Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	believe_v	church_n	tradition_n	3,808	5	9.3936	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73049	Englands pvrginge fire Conteyninge two petitions, the one to the Kinges most excellent Majesty, the other to the High Courte of Parliament held at this tyme in England. Shewinge in diverse perticulers, how the Church in England might be ordered, yet more conformably to the Will of God reveiled in his worde then at this day it is. Herewithall is declared, the evell and lamentable effects of our vnable and negligent ministers: and the happy fruict of our learned and painefull pastors. A worke most needefull for theise tymes, as servinge to turne away the wrath and iudgements of God from this lande, through the removinge, (accordinge to the advertisements herein given) such disorders and evells, as for which the wrath of God may be, and is, kindled against this Land, and the church therein.	Proctor, Thomas, fl. 1621.	1621 (1621)	STC 20408.5; ESTC S124597	53,590	98

of Comparison in Teachinge Lastly seing Preachinge is a labour the Apostle might well say specially they that labour and yet without making use of any comparison betweene them and other Teachers neither indeede cann it be said that any one that Teacheth at all laboureth not in the worde and Doctryne Theise things considered we have good warrant from this Scripture to collect and affirme That in asmuch as none may deny but that by this speach some were to have double Honour though they Ruled well onely And in asmuch as no Teacher but deservs reproofe if he Rule well onely and Teach not Therefore here is an evidence That the Christian Church was to have in it Elders who were not to be Teachers but Rulers onely This evidence from sacred Scripture for such Governours considered how cann any safely oppose the worke of one of the speciall Angells of the Reformation even Calvin in his restoringe such to the Church of God Doubtless a speciall Act of a speciall Angell of the Reformation is no smale bond unto the rest of the Churches Reformed specially when it hath this Light from Scripture of the correspondence thereof to the Ordinance of God in the first and Apostolically planted Churches Thus having proved that Governours who were not Teachers were yet ordeined by God to be in the Church I now pray that I may proceede to answer certaine questions which may by some be moved cōcerni●● such Governours Some may say If theise were then in the Church yet is there any necessity that such should be now also in our Church I answere Though all Officers and Offices which we fynde by Scripture to have bene in the Church be not necessarily to be now also in our tymes in the Church for vve read of Apostles Prophets to foretell things also of vvorkers of Miracles Speakers of Tongues Interpreters of Tongues c all which being by extraordinary Guifts of the Spirit the Guift failinge the Office and Officer faileth also yet such Offices as might be executed vvithout such extradinary Gifts vvere to be continued in the Church And indeede vvhy have vve Arch-Bishops Bishops Preists and Deacons if not because such were ordeyned in the first plantation of the Church and might be continued by Ordination vvithout any Neede of any extraordinary Guifts of the Spirit As therefore vve are necessarily to follow the example of Gods Ordinance in the beginning for theise so the same example is a bond for the Churches havinge in it also such Governours as now I vvrite of To conclude as in the Reformation we retayne such Cleargy and Offices as which have some evidence in holy Scripture to be planted by Gods Ordinance in the Church in the first tymes so this evidence in Scripture for Governours who are not to be Teachers ought to be a bond to the Church to restore this Ordinance of God to the Church in the Reformation made For seinge vve followe not Tradition vvithout some evidence in Scripture for other Offices of our Cleargy vve ought not to followe the corruption and neglect of Tradition against the Scriptures light yeilded us for such Governours as now I vvrite Let us not therefore kick against Gods Ordinance Let us not despise it as a needeless thinge Let us not bringe downe visitations upon us for such neglect Let us not say all is already vvell Reformed vvhen yet such Governours are not in our Church but rather let us meekely beare the yoake of this Ordinance of God also that so our people and Congregations may hereby be the more Christianly Governed Cann vve thinke that the Neglect of such an Ordinance of God vvill not breede a defect in the vvell Governinge of the Church Doubtless as all the Ordinances of God rended to the furtherance of the Ghospells out spreadinge and well Governinge them converted by the Ghospell so where so speaciall an Ordinance is omitted as is this of plantinge Governours vvho are not Teachers there both the Ghospell