Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	according_a	church_n	word_n	2,966	5	4.1215	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87820	A moderate answer vnto Dr. Bastvvicks book; called Independency not Gods ordinance. Wherein is declared the manner how some churches in this city were gathered, and upon what tearmes their members were admitted; that so both the Dr. and the reader may judge, how near some beleevers who walk together in the fellowship of the gospell, do come in their practice to these apostolicall rules which are propounded by the Dr. as Gods method in gethering churches and admitting members. / By Hanserd Knollys. Printed and published according to order. Imprimatur, Ja: Cranford.	Knollys, Hanserd, 1599?-1691.	1645 (1645)	Wing K717; Thomason E293_5; ESTC R200159	15,353	23

subject to a Common-councell or Court of Presbyters The Doctor urgeth that Scripture the third Epistle of John the 9.10,11 verses as an invincible Argument You shall finde it thus expounded by the Doctor pag. 15. ' And therefore when Diotrephes assumed to himself and his particular congregation a power and authority to rule according to his will and pleasure without the consent of the Presbyterie and opposed Iohn the Presbyter He sharply reproves his proceedings and signifies to the Church That when he came he would remember his words and teach him how to prate against the Presbytery with malicious words Which is an evill thing in him saith St. Iohn It was evill in him to assume unto himself and his particular congregation that power that belonged unto the colledge or councell of Presbyters and was to be moderated and exercised onely by the conjoynt and common-consent of the Presbytery For God hath appointed that the Church should be governed by a Presbytery and Diotrephes would have his congregation Independent and have an absolute jurisdiction within it self which saith St. Iohn is an evill thing Now let the Reader judge whether the Dr. be not much mistaken in his Commentary-exposition and application of this place of Scripture And let me give you to understand that St. Iohn saith verse 9. I wrote unto the Church Or as Beza upon that verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripsi nonnihil Ecclesiae that is I have written something to the Church But seeing no mention is made of any perticular Congregation how can the Dr. so confidently affirm that it was his particular Congregation Now the Reader may see plainly That the Dr. can expound those Brethren and their Elders or Presbyters which the Scripture calles a Church to be a particular Congregation And what it was which St. Iohn had written to the Church is not in this Epistle nor any other Scripture declared except it was to receive those Brethren which he saith verse 8. ought to be received and verse 10. whom Diotrephes would not receive how then doth the Doctor say That Diotrephes assumed that power to himself which belonged unto the Colledge and councell of Presbyters without whose joynt and mutuall agreement and common-consent nothing ought to be done or transacted of publike concernment Is the receiving of Brethren or casting out of Brethren a power which belongs to a Colledge of Presbyters and neither the one nor the other may be transacted by the Elders and Brethren of a particular congregation unlesse the court or common-councell of Presbyters conjoyntly consent unto it Let it be also considered That Diotrephes opposed the Brethren and forbade them that would have received those who St. Iohn saith verse 8. we ought to receive yea and cast them ought vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volentes admittere prohibet de Ecclesia dejicit That is and forbiddeth them that would or are willing to admit them and casteth them out of the church to wit excommunicates them Doth it hereby appear that Diotrephes would have his congregation Independent and have an absolute jurisdiction within it self No but Diotrephes would Lord it over the church and have the pre-eminence above his brethren whether fellow Elders or fellow Saints verse ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed amans primatum gerere in eos Diorephes that is But Diotrephes loving the primacie amongst them He would be the Primate and Metropolitan of the church and have the Pre-eminence of all the Presbyters in it and Brethren of it The Doctor could have urged this Scripture against the domineering Prelates and why should he marvail that his Brethren should now urge it against the court of Presbyters It is confessed Diotrephes did that which was evill in usurping Authority over the church and those Brethren whom he cast out of the church But that he was the first that opposed the Presbyterian Government or that he did affront a Court and common-councell of Presbyters is more then I know or the Doctor can prove For had Diotrephes done so why was he not convented before