Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	worship_n	worship_v	worthy_a	83	3	6.7453	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56144	Canterburies doome, or, The first part of a compleat history of the commitment, charge, tryall, condemnation, execution of William Laud, late Arch-bishop of Canterbury containing the severall orders, articles, proceedings in Parliament against him, from his first accusation therein, till his tryall : together with the various evidences and proofs produced against him at the Lords Bar ... : wherein this Arch-prelates manifold trayterous artifices to usher in popery by degrees, are cleerly detected, and the ecclesiasticall history of our church-affaires, during his pontificall domination, faithfully presented to the publike view of the world / by William Prynne, of Lincolns Inne, Esquire ...	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1646 (1646)	Wing P3917; ESTC R19620	792,548	593

performe a good work and an acceptable service unto Christ it may therefore be demanded Whether those works which are undertaken out of a good intention though without a command be acceptable services or parts of Gods worship Answ No for the Word saith that he is worshipped in vaine by the Doctrine of men Isa 15. 9. and Col. 220. will-will-worship is condemned yea this last was singular not exemplary for Mary anointed Christ without any speciall command from God but not without a singular instinct of the spirit and Christ defendeth the fact not at simply good or worthy to be imitated nor because he did approve of wil-worship but because it was gratefull unto him for another use which he knew but shee knew no namely his buriall which was shortly to be Bareus s fol 853. b. Ibidem page 57. in the written copy Here indeed is a pride in Religion when God must be content either to accept of wil-worship or a freewill-offering or else he shall have nothing 75. Passageo deleted concerning the loving prizing and hearing of Gods Word IN Master Ward 's Comentary on Matthew page 110. in the written copy this clause is rased out Answ 3. Except their righteousnese exceed that of the Scribes they cannot be saved because civill honesty without Religious zeale is but like a menstrens cloth Isa 64. And afterwards the last line but four First delight in the hearing of the Word and call it not a wearinesse or hard saying we see in hunting that both the horse and the dog runne after the Hare but after a diverse manner for the horse hath no delight in that sport and therefore if he were whipt and spurred he would not ride after it but the dog delights in the pastime and therefore runs swiftly of himself without any beating Thus it is not enough to come to the house of God upon Gods day to heare his Word but we must doe it with delight and desire if we would have the Lord to approve of our hearing Ibid. page 332. there is this further deletion First how doe we love the Word whether doe we prepone or postpone other things before it we should enquire with our selves whether we so love the Word that we had rather want our meat drink and rayment and recreations and riches and all rather then the preaching of the Word of God c. Fourthly unto an example of piety and purity Phil. 2. 15. we say and see that those who are in place among the Papists are bold and couragious in the defence of their Religions and therefore it is a shame if any Protestants who are preferred either to Ecclesiasticall or civill dignities should stand as Newters betwixt two And a little after Thirdly vvhether the back and belly of the poore blesse us c. Fourthly vvhether vve use our riches for the buying and procuring the preaching of the Word or not vvhen vve vvant it For our Lord vvill take an account of the spending and disposing of our riches 76. Passages deleted concerning good works their end and against the Merit of Works and Works of Supererogation IN Master Ward 's Comentary on Matthevv p. 200. this is purged out Quest Hovv many ends are there in the performance of good vvorks Answ Foure namely first to please God secondly to glorifie God and thirdly to make our ovvne calling and election sure and fourthly to confirme strengthen and build up others Novv the morall vvorks of the naturall man fall short in all these but onely the last for sometimes his Neighbour reaps benefit thereby Ibidem printed book fol. 156. written copy fol. 68. 69. Why may we not ascribe some Merit unto our works Answ Because that were to derogate from God and his good will who so graciously invites us to come and buy grace of him without mony ormony-worth Isa 55. 1. and therefore we must not expect not exact the reward of glory as a due debt unto us from God for our works as Saint Elzearous did c. Will not this hinder and discourage men from working to remember that all their works merit nothing at Gods hand at all Ans It is so far from hindering that it furthers so farre from discouraging that it encourages so farre from lessening that it encreases and so farre from extinguishing that it enflames our desires and endeavours to be rich in good works Ibidem written copy fol. 105. We deserve nothing at the hands of God but only by the obedience of the Commandements i. e. if there be any merit it is in the obedience of the Law if Adam had merited it had been by obeying that which was commanded not that which was required for when by such things we desire to please God he will say who hath required these things at your hands Isa 1. 