Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	affirm_v	church_n	scripture_n	3,734	5	6.5982	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51155	An enquiry into the new opinions, chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland together with some animadversions on a late book, entitled, A defence of The vindication of the kirk : in a letter to a friend at Edinburgh / by A.M., D.D.	Monro, Alexander, d. 1715?	1696 (1696)	Wing M2439; ESTC R7	25,403	65

must be received as the Infallible truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholic Church in former Ages from the combinations of Hereticks these are new in their several Errors and Delusions and upon that very account of their Novelty were expos'd and refuted by the Ancients they neither agreed amongst themselves nor with the Orthodox But the Uniform Voice of Christendom in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors If it appear then that the Opinions which we oppose and are propagated by the Presbyterian Societies are such as were never entertain'd in the Christian Church for fourteen hundred Years after our Saviour's Incarnation then I leave it to every sober Christian to consider whether he may safely continue in the communion of that Party that despises the whole Catholic Church both Ancient and Modern CHAP. I. The Novelty and Insufficiency of those Pleas and Arguments managed by the Presbyterians in defence of their New Doctrine of Parity THE first Opinion that I charge with Error and Novelty amongst our Country-men is this That they affirm upon all Occasions that our Saviour hath appointed his Church under the New Testament whether Provincial National or Oecomenic to be govern'd by the several classes of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and owning no Subordination to any higher Officer in the Ecclesiastical Senate above a Presbyter in the modern and current Notion of the word Such a Doctrine must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new and never propagated in any part of the Christian Church until these last days of Separation and Singularity In this Opinion they differ not only from the Uniform testimony of Antiquity but also from the first Presbyterians amongst ourselves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church-Polity is variable so far they were at that time from asserting that indispensible divine and unalterable right of Parity All that the first Presbyterians pleaded was that their new form was allowable and not repugnant to the Oeconomy of the New Testament and Primitive Institution and that it came very near to the Original Model of Churches but they never thought to advance such a bold and rash Assertion as to affirm That the Christain Church by the Original Authority of our Saviour and his Apostles ought to be govern'd in all Ages by a Parity of Presbyters or that there was no other Officer in the Church could pretend to any share of Ecclesiastical Government above a Presbyter When a Society of Men set up for Divine Absolute and Infallible Right they ought to bring plain Proofs for what they say else they must needs be look'd upon as Impostors or at least self-conceited and designing Men. To propagate a Doctrine under the notion of a probable Opinion though it should happen to be an Error is consistent with Modesty and the practice of Learned Men in all Ages But to affirm a new Notion to be established by Divine Right and to require Obedience to that Scheme as a thing that is due to Supreme and Infallible Authority is much worse than Speculative Enthusiasm If a man only entertains himself with his Visions and Fancies he alone suffers by it but if I meet with a company of head-strong Fellows who must needs persuade me that they see so many Armies in the Air fighting and with the exactest Discipline of War nay their Banners the shape and colour of their Horses their several Squadrons and the whole order of their Encampment and will certainly knock me in the head unless I take my Oath upon it that I see all this who never saw any such thing in my Life I think I have reason to complain that my Circumstances are very unlucky I had certainly rather fall into the hands of High-way-men than amongst those Spiritual Robbers who divest me of my Senses and the exercise of my Reason If you inform our Country men that their New Doctrine is thus represented they will tell you that none but wicked men oppose their Government that it is Establish'd upon the express Institution of our Saviour that it hath been asserted and prov'd by several Learned Men of their Party beyond contradiction But if you ask by what particular argument you may be convinc'd of the Truth of their New Doctrine then they begin to lead you into a Labyrinth of dark and intricate Consequences obscure and perplext Probabilities several Texts of Scripture they will alledge but sadly wrested and distorted from their genuine Meaning and Design and the uniform Suffrages of all the Ancients And if you are not satisfied with such proofs as they advance you must be contented to submit to their Censure and the New Discipline must be Obey'd where-ever their Power is equal to their Pretences I can give you but a short History of their Arguments by which they endeavour to Establish their Divine Right of Parity When you read their Books I think all their pleas of whatever kind or force may be reduc'd to these three heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour or secondly They endeavour to support it by consequences from several Texts of Scripture or thirdly from the Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church First I say they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters exclusive of the Superiority or Jurisdiction of a Bishop is expresly commanded by our Saviour This indeed promises veryfair For if our Saviour hath plainly and positively Commanded that Ecclesiastical Affairs shall be managed in all Churches and Ages communi Presbytero'um consilio and by such a College of Presbyters as excludes the Authority and Jurisdiction of a Bishop then without all Controversie all Christians are oblig'd to submit to it The Consequence is plain and undeniable and because our Country-men do insist upon this more frequently than any of the foreign Presbyterians we ought to hear them calmly and deliberately and when they plead the Authority of our Blessed Saviour we must view those Texts with reverence and attention and see if any thing can be inferred from them that may probably support the now Scheme of Presbytery The Parallel Texts of Scripture are Matth. 20. 25. But Jesus called them unto him and said ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them v. 26. But it shall not be so great among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister V. 27. And whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant v. 28 Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministred unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many See also Mark 10. v. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. From these parallel Places they plead that the Officers of Chirist's House were by his own express Command establish'd in a perfect

