Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	authority_n	church_n	divine_a	2,185	5	6.1623	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20683	A defence of church gouernment Dedicated to the high Court of Parliament. Wherein, the church gouernment established in England, is directly proued to be consonant to the word of God, and that subiects ought of dutie to conforme themselues to the state ecclesiasticall. Together with, a defence of the crosse in baptisme; as it is vsed in our Church, being not repugnant to the word: and by a consequent, the brethren which are silenced, ought to subscribe vnto it, rather then to burie their talents in the ground. By Iohn Doue, Doctour of Diuinity.	Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618.	1606 (1606)	STC 7081; ESTC S110107	58,733	80

other tribes vpon which no sacrifice nor incense was offred nor intended to be offred should also be held for a monument of idolatry because the name of Iesus was abused and vainely taken by the coniurers it might not be lawfully vsed by the Apostles so the argument Act 19. 13. doth not followe that because the signe of the Crosse is an idoll to the Papists which worship it therefore it should be an idoll to vs which worship it not The Author his selfe as before I haue shewed saith nothing is an idoll but quatenù● it is worshipped and againe hee freeth vs from the crime of idolatry saying that our Church ascribeth no worship vnto it therefore hee doth not iustly call it by the name of an idoll and apply it vnto vs. Their abuse cannot disanull our lawfull vse and whatsoeuer may by them bee abused may by vs bee lawfully vsed therefore their superstition cannot make a nullitie of our sincere and true deuotion As the Crosse hath beene abused so hath Gods Temple beene profaned in the dayes of Ezechiel and in the dayes of our Sauiour Christ yet Ezechi 8 Ioh 2. neither of them would haue the Temple to bee suppressed Masses haue beene saide in all our Churches shall wee therefore be as the Brownists which refuse to come to Church to heare our dinine seruice They are the same Churches numero the Crosse is not therefore the argument followeth á maiori ad mious the Churches may bee as well remoued as the Crosse Fourthly the signe of the Crosse he saith is become an idoll therefore he denieth it to haue beene originally an idoll as the golden colfe was which was erected in Horeb and because Ex 32. 4. he denieth it to haue beene originally an idoll he must needes ouerthrowe that first ground which hee layed in his MINOR proposition where hee affirmed that it was an humane ordinance For the Author of the booke of reformation alledging the authoritie of Vrsinus in his exposition Maister Iacob vpon the second commaundement and the Author of the treatise of diuine worship affirme that all humane institutions in the Church are idolatry because they impugne the second Commaundement of the first Table and that the word of God is so perfect and all-sufficient of it selfe that man may ordaine nothing in the Church but all additions of men are idolatry I conclude therefore out of their own wordes that if it be become an idoll it was no humane ordinance and if it were an humane ordinance it could not become an idol because it was an idol ab initio frō the first institution of it And therfore because he saith it is become an idol he must grant that it was God ordinance And so I deny not but the holiest creatures in the world may become idolls by mans worshipping thē For so is the bread in the sacrament so is the beginning of S. Iohns Gospel In principio erat verbū being hung about childrens necks with certaine charmes of sorcery to keep thē from stumbling become an idol And the 18. verse of the 50. Psalme When thou sawest a theefe thou didst run with him being vsed with other circumstances by cōiurations to finde out stolen goods which is to ascribe diuine power to these creatures But for as much as originally the vse of the Crosse was lawfull we doe retaine it in our Church as originally it was vsed and therefore wee may iustifie the vse of it Fiftly therefore whereas hee saith that which is an idoll may not be vsed in Gods seruice it maketh nothing against vs which haue proued the Crosse to be no idoll Therefore that I may lay open the manifolde imperfections of this kinde of argumentation to shew that it is no lawfull syllogisme but a flat paralogisme in it I will discouer foure fallacies And that I may not be like them which as it is in the prouerbe will spell law and conster logicke I must be forced to vse such termes as belong to the Logitians which cannot be well expressed in English that I may obserue the lawes of schooles Out of the premisses which before I haue obserued First there is fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter quia in conclusione falso id tribuitur rei simplicitèr consideratae quod in praemissis tributum fuit aliquâ conditione seu determinatione circumstantiâ as Abetzon speaketh In the conclusion the signe of the Crosse is condemned as simply vnlawfull being simply considered without any respect of worship which in the premisses is not vnderstood but vpon circumstances and conditions of diuine worship to be ascribed vnto it Secendly it is a paralogisme called ignoratio Elenchi the ignorance of that fallacy quià non est idem respectus res non intelligitur ad idem secundum idem similiter eodem tempore there is not one and the selfe same respect but diuers the thing is not alike but diuersly vnderstoode it is