12. and therefore little hope can the Papists have to merit Heaven by their monasticall Vowes whether generall or particular Ibidem written copy fol. 108. It is injurious unto Christ to desire God to accept of the overplus of our brothers merits for us Here we may observe the true Mystery of Iniquity and the impious impudency of the Popish Writers and all who herein subscribe unto them who first hold that the merit of Christ is not sufficient to save us because it is not ours and we ought to have an inherent righteousnesse of our owne besides that imputative righteousnesse of his or otherwise we can never be saved And secondly that the merits of a meere man can save us although we be wicked and have no ioherent righteousnesse in us at all thus blasphemously arrogating more to the false and faigned overplus of sinfull men then to the whole sufferings and perfect merits of that Lamb without spot Ibidem written copy fol. 300. Object For the merit of works Answ First the Question between us and the Papists is demeritis secundum esse but this conclusion is inferred de Meritis secundum dici and therefore proves nothing against us Answ 2. Secondly he who can perfectly fulfill whatsoever is commanded in the Law may be said to merit the reward promised but this none are able to doe as hath been formerly in divers places proved Answ 3. Thirdly the promise of the Gospell is not doe this and live but beleeve and thou shalt be saved and therefore the reward is not merited by works but given of grace and mercy Answ 4. Fourthly these accidentall promises wherein life is promised to works doe not give a tight unto the Kingdome of Heaven for the merit of works but the profession of life everlasting through grace in Christ And therefore works are not antecedent causall and meritorious causes of this life but in respect of our right thereunto they are frequent conditions and in regard of our possession thereof they are preparations thereunto Passages expunged against Prophanenesse Libertinisme and living ending in sinne TO close up these purgations we informed you in the first Section of them p. 259.

Master Pryme IF you heare Fa. Francis his Booke or person touched let them know that we understand assuredly that it proceeds from the Jesuits most likely also by this last Letter of Mr. Midleton to the Archbishop who imploy others in it as they did against Father Leanded till it cost him his life and if that upon their informations they proceed against such persons who THOUGH IN ALL THINGS CATHOLIKE yet are more discrect and temperate and not intermedling in matters of State THE KING WILL BE MUCH OFFENDED Thus much for this Book of Sancta Clara and the Author of it The fifth Evidence we shall pitch upon to prove a designe to reconcile and reduce us back to Rome is the Popes and his Agents promises tenders of Cardinals Caps and Places to some prime English men and to this Archbishop himselfe in particular the end whereof could be no other but to enthrall us againe to the superstitious jurisdiction of the Papall See The first proffer we find of a Cardinals Cap made to any English Prelat since the Reformation was to this Archbishop who thus records the time and manner thereof with his owne hand in his Diary Aug. 4. 1633. Sunday news came to Court of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburies death and the King RESOLVED PRESENTLY to give it me which he did Aug. 6. That very morning at Greenwich there came one to me seriously and THAT AVOWED ABILITY TO PERFORME IT AND OFFERED ME TO BE A CARDINALL I went presently to the King and acquainted him both with the thing and person It is very considerable that Master Anthony Mildmay deposed that Con the Popes Nuncio told him at Rome before Archbishop Abbots death that Bishop Laud should succeed him and that he would be more favourable to the Catholikes then Abbot By which it appeares that Bishop Laud was long before Abbots death designed to the place if not at the solicitation yet at least by the approbation of the Roman party No sooner comes newes to Court of Archbishop Abbots death but the King presently resolves that Bishop Laud should succeed him and no sooner is this known at Court but that very morning as himselfe records he is thus seriously offered to be a Cardinall by one who avowed ability to performe it and that at Greenwich in the Kings own Court. Who it was that made this offer were worth the discovery but this mystery he couceales The Plot against the King discovered to him by Habernfield informes us That Con the Popes Nuncio had a command to offer A CARDINALS CAP TO THE ARCHBISHOP in the name of the Pope of Rome and that he should allure him also with greater promises but this first offer was before Con's arrivall here Were the person an English Subject of what rank soever this proffer of his to to revive this popish dignity of a Cardinall among us and to receive it from the Popes exploded forraigue power which drew Cardinall Woolsey into a Premunire if not under the guilt of high Treason though this honour was procured him not only by King Henry the 8th his assent but solicitation deserved the severest exemplary punishment especially since it tended to engage the Primate and Metropolitan of all England most obliged by his place and office against all Popish power offices superstitious doctrines to submit unto them and become the Popes sworne vassall If the Popes owne Nuncio Panzani which is probable or any other forraigne Agent the affront had been so great both to the Archbishops person place had he been cordial to our Church our Religion being both a Privy Counsellour the Kings grand favorite and he who steard our Churches helm to the honour of our Church Religion of the King himselfe and his Royall Court that it could not patiently be put up or pretermitted without some eminent satisfaction But be the person one or other certaine it is he was never once questioned or molested by the Archbishop for this proffer who took it so well at the parties hands or rejected it so coldly that on the 17. day of the same Moneth he had a second serious offer made to him of the selfe-same dignity most probably by the same person which himselfe thus Registreth in his Diary Aug. 17. 