Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canon_n	church_n	old_a	1,899	5	5.6844	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B04134	Cum bono deo. A remonstrance to the Godly party. Two maine quæries, which stand much usefull fo these our times. ... And a vindication of both. / By Andrew Logie sometime Arch-Deane of Aberdene; Penned by the author, ann. 1654, and printed 1661.	Logie, Andrew.	1661 (1661)	Wing L2840; ESTC R180013	29,338	52

up work of Reformation cannot be parelleled or stand worthie to come in competition which affirmeth this Government not to be Nova Institutionis sed antiqui moris of new Institution but of ancient custom Nay the same Councel decreed That ther should not be two Bishops in one City but this change with us to day is nothing to be admired to see men to contemne yea condemne all Antiquity who love onely Novations and dote upon Novelties Nobilitat Novitas quod damnat saepe vetustas I could thinke that some respect were to be deferred to the testimony of piously learned Calvin a witnesse of old with the best of this stampe of Presbyterians or Disciplinarians omni exceptione major Now he in the fourth book of his Institutions sect 1. sets down these expresse words It shall be profitable in these things to consider the forme of the old Church which shall represent to our eyes a certaine Image of Gods Institution for although the Bishops of these tims did set forth many Canons wherin they seemed to expresse more then was expressed in holy Scripture yet they with such heedfulnesse framed all their order after the onely rule of Gods Word that a man may easisly see in this behalfe that they had nothing dissagreeing from Gods Word And straight after subjoines Thaet out of a sincere zeale they endeavoured to preserve Gods Institution and that they swarved not much from it Nay and straight againe in the 2. sect he subjoines That in every City they elected or choosed out of their own number one Man to whom they gave specially the title of Bishop lest from an equality as it usually falls out dissentions should grow and arise I beleeve That we have found and felt the smart of this trueth by sad dolefull experience of late amongst our selves Let our fyerie Zelots these sonnes of Thunder see to it quâ facie quô fronte quâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quâ audaciâ with what face or conscience they could not onely have themselves but violently enforced others to abjure simply this so ancient so sacred yea and divine Institution as meerly Anti-Christian and so out of an implicite faith called for yea and exacted a blind obedience Now I beleeve That ultima fidei analysis the last resolution of faith is in Deus dixit for Credere promiscuè quicquid affirmatur à Praelatis non opus est virilis intelligentiae sed puerilis inscitiae It fears me not a little from the fyrie heate which our Moderne Reformers have shewed and kithed in the prosecution of this their so much cryed up work of Reformation that if those holy fathera S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Cyprian nay and all the rest of that stampe who wer of old holden Ecclesiae Lumina Christianae Reipub. Columina yea and those Learned godlie Bishops in our Neighbour Nation who suffered Martyr-dome for bearing testimony to Christ and to His Trueth had lived in these our dayes amongst us They should have found no more mercy with or from them then did our Moderne Prelats yea and many honest suffering Brethren but all should have gone through their firery triall But to returne unde nescio quo digressus luxuriante calamo Wherefore is it I pray you That S. Iohn directs all his Epistles which he writs to the seven Churches in ASIA Angelo cujusque Ecclesiae to the Angell of each Church singularly I know that our Reformers will not have that to be denied of the rest quod de uno praedicatur and that so the word Angell should be rendred per Ministrum simply or lese all the Ministry in common to be comprehended and designed here and so to be taken Collectively and not one particular Person to be pointed at But with their leave Since there were in each of these Churches more Presbyters or Ministers then one as may be instanced from that of Ephesus This interpretation must needs fall of will which renders the word per Ministrum in the singular number onely for thus it should follow That there should have been but one Presbyter or Minister in each Church againe on the other hand If all the Prebyters or Ministers in cōmon should or were here to be understood under this name of Angell why do we offer violence to S. Iohns words by the change of the Number Wherfore is it that he still directs his speech to One nay and if the speech stand directed to the Ministry in common how could it be cognosced to whom it were singularly thus directed Againe If this One stood not instructed with some power over the rest but all in common partooke of alike Power with him how is he thus singularly entituled above the rest And which is more How is the faultinesse of all in common imputed singularly to him Marlorat on the 2 of the Revel jumps here in judgement whiles he sayes most pertinently to this purpose Non populum aggreditur leannes sed Principem Cleriutique Episcopum Nay and hitherto Beza in his Annotations on the 3 of the Rev. rendreth the word Angelo by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem oportuit de his rebus imprimis admoneri from hence it followes That this Angell had a Prostasie preseance presidence and preheminence above his Fellow-Ministers But I heare some replying here That if this Prostasie was of this kind it was only over the Common flock and not of power and authority over his Fellow-Ministers Answ Dato non concesso giving but not granting That this Prostasie or preseance were only over the Flock yet it remains That it was a prostasie of Power else how could he have excerced any Authority over them Nay but he is cōmanded to exerce it even against Fellow-Ministers or preaching Elders yea and is commended from hence that he tooke order with them Who called themselves Apostles but were not found them liars Revel 2.2 I heare againe some excepting against this Trueth though so clearly and fully vindicated and asserted from off of these passages Math. 20.25.26.27 and I. Pet. 5.2.3 Where Christ prohibits his Apostles to exerce such Dominion as did Reges terrae or Magnates and where Peter warnes the Elders so to feed the flock of God as not domineiring over the Lords inheritance but proving ensamples to the flock Now in both these there is a plaine fallacie à mo do rei ad rem from the manner to the matter Now I beleeve that the different manner of a thing is so far from the overthrowing or the removing of the thing it self that on the contrary Ponit et subinfert it puts subinferres it and so both Christ S. Peter take not away simply all power frō them but such a modalized one viz. a despoticall herill or civill power but not Paternall Pastorall Doth not the Apostle S. Paul I. Cor. 14. last vers cōmand That all things be done in the Church decently and in order Now I beleeve that Order which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