Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	acknowledge_v	church_n	true_a	2,766	5	5.8656	4	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

they may both find out what they haue not heard and examine what they haue heard This gift of God this Wisdome I meane and illumination of Gods Spirit vse I beseech you to the glory of the donour and the building of your selfe vp in your most holy Faith This you shall doe if shaking off this blind beliefe of the dictates and decrees of men you simply and absolutely yeeld all credence to God alone his word and to men no otherwise then vnder God and for God For as the same Lactantius saith with whose words I conclude Wisdome and Religion are so neerely ioyned together Ib. l. 4. c. 4. 1. c. 1. that they may not bee seuered one from the other in so much as neither any religion is to bee embraced without wisdome nor any wisdome to be approued without religion The Lord giue you a cleane heart and renew within you a right Spirit so prayeth for you from the bottome of his heart Your vnfained friend and louing brother IOHN DOWNE OF SITTING AND KNEELING AT THE COMMVNION VNTO the schedule you sent mee contayning your best reasons for Sitting against Kneeling I here returne you this short answer Your end doubtlesse was by strength of argument to withdraw mee from conformity in Kneeling my intent is by discouering the weaknesse of your arguments to worke you from singularity in Sitting The issue I leaue vnto God yet I trust that as my persuasion and example this last Easter as you know reduced diuers so my Reply through the blessing of God may also reclaime you God grant that being brethren and children of one common mother wee may with one accord obserue her orders and honor her authority Your writing first maintaines sitting then opposes kneeling Of sitting you affirme thus Wee ought to sit at the receiuing of the Elements of the Lords Supper In which Proposition I doubt of one tearme and suspect another The tearme I doubt of is this Wee ought to sit namely what you meane thereby For if either the nature of the Phrase or the Conclusion of your third Syllogisme may determine it then is it equiualent vnto this We must sit imports a necessity of sitting or that sitting is the only lawful I gesture But if we iudge thereof by the probable intention of the two first Syllogismes then the meaning thereof seemes to bee no more then this We may sit or sitting is a lawfull gesture In which sence now vnderstand you this Proposition In the first Then I deny it and say Sitting is not the onely lawfull gesture In the second Then I answer two things First you haue ill exprest your selfe vsing words that beare not your meaning for Wee ought imports a necessary duty and Wee may free choice and liberty Secondly I distinguish For if you vnderstand it Absolutely and Simply in it selfe then I grant Wee may sit for sitting is indifferent and so there shall bee no controuersie betwixt vs. But if you vnderstand it respectiuely and with regard vnto the Canons and constitutions of the Church then I say wee may not sit for the Church vnto whom wee owe obedience hath ordained otherwise Againe I suspect those words at the receiuing of the Elements of the Lords Supper for why doe you not say rather at the receiuing of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ especially seeing this is the nobler part of the Sacrament and the Elements are but shadowes of this substance Was it lest sitting might seeme too perfunctory and kneeling neuer a whit too reuerent for so sacred an action If so then are you guilty of no small fault thus to sleight the holy Sacrament for so poore an aduantage But perhaps it was done out of simplicity rather then cunning Howbeit taking vpon you to play the Logician and to dispute Syllogistically you ought to haue been more wary of your tearmes And so I passe vnto your arguments the first whereof is thus framed 1 A comely gesture ought to be vsed 1 Cor. 14.40 Sitting is a comely gesture for the affection of ioy must then bee stirred vp with which it agrees Mar. 14.22 23 24 25 26. Ergo sitting ought to bee vsed This is rather a Paralogisme then Syllogisme for the Propositions are indefinite and of no quantity and out of such Propositions nothing can Logically bee concluded But I will help to rectify your Syllogisme if first I may know what you would conclude The Conclusion must needs bee one of two either this Wee may sit or this Wee must sit Would you conclude Wee may sit in the sence aboue denied for so you ought Then must it thus bee formed Any comely gesture may be vsed notwithstanding the Churches ordinance sitting is a comely gesture Ergo sitting may bee vsed notwithstanding the Churches ordinance But so the Maior is vntrue For Magistrates haue authority to order things indifferent as they find it expedient to auoid confusion and to settle an vniformity and wee are bound not onely for feare but also for Conscience to obey Rom. 13.5 Neither doth the passage you quote for proofe of your Maior euince the contrary For Saint Paul commanding that all things bee done decently permitteth not euery one to vse his liberty as hee listeth In. 1. Cor. 14.40 but setteth bounds vnto vs rather as Caluin saith establisheth the lawfull orders of the Church seeing it cannot bee decent to affront authority and doe as we please But it may bee you would conclude that wee must sit or that sitting is the onely lawfull gesture Then must your argument bee thus framed