1633. Saturday I had A SERIOUS OFFER MADE ME AGAIN TO BE A CARDINALL I was then from Court but so soon as I came thither which was August 21 I acquainted his Majesty with it But my answer againe was that somewhat dwelt within me which would not suffer that till Rome were other then it is What it was that dwelt within him which made him not absolutely but for the present only to refuse this offer till Rome was other then it is we may learn from Sir Hen. Mildmay's Mr. Anth. Mildmay's Mr. Challoner's depositions forementioned and his owne Reply to Fisher pag. 171. to wit an ambitious Papall spirit he would like his worthy Predecessor Saint Anselme so he stiles him be both in Title and Jurisdiction Papa alterius Orbis Pope of our British world and Vniversall Patriarch of all the Churches within his Majesties Realmes and Dominions which Rome as it then was and the Jesuiticall party there as these witnesses have deposed distiked and would not suffer and for this cause onely he refused this dignity which would have more enthralled him to the Popes and Romes jurisdiction not to their Religion then his ambitious spirit could well brook This double serious proffer of a Romish Cardinalship to the Archbishop is an infallible Argument First that the Pope and his Conclave at Rome had an extraordinary good opinion of his favour his good affection to Popery and their Antichristian Church else they would not have profered him such a dignity incompatible to any Protestant English Prelat Secondly that they deemed him the aptest activest Instrument to reconcile and re-unite us to Rome of all other in respect of his favour at Court power with the King and inclination to Popery as Sir Henry Mildmay Master Anthony Mildmay Master Challoner have attested therefore they would honour him with a Cardinals Hat to the end that as his Predecessor Cardinall Poole Archbishop of Canterbury the last English Cardinall of any of our Prelats reconciled our revolted Kingdom to Rome in Queen Maries dayes as appeareth at large by the Statute of 1. 2. Phil. Mary ch 8. So he invested with the same Papall dignity and fitting in the self-same See might once more as easily reduce us to the bosome of the Roman Church in the dayes of this Queen Mary as Popish as the former as he did then As this Archbishop so Master Walter Mountague not long after had good hopes given him at Rome to be made a Cardinal as the Archbishop himself was informed by Mr. Middleton's forecited Letter which dignity he should have lately received thence had he not been imprisoned if Sir Kenelme Digbies Letter may be credited to help on this work

Pope corrupt Ordinances Sacraments and a meere Idolatrous supersticious will-wil-worship Thirdly no true Ministry nor government of Christs institution Fourthly she yeelds no true Subjection nor Obedience to Christ his laws word spirit but opposeth him and them in all Fiftly she is over-spread with a Leprosie of damnable Errours in Doctrine corruptions in Faith Manners Ordinances Government Sixtly the definition of a true visible Church in our Homilies and Writers agrees not to her Seventhly our Homilies Writers define her to be a false Church not a true who are all mustered up together by Master Burton in his Babell no Bethell where she is largely proved to be no true Church For his distinction that she is a true Church Veritate Entis though not Moris as a Thiefe is a true man it is a meere childish evasion For it is not the meere entity and being of a company of men that makes up a Church or true Church for if so the Turks Pagans or any assembly else should be a true Church as well as the Protestants but a company of men rightly qualified to wit professing the true Christian Faith among whom the Word of God is truly Preached and the Sacraments duly administed To set then the distinction and comparison right If one should demand of the Archbishop Whether a Theefe be a true man or no as this phrase true man in our ordinary language signifies an honest just-dealing man with reference to his qualities morals not his Entity or being as a meer man himself grants that he is no true man but a false one in this sense in this very distinction and to answer that he is a true man in regard of his essence therefore a true man in respect of his Morals were a meer impertinency Nonsequitur By the selfe-same reason when we demand of him Whether the Church of Rome be a true Church and he answers She is so Veritate entis for she consists of a company of persons or reall men not veritate moris for that they are not so truly qualified in those Morals or rather supernaturall principles which makes them to be a true Church Himselfe must needs grant that his distinction is fallacious in applying this veritas entis to them as they are a Church not men or else yeeld that they are a false but no true Church because his not veritate Moris can be applyed to nothing else but to such morall and divine qualifications as should make them a true Church so as his owne distinction directly subverts this