them surely the Apostle and Elder St. Iohn would rather have written to the colledge of Presbyters if there were any such then to the Church or in writing to the Church would rather have sent him a summons to appear at some consistorie before the Court and common-councell of Presbyters then to warne them to take heed of his evill that they did not follow it And doubtlesse St. Iohn would have written thus Diotrephes loves to be a Primate among you wherefore when the Presbyterie that is to say the Magistracy or Signory of grave solid learned religious and wise Divines and Ministers come to keep order and met together in a Court and common-councell I will remember his deeds and inform or complain to the Court and common-councell of Presbyters that he prates against us the Presbyters with malicious words But the Apostle St. Iohn did not know any Court or common-councell of Presbyters neither Classicall nor Synod call to appeal unto Nor can the Doctor make good those Appeales he mentioneth pag. 10. to be according to the Scripture of Truth to wit That every particular man as well as any Assembly or Congregation may have their appeal to the Presbyterie of their Precinct hundred or devision under whose jurisdictions they were And if they finde themselves wronged there then they have appeales to some other higher Presbytery or Councell of Divines for relief and justice I onely ask the Doctor how he can prove these appeales by Scripture and if he could whether that higher Presbytery or Councell of Divines especially if they may say the Holy Ghost and we be not as Independent as these Brethren and their Churches against whom the Doctor hath written And if so then such a high Presbytery or Councell of Divines is not Gods Ordintnce by the Doctors own confession and Affirmation Therefore the Apostle writes to the Church or perticular Congregation whereof Diotrephes was a Member and an Elder whom he knew had power to judge him as well as the Church or perticular Congregation of Corinth had power to judge them that were Members therein 1 Cor. 5.12.13 And therefore might as warrantably admonish Diotrephes as the Church of Colosse might Arckippus Coloss 4.17 ' And if nothing of publike concernment ought to bee done or transacted without the joynt and mutuall accord or agreement and common consent of the Presbytery Iohn the Presbyter would not have transgressed so farre as to take upon himself this Authority over Diotrephes to tell the Church of his faults and to say he would remember him and sharply reprove him and teach him to prate against the Presbyterie with malicious words which belonged to the Court and Common Councell of Presbyters But I shall have a just occasion to say more touching this matter in the answer unto the third Question and therefore passing by the objection with its answer mentioned page 19. to the 29. unto its

discour-throughout his booke This argument I answer First by denying the Assumption or Minor proposition and the reason of my denying all is because the Scriptures produced by the Doctor doe not in expresse words declare that there were diverse assemblies and Congregations of beleevers in the Church of Jerusalem The Scriptures quoted do in expresse words declare the contrary to what the Doctor would prove For Acts 2.44,46 All that beleeved were together and they continued daily with one accord in the Temple and Acts. 3.11,12 It is expressely said That all the people ranne together to them in the porch which is called Solomons Act. 5.12 And they were all with one accord in Solomons Porch So that these Scriptures produced by the Doctor to prove that there were divers assemblies and Congregations of Beleevers in the Church of Jerusalem who met together in severall places at one and the same time to wit upon the first day of the week where they did partake daily in all Ordinances doth expresly proove the contray to wit that the Apostles and all the Beleevers in the Church of Jerusalem met together with one accord in one place to wit the Temple and in Solomons Porch and brake bread from house to house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domatius not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per singulas domos and thus they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quotidie day by day and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and all that beleeved were together Acts. 2.42,44,46 Yea the Doctor himselfe saith in his Minor Proposition the latter part of it That the Apostles and all the Beleevers in Ierusalem did continue daily with one accord in the Temple and that they brake bread from house to huse And this shall suffice for refutation of What the Docter hath Written touching the first Proposition The second now followes page 81. viz. That all the Congregations and severall Assemblies made but one Church And to this the Doctor saith the Brethren themselves acknowledge that