A comely gesture onely is to bee vsed sitting onely is comely Ergo sitting onely is to bee vsed The Maior whereof I grant and acknowledge to bee sufficiently prooued but I deny the Minor For if sitting bee the onely comely gesture then is not onely the Church of England to bee condemned for kneeling but sundry other reformed Churches also for standing yea our Sauiour himselfe with all his Apostles who as in due place shall bee demonstrated sate not to say nothing that it is your singular opinion and that the man cannot bee named who held the same before you or holds it besides you For as for your reason that sitting agrees with the affection of ioy which then must bee stirred vp it is a very strange and vnreasonable one For first bee it that ioy must then bee stirred vp so must humility reuerence thankfulnesse also And therefore if sitting beecomely because it agreeth with the one Kneeling also is comely because it agreeth with the other Againe suppose that sitting agree with Ioy so doth leaping dancing exultation also Why then if Sitting by vertue of this agreement be comely are not the rest in like manner comely Lastly that Sitting is the embleme of Rest and that such posture of the body is fit for study counsell meditation I haue often heard and so much is meant by those old sayings The Romans conquer by

his goodnesse eftsoones to reduce you Two grounds you say there are whereon you haue built your Separation the first whereof you lay downe in these tearmes That the Hierarchie and Ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord Bishops c. and Priests may not bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein From whence as I vnderstand it you would argue and conclude thus Where are such Church Officers as may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church there is no true visible Church and consequently Separation must bee made from it But here in England are such Church Officers as Arch-bishops Bishops c. and Priests Ergo here in England is no true visible Church and consequently Separation must bee made from it To this argument thus formed I answer first by denying the Maior Proposition which in that you goe not about to proue you commit that fault in reasoning which Logicians call Petitionem Principij taking that for granted which is most questioned For suppose that Archbishops Bishops and Priests were superfluous officers yet it is not euery superfluity in a Church that takes away the nature and essence thereof and euen they who mislike the present Church gouernement doe not all of them as you Separatists doe inferre thereupon a nullity but onely a corruption or aberration in the Church It would haue beene much more to the purpose if you could haue demonstrated that the Church of England is defectiue in such officers as are essentiall and without which a Church cannot be Here therefore I must entreat you either to acknowledge your rashnesse or else to bestow a little more paines in the proofe of that which without euidence of reason will neuer be yeelded you Againe I deny the Minor Proposition affirming contrarily that Archbishops Bishops and Priests are lawfull Church-Officers and may bee both set ouer and retained in the Church For I hope you vnderstand these tearmes not cauillingly and equiuocally but according to the meaning and definition of the Church of England Otherwise you shall but iangle about words and bewray that you haue more desire to picke quarels then ability to iustify your Separation But you endeauour to fortify your Minor by twelue reasons supplying in the tale if ought bee wanting in the weight Let vs examine them seuerally The first is this 1 No Antichristian ministrie may bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein 2. Thes 2.3.4.11.12 Ro. 14.9 10. with Ex. 4.5 Deut. 7.26 Ps 119.21.128 But the Ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord-Bishops Priests is Antichristian because the Churches of Antichrist cannot bee compleate if they haue not this Prelacy as appeareth by the Popes Canons and Pontificall and by their Church-Constitution Therefore they are not to bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein What meane you by the word Antichristian For although I know well what properly it signifies yet I doubt much what you vnderstand thereby it being your manner either through negligence or ignorance too often to speake improperly If you vnderstand it properly and as you ought for that which is against Christ and his ordinance or as your men sometimes expresse themselues which is a speciall part of Antichrists apostasie then I yeeld you your Maior and confesse that no such Ministrie may bee set ouer the Church nor retained therein But if you meane thereby either that which was first instituted and deuized by Antichrist or that which being formerly instituted is vsed and approued in the Church of Antichrist then I deny the Maior For first euery thing by Antichrist ordained is not presently vnlawfull and Antichristian no more then euery act of a tyrant is vniust and tyrannous How many good and wholesome lawes were enacted vnder the raigne of Richard the third who yet was a most bloody and cruell tyrant Neither were they afterward repealed by succeeding Kings but stand still in force notwithstanding his tyranny for they proceeded from him non quà tyrannus not as hee was a tyrant but as hee was a wise and politicke gouernour In like manner not euery thing ordained by Antichrist is foorthwith to