not referred to one and the same things according to the same after the same maner and at the same time but all these circumstances are different one from another Thirdly it is fallacia nō causae pro cau●â such a fallacy wherin that is taken for a cause which is no cause the abuse of them which worship it is here alleaged for a cause why it may not be lawfully vsed amōg vs which their abuse is no cause at al. Fourthly it is fallacia accidentis a fallacy by reason of the accident which is included in that which belongeth onely vnto the substance and ought to bee vnderstood without any such accident For he draweth his argument from the euent which was meerely accidentall vnto the Crosse vnto the nature of the Crosse it selfe as idolum fit ergo verè idolum est It is among some vsed as an idoll therefore properly and originally the thing it selfe is an idoll They doe à praeteritis accidentibus aut euentis ad praesentiam rei argumentari draw their arguments from the accidental euents which are passed vnto the thing as among vs it is now vsed as for example because the signe of the Crosse was worshipped in the time of ignorance and superstition among Papists that therefore it is now worshipped among the Protestants after the reformation of the Church To leaue the title of the booke and come to the tract it selfe For proofe of the MAIOR hee alleageth Saint Iohns authority Babes keepe your selues from idolls as if that were a Iohn 5. 21 good argument we must keepe our selues from idolis therefore wee may not make the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme which before I haue shewed to be no idoll which is but petitio principij a begging of the question But for explanationof this text of Saint Iohn he vndertaketh two things first to set downe the definition of an idoll and secondly to limit vs how farre wee are to keepe our selues from idolls and therein he presseth vs with the

And no ciuil magistrate in Councels assemblies for Church causes can be chief moderatour Iudge or gouernour And no ciuil magistrate hath such authoritie as that without his consent it should not be lawful for Ecclesiasticall persons to make any Church orders or ceremonies For as much therfore as God hath established kingdomes but a presbytery and a kingdome cannot both stand together because one standing the other falleth They are enemies not onely to Gods ordinance but also to the state of Kings which goe about to establish this Eldership in a kingdome Of Diocesan Bishops MAister Iacob in his Booke of reformation obiecteth against the state of Bishops and Cathedrall Churches that of right there are no Diocesan but onely parochiall Bishops that the authoritie iurisdiction and rites of a Bishop are no other then belongeth to all parsons of parish Churches and consequently that euery parson is a Bishop That there is no visible Church ministeriall besides the parish Churches and that they as depending vpon no other nor subiect to any other nor parts or members of any other haue absolute authoritie and power as wel of gouernment as of teaching within themselues and so consequently there are no cathederal Churches And as one absurditie being granted a thousand will followe so vpon these proemises which without proofe he taketh for granted he inferreth these fiue conclusions to the slander of our state as absord as the proemises were That the case standing thus 1. Our Bishops be no Christians for saith he euery Christian is a pastour or one of the people of the people they denye themselues to be and pastours they are not 2. Being not lawfull Diocesan Bishops much lesse may they be Lord Bishops 3. Hauing no lawfull authoritie nor calling their selues they cannot conferre Ecclesiasticall orders and lay handes vpon others and so consequently our ministers by them ordered haue no lawefull ministerie 4. That by their meanes wee are defrauded of a mayne point of our ordinarie meanes of saluation which is the true Ecclesiesticall discipline 5. That in our state Christ is robbed and spoiled of some parts of his kingly and propheticall office his kingly office being to appoint vs and his prophetical office being to teach vs solely of himselfe the true Ecclesiasticall gouernmēt which our Bishops take from him and ascribe vnto men altering that discipline and gouernment which he alone as king hath appointed and as a Prophet hath taught in his holy word which cōclusions because they are inferred vpō false groūds the grounds being shaken the conclusions will fall of themselues Therefore let vs come to the examination of these grounds to shewe how weake and vnsufficient a foundation they be to build vpon He impugneth the Church state of Bishops first by shew of argument secondly by his own idle conceits vaine coniectures and imaginations He maketh shew of two arguments the first is this that the state of Bishops is a breach of the 2. commandement and by a consequent idolatrie For in this cōmandement Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it saith he are forbidden all meanes being humane inuentiōs wherby men would giue honour to the true God But one of these meanes of diuine worship being an humane inuention he saith to be the state of Bishops our Diocesan prouincial Churches vsing gouernment with the ministeries offices proper to them For answer to which argument I denie the MINOR proposition which consisteth of 2. parts meanes of diuine worship humane inuention And because he bringeth no proofe of his MINOR being the subiect of his disputation