Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n apostle_n church_n word_n 2,112 5 3.9891 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A25580 An ansvver to the Call to humiliation: or, A vindication of the Church of England, from the reproaches and objections of W. Woodward, in two fast sermons, preach'd in his conventicle at Lemster, in the county of Hereford, and afterwards published by him. 1691 (1691) Wing A3394; ESTC R213077 38,282 42

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Deacons therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no Man shall execute any of them excep the be called tryed examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following and I hope it is evident from that form that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination He goes on and affirms That the French Belgick and Helvetick Churches besides many others are of his Judgment All the other Protestant Churches excepting only Geneva have Episoopal Government and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible till it be sufficiently proved and as for the Churches he mentions their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical and the best defence of their own is necessity But he needs not name the Church of Scotland for Scotland says he hath justified all our Non-Conformity By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom * See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58. the lesser part for the whole but however if Scotland justifies them it is the only Church in the world that do so Lastly He adds our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us as the Kings Bishops or Bishops of the State which is just the Raillery of the Papists Parliament Bishops and Nags-head Bishops But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State are they not Christ's Bishops and Scripture Bishops No for this new Apostle of Patmos does Peremptorily tell them that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations But with Submission to his Apostleship I reply that the * Jus Divin Minis Aug. 71. Presbyterian Assembly have granted that Timothy and Titus had super out Authority over Presbyters and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority may pretend to Kindred with them 2. * Ibid. p. 140. They acknowledge also after Blondel that above 140 years after Christ Bishops were set over Presbyters so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles 3. The Epistles of Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John do manifestly shew that the superiour Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson that there is now no Contreversie about it 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an Alteration And therefore there was no such Alterat on as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being * By Peter du Moulin Beza Chamier Nic. vedetius whom he cites as Confessing it confessed to be so Antient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick Quod erat Demonstrandum And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration when he writes again or however be so modest as not to conclude so confidently when he has proved nothing But behold the Chair of Infallibility Wherefore I say that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches filled with the Holy Ghost is much more elegible than by Diocesan Bishops a very peremptory Decree but we must not question it for Pythagoras hath said so yet thus much I presume to Answer that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost as well as parochal Pastors and that Schismaticks have no Title to it We come now to his Third Reason of Non-Conformity the Declaration of Assent and Consent required in the Act of Vniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed where it is said that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole shall without doubt perish Everlastingly Now it is certain the Athanasian Creed is entirely * The Judgment of Foreign Reformed Churches p. 32 33. received and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World excepting only the Antitrinitarians as hath been lately observed and therefore this Minister is herein a Non-Conformist to all Protestant Churches as well as to the Church of England and they are all Condemned together as practising a point of Popery in damning all that differ from them Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him One Article says he of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive and supposing them in an Error he adds I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgment and pronounce them damned I am as much afraid as he is of invading Christ's Tribunal and pronouncing any one damned much more a whole Church and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians But 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latine Church about the Article of Procession is by Mr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed p. 324. Learned men affirmed to be only verbal because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing which the Latines understand by Procession viz. that the Spirit is of or from the Son as he is of and from the Father That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article and if so it be then there is no difference about the Doctrine it self but only about the word Procession But says this Minister The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession and is not this a most profound Objection Is it not rather profound Non Sense to say that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity But the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word In relation to the Father it is used * John 15.26 expresly and in Relation to the Son it is contained virtually in Scripture where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him and if no words are to be admitted that are not found in Scripture the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians we