bee reiected but onely that which hee doth quà Antichristus as hee is Antichrist and is meerely Antichristian It is a great folly to refuse good counsell because it is giuen by an euill man Wise men will consider non quis sed quid not so much who doth a thing as what is done For as truth is Gods in whose mouth soeuer it bee found so is good also whosoeuer bee the Author thereof Againe if those things whereof Antichrist is the first founder bee not therefore by and by vnlawfull much lesse are those things so which being of a former institution are onely vsed and obserued by him Were it otherwise how many ordinances of God himselfe and wholesome constitutions of the primitiue Church would proue vnlawfull being still retained in Popery This Maior you endeauour to fortify with sundry passages of Scripture But as Cassius of old was wont to say Cui bono to what end For if you would proue it in the sense granted you they are alledged needlesly if in the sense denied friuolously and to speake the truth euery way vainely and impertinently as the very reading of them will manifest to any one that will but take the paines to peruse them But this is the manner of your men to paint your margents with multitude of quotations nothing to the purpose whereas one allegation directly concluding is more then a hundred demonstrations as being the words of the first and infallible verity What you intend hereby I wot not whether to amuse the Reader and ouerwhelme him with your numbers or to win you credit and estimation with the vulgar as if you were the onely skilfull Text-men But sure I am that such sleighting of Scripture is no lesse then the taking of Gods Name in vaine which whosoeuer doth the Lord professeth he will not hold him guiltlesse Scripture is not made nor appointed for pompe and shew but for conquest and victory To the Minor Proposition I answer negatiuely The ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord-Bishops and Priests is not Antichristian whether you vnderstand it as first inuented by Antichrist or against Christ That it is not of Antichrists inuention is as cleere as the Sunne For first Priests are of diuine institution being no other then those Presbyters or Pastors to whom the administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed and who are ordained by Christ for the building vp of his Church vnto the end of the world The Priests of the Church of Rome indeed are of Antichrists founding whose office is to sacrifice and offer vp Christ himselfe in the Masse vnto his Father both for the quicke and the dead But our Priests haue nothing common with them saue the name onely their idolatry wee detest and abhorre although wee retaine the name Theirs are Masse-Priests ours are Preaching or Ministring Priests Neither let the name offend you for

your platforme and I am sure all orthodoxall Churches haue euer beene gouerned by the same officers that ours is Whence it followeth that if for want of such a Politie and such Officers as you dreame of we haue in England no true Church neither hath there beene for certaine hundred of yeares aboue a thousand any true Church through the whole world Which how it can agree with the word of God affirming that of his kingdome there shall be none end I cannot conceiue For by your reckoning the kingdome of Christ ceased soone after the departure of the Apostles and suffered an interruption of about fourteen hundred yeares vntill Browne and Barrow began to play the Schismatickes The second Proposition I acknowledge also to be true but withall denie that we haue set ouer our selues any Antichristian or forraigne Officers For as we haue aboue both sayd and shewed Archbishops Bishops Priests are of diuine institution and now I further adde that they were first bred in the kingdome of Christ and not taken from any other kingdome your assertion to the contrary without due proofe argues that you build to your selfe castles in the aire and haue no ground for your presumption Your fift argument followeth 5. Because the Church being Christs spouse kingdome and body must haue his Ministrie set and kept in it and no other And if no man can make a finger or the least member of a naturall humane body or adde any other limme thereto without deformity then God hath created and can much lesse giue life to any such counterfait member of his owne making how is it possible that he can set vp another Ministrie 1. Cor. 12.12.20 27.28 The argument is thus to bee formed The Ministrie of Christ and no other is to be set ouer and kept in the Church The Ministrie of Archbishops Bishops and Priests is not Christs Ergo it is not to be set ouer nor kept in the Church The Maior I grant confessing that no office may bee allowed in the Church but that which is from Christ eyther immediately or mediatly that is from those vnto whose wisdome and discretion hee hath delegated some part of his authority to order many things in the Church For as the Church may not alter that Ministry which Christ hath setled to continue for euer so may shee by vertue of her delegate authority ordaine such offices as are not forbidden and tend to edification And being so ordeined they are though not immediatly yet mediately from Christ Neither yet doth the Church so doing presume to make as you say either a finger or any other member or limme that is essentiall vnto the body much lesse to giue life thereunto but onely to prouide a gloue as it were for the finger or a sute of apparell for the