which all opponents ought to doe I will disproue it and each part of it And first Diocesan prouinciall Churches vsing gouernment and their ministeries which are of Archbishops Bishops were neuer intended by the founders of them nor vsed by the officers ministers of them nor held by the defendours maintainers of them nor conceiued by men of vnderstanding to be any meanes of diuine worship but of gouernment God can be and is worshipped without these and was worshipped as sincerely as now hee is when they were not but the Ecclesissticall state vnder a kingdome cannot be peaceably gouerned without these God is worshipped alike in Geneua and in England though this gouernment and these offices are not in Geneua which are in England And God is worshipped as sincerely and as fully and amplely in our parish Churches as in our cathederal churches and by ordinarie pastors as by Bishops so that their ministeries and high callings doe not afforde them any greater or other meanes to worship God then they had when they were first admitted to be priuate ministers But their places and high callings do strengthen and arme them with authoritie for the better gouerning of the churches which are committed to them wheras being but priuate ministers they had no such charge of gouernment These things therefore are not morall or doctrinall therefore belong not vnto worship but politicall and therefore belong vnto gouernment And according to the course of the holy Bible that which is politicall that which is morall being of sundrie natures are to be distinguished the one from the other God in his word established 3. lawes among his people one politicall which did bind the Iewes to the obseruation of it but it was not imposed vpon other nations that they should be bound to receiue it further then that it might stand with the peace and good of the state The other ceremoniall which was to abide in force till the cōming of our Sauiour and by his death to be abolished so that now ceremonies vnder the Gospell doe cease excepting those only which serue not for worship but decensie comlinesse and good order and so the primitiue Church did in the dayes of the Apostles and the Church of Geneua now doth deuise ceremonies witnes their owne Booke of Lawes and that all 1. Cor. 11. Churches may doe the like witnes Caluin Beza Vrsinus their owne Doctors The third morall which containeth rules of Gods worship which was from the beginning and must continue as a patterne of holines to the ende and bindeth all to the obseruation of it But this is no part of that lawe and all these three Lawes differ in nature one from the other Secondly that such Churches and Church offices are not humane inuentions I proue by euident demonstration For the first Church ministeriall that euer was had ordination from God which was the Church of the Iewes vnder Aaron and his successours and that Church was both Diocesan and prouinciall and also nationall hauing all rites and iurisdiction which a Diocesan or prouinciall or nationall church euer had or coulde haue Also vnder the Gospell Saint Paul by warrant from the holy Ghost appointed Timothy a prouinciall Bishop of Ephesus hauing many Bishops vnder him and Titus a nationall Bishop ouer all the kingdome of

the Apostles in other places and so continued by succession from them vntill these daies vnlesse when their succession was interrupted by warres or schisme or persecution But to come to a Diocesan Lord Bishop ruling by his sole power which is indeed the chiefe matter now in question Such a Bishop saith hee seemeth not to haue beene established in Ambrose Ierom and Augustines time It may be it seemeth not so to Maister Iacob but it seemed so to Zozomene that Saint Ambrose himselfe did rule like a Lord Bishoppe Sozom. l. 7. ca. 24. by his sole authority when meeting the Emperour Theodosius as hee went to Church without any consent or consultation had with other Priests on a suddaine took him by the gowne in the sight of the people interdicted him both from the holy communion the Church for the offence he had committed and the Emperour obeyed his authority His wordes are these Imperator quum Mediolanum venisset ad Ecclesiam processit vt oraret Sed quùm ad ostium iam pernenisset occurrit et Ambrosius eius ciuitatis Episcopus apprehensâ illius purpû-â in prae●entiâ populi siste gradum inquit homini enim ob peccata prophano manus innoxio sanguine comaculatas habēti fa● non est antequā poenitentiā egerit vel sacrum ingredi solium vel ad diuinorū mysteriorum communionem admitti Imperator libertatem sacerdotis admiratu● cogitationibus conscientiam accusantibus regressus est poenitentia compunctus The Emperour when he came to Millanie went towards the church to pray whē he was but at the doore Ambrose the Bishop of that citie ran to him caught him by his purple robe in the presence of the people cōmanded him to stay there shewing that it was not permitted him hauing defiled his hands with innocent blood to goe into the Church nor to be partaker of the Sacrament before he had shewed himselfe penitent The Emperour meruailed at the great spirit of the Bishop his conscience pricked him vpon his remorse hee went backe and repented And afterward more plainly he saith Ambrosius Imperatorem insimulans vt consentaneum est ab Ecclesiâ arcuit à communione seclusit Ambrose laying to the Emperour his charge his crime which he committed as it did behooue him thrust him out of the Church secluded him from the communion In this Story that action is ascribed