Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	ecclesiastical_a	law_n	1,550	5	5.5075	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

force tooke from them all power of life death not onely from the Priests but also from the whole nation 40. yeares before that time as Maister Beza hath well obserued it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death Thirdly if the Iewes had had all their authoritie in their Beza in annot maiorib in Ioh 18. hands without controlment yet it appeareth by the 28. verse of that chapter that the Priests at that time would not be present at that iudgement where sētence of death was to be pronounced because the feast of Easter was at hand and so doing they should haue made themselues vncleane and by a consequent disinabled themselues from executing their office at that solemnitie Thus you haue heard proued out of the holy Scriptures that among Gods people in that kingdome which was gouerned according to Gods own lawes euen then when it was reformed by godly kings there was no bench of Iustice for hearing and ending of ciuill causes vpon which Priests and Leuites did not sit as Iudges and Iustices Therefore I demand other sound reasons or places of Sctipture to proue why it should not so continue among vs which are also Gods people especially our Ecclesiasticall persons being more honourable vnder the Gospel then they were vnder the law I confesse that the Popes lawes haue decreed the contrarie but Lancelelot iustitut iuris can l 1. Tit 4. Concil Lat 31. partis 1. can 12. it is not fit that wee which are a reformed Church and haue long since abandoned the Popes authoritie should nowe forsake God and the examples of the holy Bible to followe the Pope and his Canons The Popes lawe saith Laici sunt quibus licet temporalia prssidere vxere●● ducere causes agere intèr virum virum iudicare Clerici qui diuinis officijs mancipati sunt quos ab omni strepitu cessare conueuit Lay men are they to whom it is lawful to haue temporal possessions to marie wiues handle causes and controuersies in Law to iudge betweene man and man but as for Clergy men their state and condition is otherwise they are so deuoted and mancipated to the seruice of God that they must not intermeddle with such worldly troubles Some of our brethren giue this answerles answer that arguments drawen from the state of the Ministerie in the olde Testament to that which is vnder the Gospell doe not holde that we must not followe examples of the olde Testament in Church gouernment and that therefore the argument doth not followe that because Bishoppes in the olde Testament were Lords and of the Kings Counsell in the highest place and inferiour Ministers were ciuill Magistrates therefore vnder the Gospell it may be so although what should hinder they cannot shewe But that I may followe them in that course of disputation They say wee must not followe the examples of the olde Testament in Church gouernment and that therefore the argument doth not followe Bishops in the olde Testament were Lords and Kings Counsellers and inferiour Ministers were ciuill Magistrates therefore vnder the Gospel they must be so To whō I alledge that by the like reason these arguments which Bishop Iuell and the learned men of the reformed churches haue vrged against the Popes authoritie and for the vpholding of Princes cannot follow when they conclude in this manner Solomon deposed Abiathar the Priest for committing high Treason and placed Sadoc in his roome therefore vnder the Gospell Christian Kings may punish their Ministers for high Treason Ezechias reformed the Church Iosias reade the Lawe before the Priestes in the house of the Lord and commanded Helchias the high Priest and the Priests of the second order to bring forth of the Temple all the vessells made for Baall put downe Idolls 1. Reg 2. 2. Reg 18. slewe the idolatrous Priestes therefore Christian Kings may put downe idolatrie and reforme the Church You see thereforefore the weakenes and great vnsufficiency of this answere Againe why doe the Lawes of Geneua punish adulterie with death after the example of the olde Testament and why doe our brethren which stand for the reformation labour that the same punishment may bee inflicted vpon adulterers with vs vrging vs with the authoritie of that Law if so be that they will holde that the Lawes of the old Testament may not preuaile vnder the Gospell In their simplicitie and want of iudgement they shape this answere as if it were the Trumpet to blowe downe Iericho Dauids sling to kill Golias Sampsons iawe-bone to slay a thousand Philistines that the ceremoniall Lawe is abolished whereas before I haue shewed thal this is not ceremoniall but politicall and that the Priesthood is abolished whereas onely that which is ceremonicall concerning the Priests office is abolished but that which is moral indureth to the end And againe a Minister of the Gospell may with more conueniencie be a ciuill Magistrate then the Priests vnder the