his false conclusion of her being a true Church and his charging her with grosse Corruptions Errors Superstitions to the endangering of salvation doth the like Secondly it was retorted that his distinction of her erring onely circa fundamentalia not in Fundamentalibus was a falshood For first her affirming the Church to be built upon Peter and the Pope not Christ the chiefe corner-stone Her denying the Scriptures to be Scriptures but as they are grounded on confirmed and expounded by the Authority of the Church and Pope Her making Apochryphall Scriptures Canonicall and so adding to the Scriptures Her giving the Pope power to null and dispence with things against the Scriptures Her resolving the foundation of all our Faith into the Church To beleeve as the Church beleeves not into the Scriptures themselves Her deifying of the Virgin Mary Saints Images in praying to and adoring them with divine worship Her joyning of Saints Merits and Mediations with Christs and making them joynt Saviours Mediators Advocates with him Her turning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper into a Propitiatory Massing Sacrifice of as great or greater Merit as Christs own Sacrifice on the crosse adoring the consecrated Bread as their Lord God and Christ himselfe Her taking away the Sacramentall Cup from the Laity point-blanke against Christs owne Institution Her giving Christ an ubiquitary body on earth instead of a glorified body in heaven her tying people to pray to God in an unknown tongue with her creating a new head of the Church in Christs stead the Pope who hath the Keyes of Heaven Hell and Purgatory too and can pardon sins release Soules out of Hell and Purgatory at his pleasure with her abolishing the second Commandement out of the Decalogue What are they all but Fundamentall Errors nullifying that Church which maintaines them and not Errors onely about the foundation For his foure instances that circumstances may undermine and destroy the Foundation We answer First that neither of all these instances concerne the Papists or Church of Rome the subject in question therefore altogether impertinent Secondly they are not meer circumstantials but fundamentals because directly contrary to the expresse words of Scripture and Articles of our Faith of which they are unseparable parts which if false in any part may and will be false in the whole and no ground of Faith at all For the rule of the Schools we agree it but how he applyes it to his distinction or the Church of Rome we cannot yet discerne Thirdly it was replyed That the Religion of the Church of Rome and England is not one and the same For that which they repute the maine part of their Religion is no Christian Religion at all nor part of the Christian Religion but meere Antichristian Errour Superstition corruption Idolatry And in his Booke he doth no more charge her with some grosse corruptions endangering Salvation then she chargeth us as the perusall of his words demonstrates Fourthly his justifying salvation to be had in this false Antichristian Church and Religion denying the foundation is contrary to the opinion of all Otthodox Protestants who make her damnable Errours the ground of their separation from her And though some affirme that divers in the Church of Rome are saved yet none are saved by being of that Church or by that Faith and Doctrine which she properly cals her Faith and Religion wherein she differs from us but by their relying onely on Christs merits which she disclaimes Fiftly his deleting all phrases clauses calling or intimating the Pope to be the Antichrist is a cleer evidence that he holds him not to be so Else his sinne fault will prove the greater in purging out that as Heterodox and scandalous which himselfe beleeves to be a truth For our Statutes Homilies Writers they define the Pope either in direct termes or equivalent expressions to be Antichrist and our Church yea State in them at leastwise in our forecited Statutes and the Subsidy Act 3. Jac. penned by the Convocation As for the Articles of Ireland though they bind us not yet being taken out of the Articles and Homilies of England they sufficiently declare the resolution of our Church as well as theirs that the Pope is Antichrist and Doctor Vsher Primate of Armagh in a Letter of his to the Archbishop himselfe Jan. 4. 1635. the very day of his birth writes That this conceit is so rife in the minds and mouths of the Papists

Ireland that he knew of the great growth and power of Papists there even in the yeer 1626. two yeers before his Answer to the Commons Remonstrance which lyes on him substantially to prove that it was made by the Kings command as to this particular not yet attempted by him his owne bare endorsment being no proofe in his owne case The Letters Papers afterwards received by him from Ireland most cleerly manifest his exact intelligence of popish Priests and Papists dangerous encrease and proceedings there without the least opposition from him or complaint against them The smalnesse of their Monasteries Nunneries there erected is no extenuation of his guilt Small evils not suppressed will prove grand universall mischiefes in short time as those their Monasteries and Nunneries there have done For the Lord Deputies Letters it 's true he could not hinder the directing and sending of them to him but he might have hindered prevented the execution of his desperate popish project related in them and have crushed it in the shell which he never did To the seventh was answered that his extraordinary former power both with the King and Queen might