solely vnto the Bishop no mention is made of any other whose consent was required Though soone after we doubt not saith Maister Iacob it tooke place in the Church Therefore by his owne confession the office of Lord Bishop ruling by his sole authoritie is of great antiquitie and therefore to be preferred before the Eldership which is but a nouelty and neuer preuailed vntill our age and that but in some few Churches And that I may speake something for the iustification of Bishoppes ruling by their sole authority Timothy and Titus were such Bishops Maister Iacob replieth two manner of waies First he saith the Apostles did not ordeine Ministers nor censure offenders by their sole authority much lesse then Timothy and Titus which were inferiour to the Apostles For answer to his reply which consisteth of nothing but manifest vntruthes I do instance in S. Peter which by his sole authority censured Ananias Suphira when they lied to the holy Ghost smiting them with present death St. Paul which alone censured Elymas the sorcerer whē he smote him Acts. 5. Act. 13. 11 with blindnes for seeking to peruert the deputy frō the faith And both these censures were then in the place of excommunicatiō Vide Bucerum dè clauibus 1. Cor. 16. 22. anathema marannatha Politiae Iudaicae c. 2. which is now the ordinarie censure of the church And besides that Saint Paule by his sole authoritie excommunicated in general all that loued not the Lord Iesus euen vnder the time of nature Henoch as Cornelius Ber●ram writeth in his booke Printed at Geneua and allowed of by that church did alone anathema illud solenne suoe aetatis hominibus proponere quod extat Iudae ver 14 15. pronounce that solemne sentence of excommunication against the men of his time of which mention is made in S. Iude ver 14. 15. Behold the Lord commeth with thousands of his Saints to giue iudgement c. And so did Saint Ambrose by their examples And as for making Ministers our Bishops doe not conferre orders alone but assisted with other ministers which ioyne with them in prayer imposition of hands Yet still the chiefest authoritie resteth in Bishops as S. Paule writeth to Titus For this cause I left thee in Creete that thou shouldest ordaine Elders in euery citie And to Timothy Tit 1 5. lay hands sodainly on no man by which words it appeareth that ordination imposition of hands belong to the Bishops 1. Tit 5. 22. principally and to the inferiour Ministers but as assistants to the Bishop But that it belonged to the same men to censure offenders rule by their sole authoritie the places of Scripture doe make it so plaine that ir may not be denied Rebuke 1. Tim ● v. 1. 9. 11. 17. 19. 21. not an Elder but exhort him as a Father Let not a widdow be taken into the number vnder 60 yeares old Refuse the yonger widdowes The elders that rule wel let thē be had in doble honor Obserue these things without preferring one before another doe nothing partially Receiue no accusatiō against an elder but vnder 2. or 3 witnesses Secondly he saith that if these things were granted that Timothy Titus ruled by their sole anthoritie it would not follow that therefore our Bishops might do the like his reason is this For saith he they are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of Bishops neither were they properly called Bishops because they were not affixed to certaine places but often remoued to other churches as the Apostles did Which reason I refute by manifest text for as much as Timothy was affixed to Ephesus as his proper charge and so Titus to Creete as to his peculiar place witnesseth the Apostle I besougbt thee to abide still in Ephesus For this cause haue I left 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. thee in Creete that thou shouldest continue there to redresse the things that remaine But what then though they afterward remoued and were called to other places so are our Bishops also and priuate pastours oftentimes called from one congregation to another I cannot deny but the cannon Lawe hath determined that Bishops shal not remoue from one Bishopricke to another without some vrgent cause as when they are required by another Church their gifts beeing thought fitter for a greater charge and the lawe is grounded vpon the decrees of the first generall councell of Nice which so concludeth Episcopus Presbyter aut diaconus non aebet transferri ab vnâ ciuitate ad a●iam quia id est contrà regulas

our Sauiour And in the imitation of these examples the signe of the crosse is continued among vs to bee signed vpon the forheads of them which are baptized and that without any worship or diuine honour done vnto i● therefore it is no idoll But if this Syllogisme be in FERIO as according to the rules of Logick it ought to be because it is an indefinite proposition in matter contingent then is the MINOR particular and likewise the conclusion and then it is all one as if he had saide Some signe of the Crosse is an humane ordinance and some signe of the Crosse is become an idoll therefore some signe of the Crosse is not to be vsed in Gods seruice And then we grant both the proposition the conclusion as no disaduantage vnto vs because he concludeth nothing against vs. For our signe is neither that which man hath diuised neither that which is worshipped the Author his selfe doth confesse in his Treatise that wee doe not worshippe the Crosse in Baptisme nor any way make an idoll of it Neither can any particular conclusion ouerthrowe a generall point of doctrine as if because one Crosse is so therefore