged that all things bee done decently and according vnto order I say being rightly vnderstood for there is a double Order the one Intrinsecall in the things thēselues the other Externall vnto vs. The former is that habitude disposition or correspōdence which one thing naturally hath vnto another in regard whereof it may also be called a Physicall order or an order of Nature The latter is that which is made so vnto vs being prescribed by lawfull authority in respect whereof it may further bee tearmed a morall order or an order of Prudence Now if you vnderstand your Maior thus No gesture must be vsed but that which is at least one of these two wayes orderly you vnderstand it aright for so is S. Pauls meaning and in that sence it is granted vnto you But if you vnderstand it thus that any gesture which is in it selfe orderly may indifferently bee vsed by any albeit the Church haue for orders sake among many such chosen out and authorized one only then doe you misunderstand it and it is denied you for S. Paul both here and elsewhere plainely declares himselfe to bee a great enemy vnto all such Anarchicall disorder and confusion Your Minor is that Sitting is an orderlie gesture Whereunto I answere that it is so indeed in it selfe there being a naturall aptnes and fitnes in it to be vsed at the receiving of the Sacrament yet is it not in this sence the only orderlie gesture for Standing and Kneeling are so also and may put in for a place as well as Sitting Neither is it unto us orderlie because publick authority hath commanded Kneeling onely which to disobey is as S. Paul saith to resist the ordinance of God Nor doth the example and practice of Christ and his Apostles and the Iewes proue the contrary For the gesture they vsed as it was orderly in it selfe so was it generally received and approved by the Church at that time but among us not Sitting but Kneeling is the gesture that is allowed and enioyned But if this notwithstanding you will needs have that gesture orderly unto us now which Christ and his Apostles vsed because it was at that time orderlie unto them then know their gesture was not Sitting and you bewray your selfe to bee but a bad Antiquary in affirming it For as all story testifieth it was the manner of those times and long before at meales to lie on their beds leaning on their elbowes and supporting themselues with pillowes And hereunto agree the words which the Euangelists vse to expresse their gesture for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Mathew and Marke and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke and Iohn import no other then lying at the table Neither can you otherwise vnderstand that which is said of him whom Christ loued that at supper hee lay or leaned on Iesus breast vnles it be by this gesture Wherfore you must of force either quit● Sitting and vrge vpon vs a necessity of lying or acknowledge that Sitting may not bee orderly vnto us though anciently vnto Christ and his Apostles it were so Your third and last argument is 3. If sitting bee the only warranted gesture by Gods word then it ought only to be vsed But it is the only warranted gesture for it only was vsed by the Iewes at the Passeover and by Christ his Apostles at his Supper Ergo sitting only is to be vsed That the word written for so you meane is the only warrant of all actions is more then you will euer be able to proue For the law of nature written in the hart and the light of reason are sufficient warrants for many things Otherwise how could the Gentiles which had not the law written be as S. Paul saith a law vnto themselves and how could their consciences either accuse them for breaking the law or excuse them for doing thereafter Neither do I herein derogate ought from Scripture only I yeeld vnto Reason that which is her due They are both from God and both are to be our directors the one in those things that fall within the compasse of nature the other in those things that are aboue nature In things supernaturall Scripture is the only warrant Reason being therein starkblind In things Morall it is the safest warrant Reason therein being but dimsighted But to make Scripture the only warrant in all things without exception is to put out the sight of Reason and to make it starke blind in euery thing Scripture I confesse is perfect but as a creature perfect in its kinde Whatsoeuer is necessarie vnto that end whereto it was ordained 2. Tim. 3.15 namely to make the man of God wise vnto Saluation it containeth abundantlie and with Tertullian Contra. Hermog c. 22. I adore the fulnes thereof Other things if it warrant not it no way impeacheth the perfection thereof because they are impertinent and make not vnto the end thereof The sequele therefore of your Maior is not good and it is absurd and idle in things not necessary to saluation to argue from