Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	apostle_n	church_n	elder_n	5,779	5	10.2377	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B01998	Certaine papers, which passed betwixt his Majestie of Great Britaine, in the time of his being with the Scottish army in New-Castle. And Mr. Alexander Henderson concerning the change of church government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2154; Wing C2154; ESTC R171161	26,474	64

other the like which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent nisijam se pervenisse crederent 4. In my Answer to the first of your Majesties many Arguments I brought a Breviate of some Reasons to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same in Scripture from which by necessary consequence I did inferre the negative Therefore no difference in Scripture between a Bishop and a Presbyter the one name signifying Industriam Curae Pastoralis the other Sapientiae Maturitatem saith Beda And whereas your Majesty averres that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvin's time your Majesty knowes the common objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches where was your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luther's time One part of the common Answer is that it was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirme of Presbyterian-Government And for proving of this the Assembly of Divines at Westminster have made manifest that the Primitive Christian Church at Ierusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That the Church of Ierusalem consisted of more Congregations then one from the multitude of Believers from the many Apostles and other Preachers in that Church and from the diversity of Languages among the Believers 2. That all those Congregations were under one Presbyteriall Government because they were for Government one Church Acts 11.22 26. And because that Church was governed by Elders Acts 11.30 which were Elders of that Church did meet together for Acts of Government And the Apostles themselves in that meeting Acts 15. acted not as Apostles but as Elders stating the Question debating it in the ordinary way of disputation and having by search of Scripture found the will of God they conclude It seemed good too the Holy Ghost and us which in the judgement of the learned may be spoken by any Assembly upon like evidence of Scripture The like Presbyterian Government had place in the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. in the times of the Apostles and after them for many yeares when one of the Presbytery was made Episcopus Praeses even then Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur saith Ierome Episcopos magis consuetudine quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Commune debere Ecclesiam regere 5. Farre be it from me to think such a thought as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy in your other maine Argument from Antiquity As we are to distinguish between Intentio Operantis Conditio Operis so may we in this case consider the difference between Intentio Argumentantis Conditio Argumenti And where your Majesty argues that if your Opinion be not admitted we will be forced to give place to the Interpretation of private Spirits which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle Peter and will prove to be of dangerous consequence I humbly offer to be considered by Your Majesty what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have taught us That the Interpretation of Scriptures and the Spirits whence they proceed may be called private in a threefold sense 1. Ratione Personae if the Interpreter be of a private condition 2. Ratione Modi Medii when Persons although not private use not the publique meanes which are necessary for finding out the Truth but follow their owne fancies 3. Ratione finis when the Interpretation is not proposed as Authenticall to bind others but is intended onely for our owne private satisfaction The first is not to be despised the second is to be exploded and is condemned by the Apostle Peter the third ought not to be censured But that Interpretation which is Authenticall and of supreme Authority which every mans conscience is bound to yeild unto is of an higher nature And although the Generall Councell should resolve it the Consent of the Fathers should be had unto it yet there must alwaies be place left to the judgment of Discretion as Davenant late Bishop of Salisbury beside divers others hath learnedly made appeare in his Book De Iudice Controversiarum where also the Power of Kings in matter of Religion is solidly and unpartially determined Two words onely I adde one is that notwithstanding all that is pretended from Antiquity a Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction will never be found in Prime Antiquity The other is that many of the Fathers did unwittingly bring forth that Antichrist which was conceived in the times of the Apostles therefore are incompetent Judges in the Question of Hierarchy And upon the other part the Lights of the Christian Church at and since the beginning of the Reformation have discovered many secrets concerning the Antichrist and his Hierarchy which were not knowne to former Ages And diverse of the learned in the Roman Church have not feared to pronounce That whosoever denies the true literall sense of many Texts of Scripture to have been found out in this last Age is unthankfull to God who hath so plentifully powred forth his Spirit upon the Children of this Generation ungratefull towards those men who with so great paines so happy successe so much benefit to Gods Church have travailed therein This might be instanced in many places of Scripture I joyne together Diotrephes and the Mystery of Iniquity the one as an old example of Church-ambition which was also too palpable in the Apostles themselves And the other as a cover of Ambition afterwards discovered which two brought forth the great Mystery of the Papacy at last 6. Although your Maj sty be not made a Judge of the Reformed Churches yet you so farre censure them and their actions as without Bishops in your judgment they cannot have a lawfull Ministery nor a due Administration of the Sacraments Against which dangerous destructive Opinion I did alledge what I supposed your Majesty would not have denied 1. That Presbyters without a Bishop may Ordaine other Presbyters 2. That Bapatisme administred by such a Presbyter is another thing than Baptisme administred by a private Person or by a Midwife Of the first your Majesty calls for proofe I told you before that in Scripture it is manifest 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee which was given Thee by the Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery so it is in the English Translation And the word Presbytery so often as it is used in the New Testament alwaies signifies the Persons and not the Office And although the Offices of Bishop and Presbyter were distinct yet doth not the Presbyter derive his power of Order from the Bishop The Evangelists were inferior to the Apostles yet had they their power not from the Apostles but from Christ The same I affirme of the 70. Disciples who had their power immediately from Christ no lesse then the Apostles had theirs It may upon