vvill the less prevaile and the people also vvill be the more negligent to bringe fourth the fruicts thereof in their life and conversation Doe but looke upon the difference of people and effect of the Ghospell vvhere such Governours are and vvhere they are not restored and by the evidence vvhich experience yeilds be moved to acknowledge the Benefit of restoringe this Ordinance of the Lords Againe some may say How have theise failed all this tyme To this also I answere It is indeede uncertaine hovv but yet seinge vve fynde by the vvorde of God that by Gods Ordinance such vvere planted in the Church vve have good cause to Beleeve that by some corruption of Tradition they failed For my parte I conceave That soone after the Apostles tymes the Church converted all Church Officers into Cleargy and by makinge all Cleargy the use of Lay Governours falled Moreover the convertinge them into Cleargy might occasion that they were not founde in after tyme in every Church because of the insupportable burthen of every Church or Congregations maintayninge of its Charge many Persons Againe some may say Are they then to be Lay Men I answere yes for if God exempt not any as for his Cleargy from labouringe for their owne Meanes but such as Preach the Ghospell none who are not Preachers of the Ghospell are may be accoumpted Cleargy But these as before I have proved were not to be Teachers or Preachers of the Ghospell therefore they were not to be of the Cleargy but of the Laiety And that none but those who Preach the Ghospell exempted as Gods Cleargy from labour may appeare by that which the Apostle 1. Cor. 9 14 saith in theise wordes So also hath the Lord Ordeined that they which Preach the Ghospell should live of the Ghospell And verse 6 he saith Or I onely and Barnabas have not we power not to worke who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock Where we see that it is the Ministration of the Ghospell that conferrs upon any this Priviledge that he is not to worke for his livinge but is to be maintayned of the Charge of Gods People Now Cleargy is as much as Gods Lot set apart to be maintayned of the Charge of Gods people for the Service they do to God for others therefore none but such may be accoumpted Gods Cleargy Moreover if the Apostle argue for this Priviledge from any ones Preaching the Ghospell how shall we vvarrantably ease our selvs of that rabble of Popish Cleargy which by corruption of Tradition Popery would thrust upon us if we understande not the Apostle here that onely they who feede the flock by Preaching are to be accoumpted for Cleargy If it be now obiected that Deacons are Cleargy and yet Deacons Preach not untill they be licensed then I answer That Deacons may be restreyned not for that they may not Preach by right but for that they should first be tried and proved least being yonge Students they preach evell Doctryne through

withholdeth that he might be reveiled in his tyme so indeede it fell out for the Emperors keepinge his Seate at Rome withheld the Bishopp of Romes Reveilinge but the Emperor removinge his Seate to Constantinople this Councill of Nice some few yeares after was assembled where theise huge extents of Iurisdiction beinge confirmed the Bishop of Rome beinge held as Cheife of them this caused his first measure of Reveilinge It is fit therefore that that Councils proceedings be examined whither in oughts God left it to dissent from his sacred Worde Papists usually alleadge that Councill as countenancinge the offeringe up of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Service of the Lords Supper but if this that Councill did then expressly erred it from the Scriptureis nstruction concerninge that Service And how neere it was to forbid Preists the copulation with their vvives vvhich Gods worde commandes 1. Cor 7 3 is well knowen to all that have read the Story of those tymes To this I may add the uncertainety of its Canons seinge they are with such uncertainety brought us by Tradition For all theise reasons I conclude that that Councill is not so to be maintayned in its Ordinances as that the instruction of sacred Scripture is not rather to be followed But who that looketh into the holy Scripture shall not see That Timothy and Titus such as were like them held the highest ordinary Offices in the Church next unto the Apostles themselvs for by the Epistles of Timothy and Titus it is evident that the Apostle set them in Office next himselfe over the Churches that were planted Churches were planted and they had their Officers and Governours but then the Apostle ordeyned theise over them againe and this is manifest in that Titus had Charge over diverse Cityes Whilst therefore there is this evidence for their Office and whilst there is that evidence before noted that our Arch-Bishops succeede them in that Office and vvhilst the Church ever held a cessation of Apostles and the Apostle 1. Cor. 