authority of Scripture negatiuely it saith not so Ergo it is not so But supposing the Consequence of your Maior to be good how proue you the Minor that Sitting is onely warranted by Gods word Forsooth because it onely was vsed by the Iewes at the Passeouer and by Christ and his Apostles at his Supper First I haue sufficiently demonstrated aboue that they sate not and therefore Sitting is so farre from being only warranted that by your rule it is not warranted at all Secondly grant they sate yet it followes not thereupon that Sitting only is warranted For as for the Iewes Ex. 124 11. neither do their Ceremonies concerne us and at the first it seemes they stood For they were commanded to eat the Passeouer with their loines girt their shoos on their feet their staues in their hands v. 25. and in hast and as they were commanded so they did As touching Christ and his Apostles Supposing they sate their act indeed sufficiently proues that Sitting is in it selfe and was vnto them lawfull seing the wisedome of Christ otherwise would not haue vsed

it but that it is the onely lawfull gesture it cannot possibly prooue If it could by the same reason it would follow that the Eucharist is only to bee administred at euening and after supper because Christ then administred it For they are both circumstances and not essentiall idem jus Titio quod Sejo there is the same reason of both You will yet happily demand why wee make not Christs gesture a precedent for ours are we wiser then Christ And I againe demand of you why you lie not on your beds as Christ did know you what is conuenient better then he your answer I suppose will be that Christs gesture was that which ordinarily they then vsed at meales and Sitting is that which ordinarily they now vse And I answer because wee receiue not the Sacrament with our meales as Christ and his Apostles first did therefore do we not vse the gesture of meales The cause of the gesture being taken away the gesture it selfe may bee changed also The Iewes at the first are the Passeouer standing as wee haue shewed to signifie their hastie departure out of Egypt but being now safely escaped thence they alter that gesture Cap. ●8 Cap. 74. and our Sauiour by his practice approues their so doeing The Councels of Laodicea and of Trullo forbidding Agapas that is the loue feasts with which they were wont to receive the Communion forbad also accubitus sternere to lie any more in the Churches vpon their beds So that in the wisdome of the Churches of both Testaments such circumstances may iustly bee varied as the causes or reasons of them doe vary And thus of your arguments for sitting now let vs take a view also of your reasons against Kneeling They are in number foure all as you thinke demonstratiue and out of necessary premisses concluding that we may at no hand Kneele The first is this 1 If Kneeling ought to bee vsed then it is conuenient But it is not conuenient 2 Chron. 6.13 Dan. 6.11 Ergo it is not to be vsed The Maior of this Syllogisme is Hypotheticall or Conditionall the Consequence whereof is grounded vpon this Categoricall or simple Proposition Nothing ought to be vsed but that which is conuenient Rom. 3.8 Whereunto I answer first as we may not doe euill that good may come of it so neither may we forbeare that good which is cōmanded vs for any euill or inconuenience that may follow thereof Secondly in things indifferent which are neither good nor euill if they bee not ordered by authority but are still arbitrary and left vnto our choice then as wee may vse them because they are lawfull so may wee not vse them when they proue inexpedient The rule of charity must ouerrule vs in this case But if once they bee ordered by publicke authority then necessity is laid vpon vs and wee must conforme our selues vnto order notwithstanding any pretended inconuenience The rule of loyalty must sway with vs in this case Bee it then that Kneeling is inconuenient it was the fault of our superiors to command i● Now it is commanded and it is our duty to obey them If it bee inconuenient to Kneele it is more inconuenient to disobey and for not Kneeling to bee barred from the Sacrament The sequele therefore of your Maior is not good and I require you to proue it The Assumption is Kneeling is not conuenient I deny it You proue it by two places of Scripture which testify that Salomon Daniel kneeled when they prayed The weaknesse of which proofe that you may the more readily perceiue I reduce it into forme thus That gesture which is vsed in prayer is not conuenient at the Sacrament But Kneeling is a gesture vsed in Prayer Ergo it is inconuenient at the Sacrament The Minor whereof I grant but I deny the Maior as being too palpably absurd For first neuer man yet dreamed that Kneeling is proper quarto modo vnto it and may not bee vsed in any other action Secondly then may