Equality even in such a Parity as excludes the Power and Jurisdiction of any higher Order than that of a Presbyter in the modern Notion Let us now examine whether there be any Foundation for their Inference in the Texts last mentioned In the first place we find that our Blessed Saviour supposes Degrees of Subordination amongst his own Disciples as well as all other Societies and therefore he directs the Ecclesiasticks who would climb to the Highest Places in the Church to take other Methods than those that are most usual amongst the Grandees of the World He that deserved Preferment in the Church was to be the Servant of all so that this Text refers to the Method of Promotion and not to the Extirpation of their Jurisdiction They were not to aspire to Honour and Dignity by Force and Violence or the other Arts that are so fashionable in Secular Courts but rather by all the Acts of Modesty Humility and Self-denial Next let me ask whether the Apostles understood this Precept of our Saviour in the sense of our Adversaries or not If they did as it is alledg'd how came they to exercise Jurisdiction over all Subordinate Ecclesiasticks during their Life time in all the Churches they Planted Did they go cross to the Institution of our Saviour who perfectly understood his meaning and to whom the Precept was Originally delivered But that which Baffles and Exposes this Argument to all Intents and Purposes is this that he did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of this towards one another in Obedience to the Command now under consideration could not infer a Parity unless they Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal for when you read the Text with attention you see that our Saviour recommends what he Enjoyns from his own Constant and Visible Practice amongst them viz. that he himself who was their Lord and Master was their Servant and therefore it became the Greatest among them in imitation of him to be Modest Calm and Humble towards all their Subordinate Brethren and this qualify'd them more than any other thing for Ecclesiastical Promotions It is very sad that any should be so much Infatuated with their new Schems of Parity as to alledge such Texts which if understood in their Sense Degrades our Blessed Saviour to the Degree of one of his Disciples for what he Commanded the Apostles he Practised among them himself And this is the strongest Motive to engage their Obedience therefore I may reasonably infer that whatever it was that our Saviour commanded in those places of Scripture it must of necessity be toto coelo different from all Parity and Equality He Commanded them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles did by a Spirit of Pride and Domination but rather by the more Christian and engaging Behaviour of Charity and Humility He that was to be the Greatest among them was to be their Servant in Imitation of that Heavenly Patern that was set them by our Blessed Lord and Saviour S. Paul thought himself oblig'd to answer his Episcopal Character after this manner when the Care of all the Churches lay upon him when he employ'd his Apostolical Power to promote the Edification of all Men and all the Fathers of the Church who were advanc'd above their Brethren to Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction had this Evangelical Notion of their Dignity that they were the Servants of all others From what hath been said one may easily see that there is no Ground no not a Shadow of any Argument for the New Doctrine in these Texts of Scripture It is true that Salmasius glances at this way of Reasoning in his Walo Messalinus but he lays no great stress upon it That which is most to our purpose is that Beza himself in his larger Notes upon the New Testament asserts that all kind of Jurisdiction is not forbidden in these Texts but that only which is joyn'd with imperious Bitterness and Domination Let it be further considered that the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was Established by Divine Authority in the lewish Church and if our Saviour had pull'd down that ancient Polity and commanded an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition between his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but rather between the Priests of the Mosaie Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament When he reprov'd the corrupt glosses that were introduc'd into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees and taught them Purer and more Heavenly Strains of Morality he states the Opposition between the current Doctrine receiv'd amongst the Jews and that which he himself Taught and Recommended and there is no doubt to be made if he had forbidden the several Degrees and Subordinations of Priests and Established a perfect Equality he would have stated a plain Opposition between the Model of the Temple and the other Plat-form that was to succeed in the Christian Church As for the other Text that is ordinarily cited to serve the same design 1 Pet. 5.2 3. It is but the Apostle's Commentary on our Saviour's Words and Commandment and it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence as a thing very unsuitable to all Power and Authority in the Church Thus such Texts have been understood from the beginning and it is one strong Prejudice against the new Exposition that it was never heard of until these latter days Secondly If the Presbyterians cannot Establish their Divine Right upon express Texts of Scripture they will support it as they think by the Clearest and most immediate Consequence and this is Equivalent to the most Positive Command and Institution The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter fill all their Books from top to bottom And if this be in it self Lame and Sophistical they must despair to Establish the pretended Equality of Presbyters in the Ecclesiastical Government The Argument most insisted on in favour of their Parity exclusive of Episcopal Jurisdiction is built upon the Homonomy of Bishop and Presbyter in the Language of the New Testament or because the Clergy are Dichotomiz'd only into Bishops and Deacons in some Texts of Scripture and in some Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church Hence they exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter though the Offices themselves be as much distinguished as is possible in several Texts of the New Testament And if this Argument alone appear Childish and Sophistical they have not another Sanctuary to flee to so my present Business is to Examine the force of it There is not one of their number with whom you Engage in this Controversie but immediately he will tell you that there is no distinction between Bishop and Presbyter in the Scriptures and therefore they conclude that their Argument a Confusione Nominum against the Superiority of a Bishop is