Lawe because now the daily sacrifices the great number of feasts and solemnities the infinite number of ceremonies do cease which then procured vnto them a whole world of businesses in their Ministery by which they had lesse vacant time to heare ciuill causes then our Ministers haue vnder the Gospell The answer to the common obiection Luk 22 25. they that beare rule ouer them are called gracious Lords but ye shall not be so FOr the opening of this text these things are to be examined First whether our Sauiour spake these wordes to his Apostles onely or in the name of the Apostles to al Christians For albeit the Apostles onely were personally present and his apostrophe was vnto thē yet many circumstances do proue that these words doe cōcerne al Christians For first we find else where another speech parallel vnto this The Scribes and Pharisies loue the chiefe places at feasts and to Mat 2. 3. haue the chiefe seates in the assemblies and greeting in the markets and to be called of men Rabbi Rabbi that is Lord Lord but be not yee called Rabbi for one is your Rabbi to wit Christ and all ye are brethren c. but he that is greatest among you let him be your seruant No man can iustly say this was spoken vnto Ecclesiasticall persons onely but also to lay men for so the text saith Then Iesus spake to the multitude and to his Disciples 2. In the same chapter it appeareth that our Sauiour did celebrate his last Supper immediately before he spake these wordes but that storie being set downe more plaine by the other Enangelist hee saide drinke you of this all Mat 26. which wordes were spoken onely to his Apostles and yet none but they of the Church of Rome will so conster them as if they were ment onely of Ecclesiasticall persons For euen as the Cuppe in the holy Communion did not appertaine onely vnto the Ministerie but also vnto the laitie so humilitie which is the Subiect of this speech is not

34. 17. Iosua 22. 13. Numb 26. 63. 64. 2. Chron 13. Iosua 6. 1. Pet 23. 4. Phinees the Sonne of Eleazar the Bishoppe was a Captaine against the Midianites and Eleazar his selfe ioyntly with Moses diuided the spoyles among the Souldiers Eleazar with Iosua diuided the land of promise among the Tribes Phineas the Bishop was sent Ambassador to proclaime warre against Gad Ruben and halfe Manasses Moses and Eleazar numbred the people in the plaine of Moab and Moses and Aaron in the wildernes of Sina The Priests and Leuites sounded their Trumpets and bid the battell in the warre of Abias against Ieroboam The Priests ouerthrewe the citie Iericho And the godly King Dauid setting the Kingdome in better order then it was before appointed 6000. Leuites to be Iudges and Magistrates ouer the people Likewise beyond Iordan towardes the West 1700. both to serue God in the place of Leuites and also to serue the King in ciuill offices pertaining to the common wealth and also 2700. he set ouer Ruben Gad and Manasses to heare and determine all causes both ecclesiasticall and ciuill concerning God in the Church and the King in the common wealth The Kings were annointed and confirmed in their kingdomes by the hands of the Bishops ecclesiasticall persons 1. Sam 10. 1. Sam 16. 1. Reg 1. So Samuel annointed Saule Dauid Sadoc annointed Solomon when Adoniah had proclaimed himselfe King by help of Abiathar the Priest Nathan the Prophet said to Dauid me thy seruant Sadoc the Priest haue they not called nor Benoiah the son of Ichoiada Then Dauid said Call me Sadoch the Priest and Nathan the Prophet and let them annoint and proclaime Solomon Ier 26. Exod 32. King Ieremy was condemned to death by the Priests and the Prophets The Leuites by the commandement of Moses slewe with the sword 3000. that committed idolatry It was commanded by God that when they went to warre Ex 32. Deut 20. Deut 21. 19. 1. Sam. 15 the Priests should go before them exhort them to be couragious and valiant That if there were inquisition after murther the Priests should come forth and by their word the cause should be tryed Samuel valiantly slewe Agag the King of the Amalakites whom Saule the King for foolish pittie could not find in his heart to smite Godly Iosephat in his reformation of the Church and common 2. Chron wealth appointed Iudges in euey citie throughout the land as it appeareth verse 5. And what kinde of men these Iudges were it appeareth in the 8. verse following In Ierusalem as also in other cities he appointed Iuges out of the Princes of euery family and the Priests and Leuites which were to heare both ciuil and Ecclesiastical causes and so doth Tremelius expound it according to the truth of the Hebrew text and at Ierusalem which was the chamber of the Kingdome there was established by him the highest bench of iustice vnto which as vnto the highest court it was lawfull to appeale from all inferiour Courts and Iudges euen as it is now with the Kings Bench and the high commission Court at London And among these Iudges who were to take place before other it is explaned in the 11. verse of that chapter namely in ecclesiasticall causes ecclesiasticall men in temporall causes temporal men but so that in euery ciuil court of Iustice there should be some Priests and Leuites in Commission Moreouer the Lord saith If there arise a matter too hard for thee in iudgement betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague Deut 17. 