wee neither sit nor stand at the Sacrament 1 King 19.4 because Elias prayed sitting and the Publican standing Luc. 18.13 yea happily no gesture is left for the Sacrament seeing Prayer hath ingrost them all before hand Lastly for as much as at the time of receiuing our affections are to bee aduanced and lifted vp vnto God in prayer and thankesgiuing it must needs be by your owne rule that Kneeling is a gesture euery way conuenient for it Your second argument is 2 No will-worship may bee vsed Mat. 15.9 Kneeling is will-worship for Pope Honorius first devised it Acts Mon. pag. 1390. Ergo Kneeling may not bee vsed To yeeld vnto God that Worship which he himselfe hath reuealed and prescribed is an Act of true Religion but to obtrude and thrust vpon him a Worship forged and deuised of our selues is meere superstition The one hee rigourously exacteth of vs the other hee expresly forbiddeth Ex. 15.38.39 In the law God commandeth the Iewes to make them fringes in the borders of their garments and to put a blew ribband vpon it throughout their generations that yee may looke vpon it saith he and remember all the Commandements of the Lord to doe them and that yee seeke not after your owne heart and your owne eyes after which yee vse to goe a whoaring In the Prophets he oftentimes vpbraideth them with their owne inuentions and disdainfully saith vnto them Who hath required these things at your hands And in the new Testament our Sauiour in the place by you quoted Mat. 15.9 Col. 2.23 seuerely taxeth the Pharisees for teaching their owne fantasies and placing the worship of God in the obseruation of mens precepts and Saint Paul to the Colossians in plaine tearmes condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wil-worship notwithstāding whatsoeuer shew of Wisdome or humility it carry with it All which considered I yeeld you your Maior as true No Wil-worship may be vsed Your Assumption that Kneeling is Wil-worship I deny telling you further that you doe intolerable wrong vnto the Church of England charging her with so grosse a Superstition For the world knoweth and you must needs be a great stranger in Israel if you be ignorant that the Gouernors of our Church presse not their ceremonies vpon the consciences of men as if they were in themselues necessary and not indifferent neither place any part of Religion or diuine worship in them This they leaue vnto that Man of sin who challengeth power vnto himselfe as to create new articles of faith so to prescribe new formes of Worship also That their intent is not Wil-worship but order vniformity they haue oftentimes published if I may so say with sound of trumpet which if you haue not heard it is extreme deafenes if you haue heard and yet will not bee satisfied to say no more it proceeds of meere wilfulnes and frowardnesse Howbeit to proue your Minor you affirme that Pope Honorius first deuised it Cap.

Againe may not I with as good reason as you argue thus The state and Kingdome of Antichrist cannot be compleate without the authority of Ciuill Magistrates Ergo Ciuill Magistrates are Antichristian If this kinde of reasoning bee not good neither is yours for they are both of one mould Lastly Antichristianity being a Mysterie and not an Heathnish or Turkish opposition vnto Christ it cannot be compleate except it retaine many of Christs ordinances which therefore I trust you will not say to bee Antichristian A lie cannot subsist but vpon truth nor euill but in good nor Antichrists hypocrisie but vpon the Religion and discipline of Christ And thus haue I fully answered your first argument whereon I haue been the longer because it is the Basis and ground as it were of all the rest and the answer thereunto will in a manner serue them all or the most part of them Your second argument is this 2 Because it cannot be approued by the testament of Christ as the Ministrie had in his Church may and ought to bee * Eph. 4.11.12 1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.28.29 Ro. 12.7.8 1. Tim. 3. 5.3.9.17 6.13.14 And if such as could not proue by their genealogie that they were of Aaron were deposed from their Ministrie under Moses Law * Ezr. 2.62.63 Heb. 3.2.3 2.1.2.3 12.25 much more should such bee now deposed as haue not their offices warranted by Christs Testament If wee reduce your argument into forme it is this That Ministrie which cannot bee approued by the Testament of Christ is not to bee allowed in the Church But the Ministrie of the Church of England cannot bee approued by the Testament of Christ Ergo it is not to bee allowed in the Church The Minor which you might be sure we would deny you haue left naked to the wide world without proofe the Maior which you saw wee could not well deny you endeauour to fortifie with a double reason Let it be supposed then that it is denied how proue you it First The Ministerie had