4 9 saith I thinke that God hath set fourth us the last Apostles c We have good reason not to suffer other offices to usurpe Authority over Arch-Bishops or any Arch-Bishopps to be subiugated unto any other Ecclesiasticall Ministration But if we permit the continuance of those huge extents whereof we read then as necessarily many Arch-Bishopdomes yea Patriarchdomes must be comprised therein so the Bishop of that Seate must be advanced over and exercise a Ministration ovet Arch-Bishopps yea over Patriarchs which thinge what is it but both an evertion of the Politie ecclesiasticall which God by his Ordinance Apostles taken away sent the church withall under the Wings of Kinges and Princes and also a bringinge in Superiorityes Throanes and Powers never ordeyned by the Lord As therefore experience hath showen that when an Arch-Bishoprick hath necessarily bene divided then tvvo Arch-Bishops are placed therein without subiugating the one under the other so those antient extents of bounds ought with the increase of the Convertion of people to have bene divided into many Arch-Bishopdomes and this without subiugatinge every of them to the Arch-Bishopp of some one city who by this meanes as he is to take a New Title so also he entereth into a new Ministration never ordeyned by the Lord. If any say hath not every Snccessor right to retayne the bownds of his predecessors jurisdiction I answere yes where there is no prejudice thereby to the Church and to the Ordinances of God but when retayninge the same he must necessarily Rule over them whom God by his Ordinance set next unto Apostles he then subverts the Ordinance of God so longe as he cannot make himselfe an Apostle Neither cann any ones succeedinge in the Seate of an Apostle conferr upon him an Apostles Dignity and Office for this were to make such a one an Apostle but we have good cause to aske of such a one the signes of his Apostleship 2. Cor. 12 12. I conclude therefore that those extents of Iurisdiction which carry with them a bringinge into the Church Powers and Ministrations above that of Arch-Bishops are unlawfull as bringinge into the Church strange Ministrations which have no manner warrant from Gods Worde in Scripture but rather are contrary to the Politie which there God manifesteth to his Church And indeede because of the huge extent of the Pope of Romes jurisdiction we fynde that above Arch Bishopps are Patriarchs as also Cardinalls as now Cardinalls are Popes Legats and a rabble of other who all serve rather as Ministers of this Corruption of Ecclesiastical Politie warranted by God then of the church of the Ghospell For how many are the Officers which the Pope of Rome needeth for to serve him only in the executiō of so large a jurisdictiō as now he exerciseth even so proportionably is it with every Patriarch yea with every Arch-Bisshop when he hath a Iurisdiction so farr extended fourth as that neither he can personally visit conveniently the parts of his Charge nor they of his Charge cann conveniently make Accusatiōs unto him if the Parishional or Episcopal Goverments faile in executiō of Iustice But now seinge God hath given so blessed Testimony to the Reforminge of things by his worde in Scripture why should not such Offices be cut off as superfluous and justly Offensive which exercise any Authority over the Arch-Bishops of the Christian church Should we not thinke that the Lord expects a Reformation even herein aswell as in Doctryne Should not his vvords direction be of power with us aswell in Reforminge errors of Iurisdictions or Powers Offices as in reforminge of Doctrynes Therefore if the Scripture shew that the Offices of Timothy Titus was the highest ordinary Office in the Church after Apostles ceased as beinge in the life tyme of the Apostles next to the Apostles and if there be good evidence that those had under them at the most but Bishopps of Cityes then why should not Arch-Bishopps be acknowledged as Succeeders into their Office and consequently to be the highest ecclesiasticall Officer which God sent the Church with amonge the Nations after his taking away of Apostles If it be said that those who succeeded into the Seates of Timothy or Titus and others like them are Patriarchs not Arch-Bishopps then I demande what Manner Bishops cann any prove that either Timothy or Titus or the next Successors ruled over whither were they Arch-Bishos or onely Bishopps of Cityes Surely the greatest evidence of purest and most antient Tradition is that those of those Seates were first accoumpted but Arch-Bishops and though they seemed to have Charge of a greate circuit of grownde yet where any Arch-Bishop was ordeyned I fynde not any good evidence that they exercised Authority over them also as now Patriarchs doe over them and the Pope over Patriarches As for the extendinge out of Care or seeminge-Charge of the Churches in greate extent we fynde in antient tyme not