body the better to preserue it in life The Minor that the Ministrie of Archbishops Bishops and Priests is not of Christ I deny affirming the cleane contrary that they are those Pastors and Angels authorized and allowed by Christ in his word It is the greatest vanity and idlenesse that can bee in disputing onely with boldnesse to affirme that which is denied and neuer to endeauour the proofe thereof which yet is your solemne fault almost in euery argument Your sixt reason 6 Because Christians are the Temples of the Holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3.16.17 2. Cor. 6.16 2. Thes 2.4 Col. 2.18 Act. 20.17.28 and their consciences wrought vpon by Ministrie in the Church and therefore may not be defiled by the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops c. whom the Holy Ghost neuer made Ouerseers The argument in forme stands thus Those offices that defile the Temples of the Holy Ghost and consciences of men may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church But the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests defiles the Temples of the Holy Ghost and consciences of men Ergo the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church The Maior wee readily yeeld you but how proue you the Minor that these Officers defile the Conscience Forsooth because the Holy Ghost hath not made them Ouerseers And how proue you this againe Because the Pastors of Ephesus were made such Ouerseers An Herculean argument I promise you For what letteth but that hee that made the Pastors of Ephesus Ouerseers hath made the Pastors of England Ouerseers also Alas alas that vpon such friuolous and toying reasons so dangerous and offensiue Schismes should be made And take heed how you quench or grieue the Spirit of God who if you haue in you any measure of knowledge or sparke of grace hath wrought it in you by our Ministrie For preaching which is the ordinary meanes to beget faith I suppose you haue not had elsewhere and it is no lesse then blasphemie to call the working of Gods Spirit by his Holy Word vpon the soules of men the defiling of the Conscience The seuenth argument 7 Because Christ alone is the Head of the Church in whom all fulnesse of power dwelleth Eph. 1.22.23.4.11.16 Col. 1.18.19.2.8.9.10.18.19.1 Cor. 12.4.5.6.12.27.28 1. Tim. 3. 5.8.6.13.14 Rev. 11.13.18.8.14.8.17 18. 19. and from whom alone the Church receiueth her life and power so as none may bee subiect to any power or head in Religion saue onely to him And therefore no Ministers or Officers in the Church are to bee set vp or retained who deriue not their power and functions from Christ which the former doe not and therefore they are not c. but to bee abandoned as enemies of Christs soueraigne authority and making their hearers and submitters to them guilty of high treason against our Lord Christ Iesus It is true there is but one Head of the Church from whom shee receiueth life and Power yet are there also vnder Christ gouernors in the Church who by vertue of that power which they haue receiued from him may ordaine many things touching the well gouernment thereof and to submit our selues thereunto is not to bee subiect to another power or head but to the ordinance of Christ himselfe But it is false that Bishops deriue not their power and function from Christ as we haue already manifestly proued If you haue any thing to the contrary I hope wee shall heare of it another time for hitherto you haue onely said but shewed nothing As for those words that Bishops are to bee abandoned as enemies of Christs soueraigne authority c. they sauour more of passion then reason and deserue rather to bee pitied then answered The eigth argument 1. Cor. 18.27.28 Eph. 4.11.12.13 8 Because God onely must haue this preeminence to dispose the members euery one of them in the body of the Church at his owne pleasure so as either it must bee shewed that God hath placed the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops Bishops Priests or they are not to bee set vp or retained or approued We haue satisfyed you in this already if happily you will bee

satisfied For wee haue shewed first that the Ministrie of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests is of diuine and Apostolicall institution and secondly if the superiority of Bishops bee not immediatly from God yet being not forbidden and tending to edification the Church vnder God hath power to ordaine them Hereunto wee expect your answer The ninth argument Mat. 22.25.26 Ep. 4.8.11.12 Ps 68.18 Ro. 14.23 Heb. 11.16 9 Because none can of Faith ioyne vnto the Hierarchie aforesaid because they are not warranted by the Word being not from Heauen but from the earth The Ministrie aforesaid is warranted by Gods Word as wee haue oftentimes said and so is from Heauen not from earth and therefore you may of Faith ioyne vnto it Had it not been a plant of Gods owne setting doubtlesse it would haue beene rooted out of the Church long since and not haue continued fifteen hundred yeeres together The tenth argument 10 Because none can submit vnto or haue spirituall communion with the Hierarchie and Ministrie aforesaid Rev. 14.9.10.11 but hee shall worship the Beast and his image spoken of in the Reuelation and receiue his marke in his forehead or hand and so make himselfe subiect to the wrath of God This argument though differing in words yet in sence and meaning is all one with the first For how can it bee conceiued that they who submit themselues vnto our Ministrie worship as you say the Beast and his Image vnlesse it be for that it is Antichristian For auoiding of Tautologie therefore I referre you vnto the answer of that argument where I plainely demonstrate that it is Christian not Antichristian so that in communicating with it there can bee no danger either of worshipping the Beasts-image or receiuing his marke or incurring the wrath of God But whereas you talke of worshipping the Beast you much mistake the matter For by the Beast is vnderstood not Antichrist but the Roman Empire whereof the State of Antichrist is the image Neither can you shew Rev. 18.4.5.6 2. Cor. 16.17.18 Ioh. 10.5 Num. 16.1.26.40.18.4.5 Ezeh 44.7.18.4.5 Mat. 15.13 Es 11.4 13. 