8. and plague in the matters of controuersie within thy gates then shalt thou arise and goe vnto the place which the Lord thy God shal choose and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shal be in those dayes and aske and they shal shew thee the sentence of iudgement thou shalt doe according to the thing which they of that place which the Lord hath chosen shal shewe thee c. and that man which wil doe presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest which standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there and the Iudge that man shal dye and thou shalt take eway euill from Israel so all the people shal heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously As for Ezra the Priest he had authoritie from Artaxerxes the King of Persia to order all matters whatsoeuer spiritual Ezra 7. and temporall concerning the returne of the people out of captiuitie he ordered both the Princes and the people Priests and Leuites he appointed al the Iudges in the land that whosoeuer would not doe according to the Lawe of God and the Kings Lawe should haue iudgement without delay whether it were vnto death or banishment or confiscation of goods or imprisonment And there was by Ezra set down the whole Ezra 8. platforme of the ciuill estate of the common wealth Againe he gathered together the Princes and all the Clergy proclaimed a fast humbled them before God that hee would guide them in their iourney beeing ashamed to aske of Artaxerxes an Army of horsemen to helpe them because he had saide before that their trust was in God alone In the 10 Chapter hee causeth all as well temporall as spirituall to sweare that they would put away their strange wiues caused a proclamation to goe out through Iuda and Ierusalem to assemble in Ierusalem within three dayes in paine of confiscation of their goods How afterward the Maccabes being Gods seruants held both the Priesthood and the Kingdome among the Iewes being Gods people and that without impeachmenr the learned know very well and that they continued both high Priests and also Kings vntil the land was conquered by the Romans and the ciuill gouernment committed vnto the family of the Herods vntil the comming of our Sauiour Christ who translated both the kingdome and the Priesthood of right vnto himselfe And whereas some men doe obiect against these examples Ioh. 18. by me alledged for confirmation of spirituall mens authoritie in temporal causes among Gods people That when our Sauiour Christ was to bee arrayned they brought him from the high Priest to the iudgement seate of Pilate a temporall Iudge and saide to Pilate verse 31. It is not lawful for vs to put any man to death I answere first the Priest in particular did not say these wordes It is not lawfull for vs to put any man to death but the Iewes in generall not to the preiudice of Priests onely but of the whole nation of the Iewes Secondly they speake not these wordes as if the Iewes had of right from God no authoritie to put mē to death For Pilate himself doth confesse that they had right in themselues where he saith Take him and iudge him according to your owne lawe But these wordes are to be vnderstood that according to the Lawes of Herod a stranger and of the Romans which made them tributary and by

then that they did also giue ouer praying which is here mentioned in the imployment of the Apostles as well as preaching for then had they beene reprobates And that after they were called to be Deacons they did also preach and minister the sacraments it appeareth by the examples of Stephen and Philip which both preached Act. 7. Act. 8. 35. 38. 50. and baptised Neither can a man of sober iudgement conceiue such an idle opinion of the Apostles that they would haue admitted them to that office by that great solemnity of prayer and imposition of hands if they should haue beene estranged from the ministerie and wholly attended vpon tables and beene but gatherers of almes God which hath established kingdomes and ordained secular Princes to be supreame gouernours in Ecclesiasticall causes by his word cannot so much crosse his owne ordinance as to appoint in the same word such a consistory or state of ecclesiasticall gouernment as may not stand with the state of a kingdome As for the gouernment of Bishops vnder the King it hath alwaies vpheld the state of a kingdom and maintained the soueraigne authority of Princes as holding their Scepter and Crowne immediately from God and not from the people that they are not to be deposed nor censured by the people But contrariwise the Presbyterie and their fauourers both by their doctrine and