Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	ceremonial_a	law_n	moral_a	5,536	5	9.9611	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04215	A defence of the churches and ministery of Englande Written in two treatises, against the reasons and obiections of Maister Francis Iohnson, and others of the separation commonly called Brownists. Published, especially, for the benefitt of those in these partes of the lowe Countries.	Jacob, Henry, 1563-1624.	1599 (1599)	STC 14335; ESTC S107526	96,083	102

not your Assumption but that which I had made briefer conteyning the effect of yours This was the Assumption denyed by me But a Galatian is a false christian As he that hath but halfe an eye may see Secondly to cease needles strife I deny therefore your Proposition Though a Galatian * that is So holding it as the worst did or els this is a sophisticall Equi uocation holding circumcision cannot bee a true Christian yet an English Christian holding the Hyerarchie c. may The Reason of this denyall I gaue you then but that you would not see it Namelie because such Galatians held Iustification by the works and ceremonies of the Law Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 Act. 15.1 Like the Papistes who by their ceremoniall and morall workes doe hold the same and so doe erre Fundamentally But our Churches and state hold not the Hyerarchie so but only as an indifferent thing in it selfe This blasphemous opinion of Circumcision maketh it infinitelie worse though once it was ordeined of God then our indifferent opinion of the Hyerarchie though in deed it were neuer but nought Thirdlie and lastlie you haue no where cleared Maister Cranmer Ridley Latimer the rest of those holy Martirs from being abolished from Christ if the Hyerarchie be simply worse then Circumcision so hold as those Galatians did hold Gal. 5.2 3 4 5. Maister IOHNSONS IIII. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON IIII. THe doctrines of faith conteyned in that Booke alleadged would not make him a true Christian who holding them should also still executs or ioyne vnto the Ministerie of Mahomet that open Antichrist and enemie of Jesus Christ 2. Cor. 6.14 c. Therefore neither can they make him a true Christian that holding them yet doth still execute or ioyne vnto the Ministerie and worship of the man of sinne the couert Antichrist and enemie of Iesus Christ. H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 4. Reason THis your 4. Reason is Mahomets Ministerie and Antichristes Ministerie are both bad alike But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot saue a man that ioyneth also to Mahomets Ministerie Ergo the good doctrines of that booke cannot saue a man that ioyneth also to Antichristes Ministerie which thing we in England doe I deny neither the Proposition nor Assumption And yet the Argument is too bad It is a fallacie of Equiuocation as wee call it Wee must therefore distinguish Mahomets Ministerie and Antichrists Ministerie haue a doubtfull meaning If you meane the whole function and exercise of publique worship performed in Mahomets or Antichristes assemblies that is in the Turkish or Popish Churches The I graunt your whole argument is * Both are nought alike as touching abolishing vs from Christ true But that we doe so in England which comes in the conclusion Or that any Christian amongst vs thinketh so That I vtterlie deny And thus indeed that Scripture alleadged 2. Cor. 6.14 is rightly vnderstood But if you meane by Ministerie the outward manner of calling to the Ministerie som outward ceremonies vsed by Mahomet or the Pope Then I flatly and absolutely deny your Assumption and your Scripture is answered before in the First Reason For I affirme and it is manifest That such errors being ioyned with the good doctrines of that our Booke doe not destroy faith and true Christianitie As before was shewed in the Second Exception F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 4. Reason HEre the light of the trueth doeth so dazell the Answerers eyes as he freelie confesseth he can not denie any whit of our Reason And yet forsooth the Argument is too bad But why so There is hee sayth an equiuocation in it and therefore he will distinguish But First wee tell him there is no equiuocation at all in the words but they are al plain to him that hath a single eye and will vnderstand the trueth Therefore his distinction heere is idle friuolous Yet see also betweene what things he doeth distinguish Forsooth betwene the whole function and exercise of publique worship perfourmed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies and betwene the outward maner of calling to their Ministery and the outward ceremonies vsed amongest them An absurd distinction touching the matter in hande For first who knoweth not that these latter are of the very same nature with the former Are not their outward callings and ceremonies false Anticristian accursed before God aswell as the rest of their worship and seruice Or hath God in his worde giuen any commaundement more for these then for the other Secondly who seeth not that the argument here is not of whatsoeuer thing is vsed among the Turkes and Papistes but of the Ministerie and worship which they haue deuised and executed As in particular of the publique offices of Ministerie retey ned among them of their maner of calling and entrance into them of their administration of them of their stinted imposed Liturgie their ecclesiasticall gouernement cannons proceedings c. All which in the church of England are taken out of * Reu. 17.4 5 2. Thes 2.3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12. that golden cuppe of abominations whereby Antichrist That man of sinne hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken as may appeare by cōparing their Pontificalls Canons and constitutions togeather If this man will needes be otherwise minded then let him proue the particulars aforesaide by the Testament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore also marke here that he graunteth the doctrine of faith conteyned in their booke of Articles cannot make him a true Christian that holdinge them doth withall receiue and ioyne vnto the publike worship perfourmed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies This he saith he graunteth as most true Wherevpon it followeth euen by his owne confession First that such thingh then may be ioyned with the doctrines of faith receiued among them as they in such estate cannot be deemed true Christians or true Churches Neither the truthes which they holde be auaylable to them Secondlie that therefore the Proposition of his First and mayne Argument is not generall but admitteth limitation so his greatest defence is of no weight as before is shewed in the beginning in our answere to that Proposition Thirdlie that his answere to our Seconde Exception before alleadged is of no force howsoeuer heere and euery where he referre vs to it For which also we referre the Reader to that which is saide in that place in defence of the Exception aforesaid As also for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14 vnto that which is said concerning it in defence of our First Reason before alleadged H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 4. Reason IN this your defence of your 4. Reason you renewe your Sophistrie And that which is worse you wil not be tolde of it Is it because of the goodnes of your Reason that I denie no Proposition Nay it is for the badnes of it because all is nought all