14. Ier. 15. 50. 51.2 Thes 2.3.4.8 Rev. 14.6.7.8 17. 18. 19. if our Ministrie were Antichristian how by retaining it wee should worship the Roman Empire The eleuenth argument 11 Because all are straitly bound and charged by the Lord to depart from and witnesse against the aforesaid Prelacy and Priest-hood being a strange Ministrie and such as is opposed against and exalted aboue the holy ordinance and Ministrie of Christ and shall be abolished by him appearing in the light and power of the Gospell Our Ministrie neither is a strange Ministrie nor opposed or exalted aboue Christs Ministrie but Christs owne Ministrie as now once againe I tell you and therefore no man is charged either to depart from it or to witnesse against it But you are a strange disputer who so peremptorily affirme that which hath euer beene denied and neuer goe about to proue it As for that you say our Ministrie shall bee abolished by Christ appearing in the light and power of the Gospell it bewrayes what you desire should bee but is no certaine Oracle of what indeed shall be Sure I am our Ministrie hath subsisted this fifteen hundred yeeres and the light and power of the Gospell hitherto hath not abolished it but it hath still published and propagated the Gospell Happily when the Church shall cease to be militant and Christ shall deliuer vp the Kingdome to his Father that God may be all in all this ministrie shall haue an end But till then Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego let Brownists and Barowists belieue it not I. Your obstinate begging of the principall matter in question conuinceth you to bee but a bad disputant and this rash and vnaduised prediction now dubbeth you for a false Prophet also The last argument 2. King 23.5 Ps 101. Pro. 16.10.11.12.25.2 5 Rev. 17.16 Deu. 17.18.19.20 Ro. 12.7.8 Eph. 4.11.12.13 1. Tim. 3. 5.9.17.6.13.14 12 Because it is the dutie and in the power of Princes to suppresse and root out of their dominions all false Ministries and therefore these as well ●s Abbots Friers Nuns Cardinals c. Whereas it is not in their power or of any vnder Heauen to abolish the offices giuen by Christ to his Church Here againe you take for granted that our Ministrie is but a false Ministrie and that Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests are no lesse Antichristian then Abbots Friers Nuns Cardinals which is euer denied but neuer confirmed by you Vaine man proue our Ministrie to bee false and wee will grant it is to be rooted out otherwise outfacing and desperate asseueration will not serue the turne And thus haue I briefly examined all your twelue reasons whereby you goe about to proue the Minor of your principall Syllogisme namely that our Church-officers Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests are not to be set ouer nor retained in the Church Whereupon I inferre seeing your Maior is barely affirmed being vntrue and your Minor so weakly and insufficiently proued you haue not as yet soundly concluded the lawfulnesse and necessity of your separation Let vs proceed to the second ground which you cōceiue in these words A true visible Church is a company of people called and separated from the world by the Word of God Act. 2.39.19.9 Ro. 1.6.7.10.14.15.16 Iob. 17.14.20 Ezek. 36.38 Phil. 1.5 Act. 2.41 42.47.11.21.24.13.4.34 Ro. 12.5 2. Cor. 9.13 Ps 110.13 Es. 14.1.44.5.60.8 Zach. 4.6.8.21.22.23 and ioyned together by voluntary profession of the Faith of Christ in the Fellowship of the Gospell Out of which if I mistake not you would conclude the iustnes of your separation thus Where there is not a company of people called and separated from the world and ioyned together as aboue there is not a true visible Church and consequently Separation ought to be made from it But in England there is not a company of people so called and separated from the world and so ioined together Ergo in England there is not a true visible Church and consequently separation ought to bee made from it I distinguish of the middle tearme Called for there is a double calling the one is Gratiae oblatae where by God onely inuites men vnto Christ and offers them Grace the other Gratiae inditae infusae whereby hee not only offers but infuseth grace also into them The former Calling maketh not a man of the Church for hee that is no otherwise called answereth not by Faith nor commeth vnto Christ but remaineth still in infidelity and so is vtterly excluded out of the Church Of the latter Calling I distinguish againe for it is either that whereby hee bestoweth vpon man Faith of Doctrine or that whereby ouer and aboue hee giues them Iustification together with true Sanctification Faith of Doctrine is either a Partiall or an Entire Faith a Partiall Faith whereby part onely of the Christian verity is held or an