to the Word of God and the same in effect which had been for 1500 Years in the Church of Christ and let any one now consider whether our first Reformers were not fully satisfied with the Liturgy But he adds they ingenuously confess they came short of the Primitive Discipline and that the Reformation should have been carried on higher if the Times would have given leave They confess they could not revive the ancient Discipline of Lent and they desired a higher Conformity to the Primitive Church not in relation to the Hierarchy and Liturgy but in the strictness of Mens Lives and the impartial severity of publick Penance Yet says he they had then their Government by Bishops Archbishops Chancellors Archdeacons c. as we have at this day They had so and were fully satisfied with it and there were no Protestants in that Age that separated from it Archdeacon Philpot Archbishop Cranmer and several Bishops our first Reformers and Martyrs approved that Government and lived and died in the Administration of it they did not permit it only as Moses did Divorces to the Jews because of the hardness of their Hearts as this Minister does falsely insinuate but they never intimated the least Suspition of its unlawfulness and they plainly * Preface to the Book of Ordin 〈◊〉 declared Episcopacy to be evidently founded upon Scripture and Apostolical Institution But these Reformers and Martyrs were ignorant of those things which are now known unto Women and Artificers poor Men they were under a dispensation of Darkness and the Gospel-Light of Separation was totally hidden from them Secondly he observes That it is more than 1●00 Years since these good Men recorded their Desires of Restoring the said Discipline and is it enough say he that the Church carries her good Wishes with her through all Generations Enough certainly while the Restoring that Discipline is impossible Our first Reformers could not revive it because the universal and incorrigible Wickedness of that Age could not endure the Yoke of Primitive Penance and are scandalous Offenders now less numerous or loss incorrigible If the Reformers are excusable much more our present Governors by how much the present Age is more untractable and more obstinate against the Bands of Discipline Is it possible now to reduce Offenders to the Primitive Humiliations the Fastings and Watchings the Sackcloth and Ashes the Prostration at the Church Doors and the other Austerities of Ancient Penance Will any of the Dissenter's submit to this Discipline as a satisfaction for their Schism If such an impracticable Discipline were imposed these Ministers would presently cry out Popery encourage all Offenders to oppose it and set open the Doors of their Conventicles to receive them such an Imposition would be vain and pernicious it would scandalize the weak and alienate the obstinate and serve only to empty our Churches and crowd the Conventicles and though for that reason they may desire it yet the Church is not obliged to prescribe a Remedy that will make the Physician contemptible and the Patient incurable The restoring of that Salutary Discipline as the reviving of Primitive Piety may be always wish'd for but perhaps will never be attained but the licentious Wickedness of the present Times the general Contempt of all the Censure of the Church and the manifold Schisms with which it is rent in pieces do make it now impossible and if it were established it is not to be hoped that the obstinacy of the Dissenters would be subdued nor their Aversion to the Church be reconciled by it I intend not to follow this Minister through his tedious Digression about Reformation and much less to ramble with him as far as the Temple at Jerusalem to which forsaking his Text and his Purpose he undertakes a Pilgrimage and returns with these wise Observations * P. 22 23. That the Temple was built upon Ornan 's Barn that this Ornan was of Princely descent because he had a Princely Mind and that Temple-Work is hard Work 't is Threshing Thus after a long Journey he brings back nothing but Apes and Peacocks as himself observes of some who ramble into the Indies These are the Saving Doctrines for which this Thresher is admitted by his Hearers and since a Barn is his Delight may he never Thresh in the Houses of GOD nor profane those Sanctuaries that are consecrated to his Worship But I return to Reformation and in Answer to his Harrangue about it I desire it may be remembred 1. That this Minister does not seek the same Reformation which was sought by Christ and his Apostles for Presbytery is not the Gospel neither is Extirpation of Bishops the Propagation of Christianity 2 Reformation is very good in it self and the Churchmen are for it much more than the Dissenters but they cannot be convinced that the removing Decency Order and an Apostolical Government is Reformation they know that this is the usual Vizard to disguise Sacrilege Avarice and Ambition and that the Sectaries endeavour not to reform the Church but to destroy it that they may seize on its Inheritance and withall they cannot but reflect upon the experience which we have had of Sectarian Reformation when Prelatical Government was reformed into no Government and a sober Liturgy into Enthusiasm and 39 Articles into infinite Heresies that could scarce be parallell'd in all the ancient Catalogues and in stead of the Power of Godliness there ensued such an Inundation of Wickedness as no Age could parallel This was observed by the * For instance by Edwards in his Gangraina Presbyterians themselves and an ingenious Foreigner who then resided at London made this Observation upon those Times * A Letter of a Noble Venetian to Ca. Barbarino Translated and Printed 1648. p. 19. one of the Fruits says he of this Blessed Parliament and of these two Sectaries Presbyterians and Independants is that they have made more Atheists than I think there are in all Europe besides and if we judge of the Tree by its Fruits and desire to see no more such Reformations have they reason to blame us for it 3. It should be considered that no pretence of Reformation can justifie Separation from a Church in which no sinful Terms of Communion are imposed There is no Church in the World which is free from all Corruptions in Doctrine Worship Discipline or Manners and if the want of some Reformation be a just reason for Renouncing Communion the Unity of the Church is nothing but a Notion and it will be lawful for every Man to separate from all the Churches in the World for it is only the Triumphant Church in Heaven which is perfectly without spot and blemish Defect of Discipline and purer Communion were the pretences of the Donatist and Novatian Schisms but they were condemn'd by the Catholick Church and * Aug. con Parmen Epis lib. 2 3. Tom. 7. S. Austin proves at large against the Donatists that Corruption in Discipline or Manners