all Beleevers in Jerusalem were all members of that Church and they accord further that it was but one Church And it is manifest out of the Holy Scripture Acts 2.3.45.46 chapters To which I also consent But the Brethren have not acknowledged neither hath the Doctor by Scripture proved that in this one Church of Jerusalem there were averse Congregations and severall Assemblies of Beleevers and therein I must mnnifest my dissent from the Doctors opinion promising him that whensoever he shall soundly prove it by expresse Words of Scripture which he hath undertaken I will acknowledge it The third proposition which the Doctor comes next to prove is That thee Apostles and Elders or Presbyters governed and ordered and ruled this Church joyntly and by a common councell and Presbytery pag. 82. Which the Doctor saith is evident by these places following Acts 11.27 to the end The words of this Sccripture which the Doctor makes use of to prove his Assertion are these Verse 30. And sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul Here in these last words saith the Doctor We see that the Presbyters and none but the Presbyters received the Almes which sufficiently proveth that the Presbyters in all Churches were the men of Government pag. 82. It is not denied by the Brethren that the Presbyters in all Churches were the men in the Government of the Churches in which they are Elders But this I conceive by the Doctors favour doth not prove it to wit Because the Almes was sent to the Elders Much lesse doth that Scripture prove that the Apostles and Presbyters governed and ruled the Church in Jerusalem by a Common-councell and Presbyterie which is the Assertion that the Doctor undertakes to prove But in the 15. Chapter verse 2.4.6.22 and in chap. 16.4 And in Acts 21.17,18 The Presbyters of Ierusalem by name saith the Doctor pag. 83. are expressed Out of which places of Scripture before the Doctor frame his Arguments he pleaseth to make a digression from page 48. to 90. Wherein he highly extols the Presbyters making them equall with the Apostles in all the Acts of Church-Governement as appeares by the Doctors owne words pag. 88. I doe verily beleeve saith the Doctor that the Presbyters did act as authoritively as the Apostles and that the Presbyters might as well conclude It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us as well as the Apostles and not onely the presbyters who sate in Counsell with the Apostles and other presbyters who were Ordained Elders by the Apostles And the Assemblie now of Divines or any other may congregate and meet together in some one place for the deciding of controversies and differences of opinions in Religion to state the Questions and debate them from Scripture or warrantable authority and evidence of reason deduced from thence and may determine the qestion by joynt consent or by the most voyces and may say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us pag. 87.88 Pag. 88. And that Presbiters have their authoritie as well grounded in the Word of God as Kings and States have theirs page 89. And the Doctor doth more especially extoll the Presbyters of this kingdom in these our dais telling what they have deserved from the Church Parliament and Kingdome more then any of their Predecessors having ended his Digression hee gives you his Argument pag. 90. To wit ' They that in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters and acted and ordered things in a joynt body and Common-counsell with the Presbyters and exercised that ordinary power committed to them in the 18. of Mattew they acted as Presbyters But the Apostles in governing the Church of Jerusalem consisting of many Congregations and Assemblies acted and ordered things in a joynt body and Common councell with the Presbytery of that Church as Presbyters Ergo the Church of Jerusalem was Presbyterianly governed and by a Common councell of Presbyters The Major and Minor of this Sillogisme being proved saith the Doctor the conclusion will necessarily ensue I know not that the Brethren ever denied That the Church of Jerusalem was Presbyterianly governed And although the Dr. be pleased to make that his conclusion yet under Reformation be it spoke that conclusion doth not follow upon the premises For if the Dr. please to review his Argument He shall finde First that the subject of his Major proposition is left out both in his Minor and in his Conclusion The first part of the Doctors Minor should have beene this to witt But the Apostles in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters and who ever denyed this Also the first part of the Doctors conclusion should have been this from these two premises to witt Ergo The Apostles acted as Presbyters which Conclusion is not the thing in Question Secondly that from the second part of the Doctors two propositions to wit They that acted and Ordered things in a joynt body and Common-councell