and should have engaged him so farre as to prevent those Roman Nuncioes arrivall here and our Agents at Rome whom he never so much as once opposed for ought appeares but complied with by his Agents Bishop Mountague and Secretary Windebank as we have fully manifested when as he should rather have lost his Archbishoprick liberty life then have any way consented to it in the least degree and openly resisted it to his utmost power The third Objection against me is my compliance with the popish party and endeavours to introduce Popery advance the Papists Designes and reduce us back to Rome by seven particulars formerly insisted on and now onely recapitulated with reference to the former proofs To most of all these I have given full answers before and therefore shall be the briefer in giving further answers to them now The first second fourth fifth sixth and seventh instances I deny in the sense they are pressed and have acquitted my selfe from them in the premises To the third I shall give some further Answer First it is there objected that I maintaintained the Church of Rome to be a true Church and that she erred not in Fundamentals no not in the worst times bue onely Circa Fundamentalia And that I justified Chownaeus his Book who maintained the same I answer that I did doe maintain her to be a true Church Veritate entis not Moris though corrupt erronious in some points as a thief is a true man though a thiefe And in my Book against Fisher I charge her with some grosse corruptions errours to the very endangering of salvation and with superstition too Secondly I am charged that I did maintaine at Doctor Bastwicks censure that she erred not in Fundamentalibus but Circa Fundamentalia this distinction I shall still maintaine There is a great difference between Fundamentalia and Superstructoria and yet some circumstantials may destroy the foundation For example First Quid What it is a man beleeves if a man beleeves the Trinity without the Unity or the Unity without the Trinity this plucks up the Foundation Secondly Vbi the circumstance of place for if any should deny that Christ was borne or took his flesh in Judea this grates upon the very foundation Thirdly Quibus Auxiliis we beleeve convert and doe works of piety by nature or grace If by the strength of nature onely as the Pelagians held this endangers the foundation Fourthly Quando as to deny that Christ is not already come in the flesh this subverts the foundation though but a circumstance And it is a rule in the Schools Aliqua circumstantia dat speciem morali actioni and in this sense the Church of Rome doth erre about fundamentals Thirdly it is alleaged that I hold the Religion of the Church of England and Rome is both one Conference with Fisher page 576. I answer that it is one and the same Religion in the generall to wit the Christian Religion But yet I there write That we differ in the same Religion though we set not up a different Religion and the difference is in certaine grosse corruptions to the very endangering of salvation which each side sayes the other is guilty of Fourthly that I maintain people may be saved in the Roman Church and Religion I answer that other learned Protestants are of the same opinion not generally of all but of those among them who want meanes of better instruction yet I hold it is very dangerous to continue in that Church and Religion for any who have means to come out of them Fiftly that I hold the Pope is not the Antichrist and therefore I caused this Title given him to be expunged authorized received printed Books denying him to be Antichrist as Shelfords and others contrary to our Homilies Writers and the Articles of Ireland I answer that no man can charge me that I hold the Pope not to be Antichrist It is a great question even among learned Protestants whether he be so o● not The Church of England hath not positively resolved him to be so The Homilies define him not to be Antichrist and the Articles of Ireland binde not us here My expunging of this Title and others of that nature was upon other grounds However it is no such undoubted Article of Faith as Powell in his Booke De Antichristo with others make it As for the objected Books I neither Licensed nor approved them though I had them in my Study Sixtly it is objected that I hold the Pope to be supreame head of the Church Though Francis Sales and others stile him so they must answer for it it s nothing at all to me who hold it not As for his titles given me by Croxton the University of Oxford in their Letters it was without my privity I could not hinder it and the same Titles have been usually given to Bishops in former ages as appeares by the Epistles of Saint Cyprian Augustine and others Seventhly for Pocklingtons and Bishop Mountagues deriving my Succession from Augustin Gregory and Saint Peters Chaire at Rome it was without my privity It is no more then Master Mason hath proved long before my time and the Papists would give you harty thanks could you disprove this lineall Succession of our Bishops To this was replyed in generall that all the seven objected particulars prove a most apparant designe in him to introduce Popery and reconcile us to Rome and that all his Answers to them had been formerly disproved as false and impertinent In particular That the Church of Rome was no true Church at all but a false Antichristian as well as a corrupt Church for First it hath no true Foundation being not built upon the Apostles Prophets and Christ the corner-Stone Secondly no true Head Ordinances Sacraments Worship but a false adulterous head the