them to take it tho they were morally certain they did not understand it And Lastly why is not this Objection now considered by the Virgin Daughter of Scotland as he Phrases it There they force the Clergy to swear that W. and M. are lawful King and Queen by Laws of that Kingdom and is this reasonable when they are utterly unacquainted with those Laws and many Learned Preachers have never read the Civil not Statute Law nor Craig nor Skine nor the Original Contract but it is always to be observed that the Presbyterians never do condemn what they do not practice 2. The Substance of his next Reason is this That the Covenant was taken by the People of Two or three Kingdoms and a man had need be a good Casuist that can declare understandingly that no one man is bound by that Oath which almost every man took Now I believe this Covenant was not taken by the Majority of these Kingdoms in England I am sure it was generally refused by the Clergy the Universities and the greatest part of the Nobility and Gentry But admit the Majority took it the force of his Reason depends upon this Proposition That an Oath taken by a vast munitude must needs be Obligatory and is it necessary to read all the Casnistical Books of Divinity to confute so manifest a Falshood in Popish Countries many Millions do take Monastick Vows and all the Clergy swear obedience to the Pope and may not an ordinary Casuist declare understandingly that none of them are bound by those Vows and Oaths which all of them have taken The Holy League in France was sworn by more than the Solemn League in England was it therefore Obligatory and is it not a sufficient Humiliation to which this Minister has called me to be bound to answer such Absurdities 3. He urges that by the Covenant all Persons were bound in their places to endeavour a Reformation of the Church according to the Scriptures and the Examples of the best reformed Churches and he asks is this an unlawful Oath I answer the Question is deceitful a man hinds himself by Oath to serve God and the Devil and he asks is it not lawful to serve God is this an unlawful Oath Thus the Covenanters did swear to endeavour Reformation Art 1. and to extirpate Episcopacy Art 2. But this Minister mentions Reformation only and then impertinently demands is this Oath unlawful I am ready to maintain against him that an Oath to serve the Devil is not more unlawful than an Oath to destroy Episcopacy and that upon this ground because it is of Apostolical Institution There are many other things unlawful in that Covenant as any one may be satisfied by the unanswerable Reasons of the University of Oxford against it and therefore if this Minister will prove it lawful let him justifie it throughout and not fly to such Methods as may serve to justifie the most execrable Oaths that can be by producing one single Passage that may seem justifiable in them But thus he proceeds If a man should swear that in his Place and Calling he would endeavour to cast every Idol out of the World and what is the consequence of this terrible If Why truly nothing at all but he filly adds that in Scotland they have cast off Prelacy and established Presbytery i. e. they have cast out the Idol and set up the true God among them but if this be his meaning that Episcopacy is Idolatry I account of him as one of the incurable Fanatical Roul that call every thing Idol or Antichrist that displeases them and I am not obliged to answer Bigotry and Frenzy The last Point he insists on is a Passage out of the Commination Office in the Liturgy wherein the Church declares her Desire that the Godly Discipline used in the Primitive Church may be again restored and says it is much to be wished for It is wonderful to consider what work he makes with this Passage but I am willing to believe he never read it in the Liturgy It was long since an old conceit of the Nonconformists * Vid. Hooker p. 331. that the Primitive Discipline which was so much wished for by the Compilers of our Liturgy was the Presbyterian Discipline and from them I presume he borrowed the Objection But in the Liturgy it self there is no Foundation for it as will appear from a view of the Passage it self in the Preface to the Commination Brethren in the Primitive Church there was a Godly Discipline that at the beginning of Lent such Persons as stood convicted of Notorious Sins were put to open Penance and punished in this World In stead whereof until the said Discipline may be restored again which is much to be wished for it is thought good c. and is Presbytery the Discipline here desired undoubtedly as much as Popery or Mahumetanism It not that Discipline expresly declared to be the Discipline of publick Penance which in the ancient Church was inflicted upon such as stood convicted of Notorious Sins at the beginning of Lent in order to their Absolution and Admission to the Holy Sacrament at Easter What can be more express and evident than that the Ancient Leut Discipline is there alone intended And have the Non conformists as he pretends ever written for preached for and suffered for the Restoration of this Discipline Have they ever wish'd or desired it Have they not always written and preach'd against it Do they not still exclaim at it as Popery and Superstition But this Minister pronounces considently that this Expression stands in the Liturgy as well for the Justification of the Nonconformists as for a Testimony against the Prelates Thus the Godly Discipline is a Condemnation to them who have always desired it and Justification to them who have always opposed it and if Nonconformists must needs be justified by Blunder and Contradiction this Minister I confess is a fit Apologist for them But behold the Reflections he makes on this Passage First The Reformers and Compilers of this Book of Common Prayer had no full Satisfaction with what was then done What Were they not fully satisfied with the Liturgy The first Liturgy of Edward the 6th was applauded by the whole * 2 3 Ed. 6. c. 1. Parliament as composed by the Special Aid of the Holy Ghost and * Acts and Monuments Tom. 3. p. 171. Doctor Taylor the Martyr publickly declared that the whole Church-Service in King Edward's Second Liturgy was so fully perfected according to the Rules of our Christian Religion that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained The Papists were the only Persons in those Times that were dissatisfied with it and therefore in Queen Mary's days a Challenge was made by * Ibid. Tom. 3. p. 18. Cranmer that with P. Martyr and four or five more they would enter the Lists with any Papists living and defend the Common Prayer Book to be perfectly agreeable