also by practise make all Kings subiect to the people and by a consequent to the Consistorie to be punished and depriued by them because they are the Magistrates which are chosen by the people and for the people the authority of the people is executed by thē And for the better proofe of this assertiō I wil produce some writings of the presbyterians thēselues The Scottish Consistorian hath these words following Populo Eucan de iure regni apùd Scotos iu●● est vt imporiū cui velit deferat It resteth in the hands of the people to set the Crown vpon whose head they please B. Nam nisi regem suffragijs electum habeamus vereor nè legitimum habituri simus M. Ego quoque idem islud vereor No man is a lawfull King but by election of the people Nam quem nes Venetorum 〈◊〉 vocamus is nihil aliud est qùám rex legitimus He whom we we call the Duke of Venice is nothing else but a lawfull King Leges igitùr hâc dè causâ inuentae sunt à populis regesque coacti non suâ ●n iudicijs licentiâ sed quod populus in se dedisset iure vti For this cause lawes are deùised by the people and Kings constrained not to vse their own liberty in the seate of Iustice but that whereunto the people hath restrained them Sit quando ita vis p●në● populum vt leges serat perferat sint reges velut tabulariorū custodes The making of lawes is onely in the power of the people kings are but as it were keepers of the records Vides opinor quantam vno versu des principi licentiam nempè vt quod velit ipse dicet lex quod nolit non dicat Id si semèl recipiamus non proderit bonas leges condere quae principem bonum officij sui ●oneant malum circumscribant Immo vt dicā apertiū● nullas omninò leges habere praestaret quàm liberum latrocinium atquè etiam honoratū sub legis praetextu tolerari M. Certè non modo potest●tē legum iubendarū sed etiàm eas interpretandi regiabstulist As kings may not be makers of lawes so they may not be trusted with the exposition of lawes for then it were all one as if no good lawes were made which may put a good Prince in mind of his duty compell an euil Prince to doe his dutie because they will wrest them to their owne purpose And so robberie shal not onely be free but also rewarded and honoured vnder the colour and pretence of lawe Concerning such Princes as behaue not themselues well in their gouernment Deo hominibus habendes inimicos eosqùe in luporum aliorumnè noxiorum animalium genere potiùs quàm hominum habendos putem quae qui alit sibi perniciē alit alijs qui occidit non sibi modo sed publicè vniuersis prodest Interfectoribus autèm praemia decarni non ab vniuerso tantùm populo sed à smgulis quemadmodùm vulg ò fieri solet ijs qui lupos aut vrsas occiderunt They be enemies to God and man Wolues who so killeth them benefiteh the common wealth and is to be rewarded as he that killeth Wolues Bares and such harmful beasts And what is this lesse then which the conspirators of Rome do hold it meritorious to murther Princes Againe saith this Presbyterian Quemadmodùm in primis regibus vsquè ad Kennethum 3 qui primus regnum in suâ familiâ stabiliuit perspicuā est quae fuerit potestas populi in regibus creandis in ordinem redigendis ità necesse est vt is aut populo inuito id fecerit aut à persuaso impetrauerit Perrò si ceëgit populum sibi parere populus quoquè vbi primum caeperit suis viribus confidere violentum illud imperium poterit excutere cùm à regibus populo recepta iura pronuncient natura clamet quicquid per vim fiat simili vi solui posse Si tu mecum ex conuentu agas quid causae est quin ego ex aduerso eas causas ponam cur pacta conuenta solui possint What power the people hath both in setting vp kings and ruling them after they be established Kennethus the third is an example which first established the kingdome in his own family If by violence he compelled the people to yeeld vnto it by the same violence they may free themselues againe if by their consent they may pretend cause enough to reuerse that whereunto they gaue consent And what is this but the doctrine of the Papists that faith with heretikes is not to be held To them which alledge that wee must pray for Princes though they be wicked and therefore not lift vp our Tim. 2. hands against them he answereth Nèc slatim si promalis principibus orandum est hinc allegare debemus corum vitia non esse punienda non magis quam latronum prò quibus etiam orare iubemur nec si bono principi parendum est ideò malo non est resistendum We are bound to pray for wicked Princes in such sort as for theeues we must pray for them both and punish them both Quod autem àd Caligulam Neronem Domitianum reliquos eius generis tyrannos attinet cur violats iuris diuini humani poenae non ●ebeant exigi nihil hic apùd Paulum habes qui de ipsâ magistratuum potestate non dè malis ma●è potestatem eam gerentibus disserat Nec si ad Pauli regulam id genus tyrannorum examines omninò magistratus erunt As for

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

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