favour you have yet made no sufficient proofe to My judgement Indeed if you could have brought or can bring authority of Scripture for this opinion I would and will yet with all reverence submit but as for your Examples out of the Old Testament in My mind they rather make for than against Me all those reformations being made by Kings and it is a good preanable though I will not say convîncing Argument that if God would have approved of a popular reforming way there were Kings of Iudah and Israel sufficiently negligent and ill to have made such examples by but by the contrary the 16. Chap. of Numbers shewes clearly how God disapproves of such courses but I forget this Assertion is to be proved by you yet I may put you in the way wherefore let me tell you that this pretended power in the People must as all others either be directly or else declaratorily by approbation given by God which as soon as you can doe I submit Otherwise your prove nothing For the citing of private Mens opinions more then as they concurre with the generall consent of the Church in their time weighs little with Me it being too well known that Rebels never wanted Writers to maintain their unjust actions and though I much reverence Bishop Iewels memory I never thought him infallible for Bilson I remember well what opinion the King My Father had of him for those Opinions and how He shewed him some favour in hope of his recantation as His good nature made him do many things of that kind but whether he did or not I cannot say To conclude this point untill you shall prove this position by the word of God as I will Regall Authority I shall think all popular Reformation little better than Rebellions for I hold that no Authority is lawfull but that which is either directly given or at least approved by God 2ly Concerning the English Reformation the first reason you bring why Q. Elizabeth did not finish it is because she tooke not away Episcopacy the hints of reason against which Government you say I take no notice of now I thought it was sufficient notice yea and answer too when I told you a negative as I conceived could not be proved and that it was for Me to prove the affirmative which I shall either doe or yeild the Argument as soone as I shall be assisted with Bookes or sch Men of My opinion who like you have a Library in their braine And so I must leave this particular untill I be furnished with means to put it to an issue which had been sooner done if I could have had My will indeed your second well proved is most sufficient which is that the English Church-Government is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles but I conceive your probation of this doubly defective for first albeit our Archbishops and Bishops should have professed Church-government to be mutable ambulatory I conceive it not sufficient to prove your Assertion and secondly I am confident you cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking position for some particulars must not conclude the generall for which you must find much better Arguments than their being content with the Constitution of the Church and the authority and munificence of Princes or you will fall extreamly short As for the retaining of the Roman leven you must prove it as well as say it else you say little But that the conforming of the Church discipline to the civill policy should be a depraving of it I absolutely deny for I averre that without it the Church can neither flourish nor be happy And for your last instance you shall doe well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named and yet in one sence I doe not conceive that the Church of England hath added any for an Archbishop is onely a distinction for order of Government not a new Officer and so of the rest and of this kind I believe there are diverse now in Scotland which you will not condemne as the Moderators of Assemblies and others 4. Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be alwaies so it is in the Apostles time now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour albeit in their time they caused diverse to be called so as Barnabas and others so that I believe this Argument makes little for you As for your proofe of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can doe more then Eusebius could and I shall believe when I see it for your former Paper affirmes that those times were very darke for matter of fact and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it then those you mention for because there were diverse Congregations in Ierusalem ergo what are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess your two first I answer but as one Argument and because the Apostles met with those of the inferior Orders for Acts of Government what then even so in these times doe the Deanes and Chapters and many times those of the inferior Clergy assist the Bishops but I hope you will not pretend to say that there was an equality between the Apostles and other Presbyters which not being doth in My judgment quite invalidate these Arguments And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. then you have for Ierusalem it will gaine no ground on Me As for S. Ierome it is well knowne that he was no great Friend to Bishops as being none himselfe yet take him altogether and you will find that he makes a cleer distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter as your self confesses but the truth is he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equall to Presbyters 5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy though I thinke to have had reason for saying what I did But by your favour I doe not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture and I appeale to the Practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer neither of which to My understanding you have yet done nor have you shewne how waving those Iudges I appeale unto the mischiefe of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by antiquity that Ordination and Iurisdiction belongs to Bishops thereby cleerly distinguishing them from other Presbyters I shall then begin to misdoubt many of My former foundations as for Bishop