all Crosses should be so A generall is not to bee concluded by a particular but a particular by a general Syllogizari non est ex particulari Hauing answered the matter which is contingent and the quātitie which is indefinite it followeth that we examine the forme of this syllogisme and lay open the manifold defectes of it to shewe how indeede it is no true syllogisme but a fallacie which that we may the better effect we must first scan euery word in order as they bee placed in the Syllogisme First of all therefore where he saith No humane ordinance being become an idoll may bee vsed in Gods seruice Iwould knowe then whether a diuine ordinance being become an idoll may be vsed in Gods seruice If it may then the bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is Gods ordinance being hallowed by the Priest eleuated vpon the Altar in the Masse adored by the people being put in the pix and reserued may bee afterward broken by the hands of the Minister and deliuered to the people in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lords Table I hope to that question hee will answere negatiuely therefore this caution which hee putteth in to wit No humane ordinance is but superfluous and might as wel haue beene left out of the syllogisme Nay he might as well haue saide No diuine ordinance becomming an idoll may be retained in the Church much Iohn 3. 14. Numb 21 9. 2. Reg 18. 4● lesse vsed in diuine seruice For the brasen serpent being Gods ordinance and ordained to bee a most liuely type and figure of our Sauiour Christ when they burnt incense vnto it was defaced by Ezechias and for so doing hee was commended to haue done vprightly in the sight of the Lord according to all that his Father Dauid had done And yet I say the idoll being remoued Gods ordinance ought still to stand The bread which is consecrated eleuated and adored in the Masse is vnfit to bee taken and eaten in the Lords Supper and yet bread is still to be vsed in that Supper without such eleuation and adoration And as for the brasen Serpent here is the difference betweene that and this Had the people ceased to burne incense vnto it yet being broken and defaced no other like to that was to be erectect for as much as that was but a temporall ordinance of God for that present time when they were stunge with fierie Serpents in the Wildernesse seruing for that vse to heale them when they looked vppon it which vertue of healing afterward ceased but had Serpents still stunge them and the sight of a brasen Serpent serued still for healing of such woundes a newe brasen serpent which was neuer worshipped might haue beene made in the place of it which was defaced Secondly I would knowe also whether an humane ordinance being no idoll may bee vsed in Gods seruice To that Maister Iacob answereth negatiuely in his Booke of reformation likewise the Author of the Treatise of diuine worshippe therefore this clause becomming an idoll was but idle and might very well haue beene spared and it standeth but in the place of a ciphre or rather an idoll it selfe because as the Apostle writeth idoium nihil est 1. Cor 84. an idoll is nothing and this also standeth for nothing Let the framer therefore of this syllogisme speake whether hee meaneth in sensu diuiso because it is an humane ordinance or because it is an idoll or else because ioyned both together in sensu coniuncto it is both an humane ordinance and an idoll it is vnfit for Gods seruice If hee make it a sufficient reason why the signe of the Crosse should bee crossed out of the s eruice Booke Vel eo nomine because it was an humane ordinance then hee might haue spared to make mention of an idoll if he meane eò nomine because it was an idoll then might hee haue spared to speake of humane ordinance as wordes idlely put in Frustra fit per plura quod aequè benè fieri potest pèr pauciora If yee meane an humane ordinance might haue beene vsed so it were not become an idoll or an idoll had it not beene an humane ordinance or otherwise if he ment none of them both then these two were not well ioyned together in this syllogisme But as for our signe of the Crosse with which we signe infants in Baptisme wee doe not in so doing imitate the examples of men but the holy Scripture and so denye it to bee an humane ordinance wee adore it not outwardly with the body nor inwardly in our mindes and therefore wee denie it to be an idoll for still I builde vppon that ground of the Author of this syllogisme that nothing is an idoll vnlesse it be worshipped therefore no worship no idoll And therefore notwithstanding this syllogisme nothing hindereth but that it may bee vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme which is a part of GODS seruice Thirdly the argument doth not followe that because the bread which is adored by the Papists is become an idoll therefore the bread which is not adored by vs is an idoll because the Sunne and Moone were as Gods to the heathens which worshipped them therefore they are Gods to vs which vouchsafe them no worship because Gedeons Ephod was an idoll to them which worshipped it being hung vp in Iud 8. 27. Ophra therefore that Ephod which the Priest did weare in Solomons Temple and not worship was an Idoll in Ierusalem because the altars which were erected for sacrifice in the high places that vpon which Iereboam offred incense were monuments 1. Reg 13. 1. Iosua 22. 10. of idolatry therefore the altar which the two tribes of Ruben Gad and halfe Manasses erected to be a witnesse betweene themselues and the