in the Church may and ought to bee so approued How doth this appeare By the places quoted in the margent Nothing lesse They approue indeed certaine officers in the Church but affirme not that euery officer ought to bee so approued Secondly if say you such as could not deriue their genealogy from Aaron were deposed much more are they to be deposed who cannot warrant their offices by Christs Testament A poore argument God wot For in the law there was an expresse commandment that none might execute the Priests office but hee that was of the linage of Aaron but that no office might bee admitted nor retained in the Church vnlesse it were so commanded I find no where in Scripture Wherefore to argue thus Nothing that is against Gods Word may bee allowed Ergo nor any thing that is not commanded is a plaine Non sequitur and it followes not Thus you see if a man were so disposed how easie it is to quarell with your Maior which yet simply I deny not Briefly therefore to cleare all I distinguish of these tearmes Approued and Warranted by the Word A thing may bee said to bee warranted or approued by the Word two wayes both when it is commanded and when it is not forbidden for things neither commanded nor forbidden are indifferent and subiect vnto the Churches power Hereupon thus I answer if you meane it in the former sence only then proue your Maior that what is not by commandment approued is vnlawfull if in the latter then I grant you the Maior that whatsoeuer is forbidden is vnlawfull But withall I deny the Minor that Archbishops Bishops Priests are forbidden requiring you to proue it which I know you can neuer doe For as touching so much of their dutie as is common to them all to wit the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments they are all Pastors and Teachers and so warranted in the Texts by you quoted but in regard of preeminence and superiority one aboue another Bishops are no other then were the Angels of the seuen Churches as wee haue aboue demonstrated Howsoeuer if Bishops bee not commanded yet are they not forbidden and their office making not against edification but for it rather it cannot being ordained by the Church but be lawfull Your third argument 3 Because the Church is the Spouse Kingdome and Body of Christ and therefore may not haue Antichrists Hierarchie and ministrie set ouer it or retained in it For what concord hath Christ with Beliall Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie may not beset ouer the Church nor retained in it Archbishops Bishops Priests are Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie Ergo Archbishops Bishops Priests may not bee set ouer the Church nor retained in it The Maior of this Syllogisme you are very carefull to maintaine because the Church is the Spouse the Kingdome the Body of Christ as also because there can bee no concord betwixt Christ and Belial But to what end all this and with such a stirre to proue that which no man gainsayes for wee confesse Christs Kingdome may not be gouerned by Antichrists policie You should rather haue laboured to strengthen the Minor that Archbishops Bishops and Priests are Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie for you might be well assured wee would neuer yeeld you that vnlesse by strength of reason you constrained vs. Here therefore against the rule of Logicke againe you beg the principall matter in question taking for granted that those offices are meerely Antichristian But you must proue it and not looke that whatsoeuer you fancie to be true others vpon your bare word must presently belieue and take to bee true See the answer to the first argument I proceed to the fourth 4 If when a King substituteth Iudges Iustices c. no subiects may either refuse to bee gouerned by these or set ouer themselues officers of other Kingdomes as the Roman tribunes c. how can it be lawfull for any Christians c. It is an old saying that Symbolical diuinitie is no argumēt of proofe and that Similitudes serue rather to illustrate and cleare a mans meaning then to proue and conuince the vnderstanding In regard whereof if I had so pleased I might well haue sleighted this fourth reason and not haue vouchsafed it any answere at all For what is it other then a bare and naked Similitude neuertheles for further satisfaction let vs trie the strength thereof Two things you auouch first that Christians may not refuse to bee gouerned by those officers which Christ hath set ouer them secondly that Christians may not set ouer themselues officers of Antichrists kingdome The former I confesse is true but nothing to the purpose For we reiect not the officers ordained by Christ nor refuse to be gouerned by them If we doe so haue all Churches also done downe from S. Iohns time vnto this present age within which compasse you cānot name any one Church at any time moulded after