Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n bishop_n church_n jurisdiction_n 5,357 5 9.3309 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A56256 The qvestion concerning the divine right of episcopacie truly stated Parker, Henry, 1604-1652. 1641 (1641) Wing P418; ESTC R19874 6,735 17

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

there is a forme of Jurisdiction and I think not held vaine or unlawfull by any and even in cases of heresie blasphemie c. which are most spirituall if none can so rightly judge what is heresie blasphemy c. as spirituall governours yet this proves not any necessity of Bishops for the fact may be tryed execution awarded by others and nothing but an assistance of Councell from spirituall men will be needfull In the third place also if Excommunication be still held of necessity and all other temporall authority defective without it if it be concluded to be perpetuall notwithstanding the decay of Prophecy and the supply of other Christian jurisdiction and if it be to be extended also to all persons in all cases as our Christian Court now extends it which seemes to me a strange obscure unproved thing yet the only question is Whether it may not continue in the Church and be still ordered and guided without Episcopacy For it seemes that the Presbyterians though they use not Excommunication for such violent rigorous purposes as the Papists doe yet they are more severe in it then ever the Fathers were before the Law or under the Law and yet notwithstanding their authority of using it is not excepted against by their enemies And fo●rthly if it be granted that Bishops were first introduced for the preventing of schismes and factions in the Church as being held the fittest meanes for to procure the decision of controversies and the determination of disputes in Religion yet the question is whether discord and division may not be prevented and difficulties of dispute as conveniently resolved by some other as by Episcopall authority for it seemes there is great difference inter Ecclesiam constitutam and Ecclesiam constituendam and between a Church whose supreme governor is ill affected to it a Church whose Prince is an indulgent Father to it so that Episcopacy cannot be now of the same use as it was at first in the infancy of the persecuted Church And it seemes that amongst all other Protestants both Calvinists and Lutherans where Bishops rule not controversies are not so manifold nor innovations in Religion so easie to be induced nor factions in the Church so dangerously maintained as they are in England under the sway of Bishops It seemes also in all great emergent occasions of division and dissention in points of doctrine that if our two famous Vniversities were consulted and in case of disagreement there if London as our third Oracle should arbitrate by a Junto of all her Divines the decision would be farre more honorable and satisfying to all than if any one Bishop or any Province or Nation of Bishops should attempt to give the like And to conclude this point the solemn use of Synods Councels and Parliaments does not at all depend upon Episcopacy so that it seemes as to this purpose no necessity can be alledged for the government of Bishops as Bishops are now qualified in England These branches if they were thus orderly discussed by moderate conscionable learned Divines many incomparable advantages in probabilitie would arise thereby for first the very foundations of Popery would be laid open and naked the very center of that tyrannous united Empire which has subjugated the world so long under such base slavery would be ript up and all its infernall mysteries discovered to the sun Secondly that unpolitike axiome No Bishop no King whereby Bishops have alwayes imbarqued Princes in their warres would appeare to be sophisticate and a meere color without all substance of reason Thirdly many great fruits of peace and unity both Ecclesiasticall and Civill would redound to our whole Nation Those many mischiefs which attend Episcopacy against which the complaints are so grievous and universall would be remedied That new module of government which so many have so variously phansied and proposed in these latter times would open it self and offer it self to us of its own accord The pattern of the State would be sufficient to present to us a fit harmonious pattern for the Church and the body and head of both Church and State would appeare to be the self same The King should be the same in both and Councels and Courts govern under him by the same commission in both A power to ordain fit Ministers and to put a finall end to controversies and dissentions might be committed to the Vniversities and some gentle influence by votes affirmative or negative might be also allowed therein to the Laytie The power of making Articles and Orders for decency and peace in the Church might remaine unalter'd in the Kings Clergie and Parliament Able civill and canon Lawyers might still sit in their tribunals taking cognizance of such cases as are truly Ecclesiasticall and have not been by usurpation of the Hierarchy wrongfully wrested out of the Temporall Courts and the spirituall sword of Excommunication might still be gently weelded in the same hands as it has been when it is necessary An assistance of godly Divines in all cases of Conscience might be allotted to the K. and all his Judges and Magistrates upon occasion without wholly drawing them from their charges and this would be no lesse effectuall then that of the greatest Prelates The inconveniences of the Presbyterian Discipline also which is not so adequate and conformable to Monarchy would be rectified And lastly the bleeding Church which had so great a part of her Patrimony torn from her by Hen. 8. by the addition of Episcopall and Cathedrall livings might be healed up and restored to her antient grace and vigour FINIS
of Christian Religion So the main {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} remaining is whether the King having power to chuse subordinate officers and Counsellors in the Church may or ought to chuse such as are meerly spirituall or meerly temporall or a mixture of both The Papists hold no Governours over the Clergy competent neither supreme nor subordinate but such as are meerly spirituall The Protestants every where almost but in England incline to a mixt government in the Church though they exclude the King quatenus King in the mean while we in England admit of the King for our supreme governour but doubt of any subordinate mixt government 'T is not my taske at this present to dispute the conveniency of a mixt government and an association of Spirituall and Lay rulers but I think the Presbyterians have sufficiently asserted it though to another purpose And it seems to me that the Apostolicall form of government as to the supremacy of it is not now in force because there is not the same reason that head being then wanting in the Church which is since supplied but as to any constitution in the subordinate wheels of government if the Laity had then any motion or influence therein I think the same reason still remaines and the same form ought still to be in force In the second branch Be the subordinate governours of the Church mixt or simple either according to the Popish or Presbyterian discipline the question is whether or no such Ecclesiasticall governours ought to be vested and dignified with temporall honours above the Judges of the Land and equall with the Peeres of the Realme and whether or no they ought to enjoy temporall revenues proportionable to that Honour and power in secular affairs correspondent to those revenues and if so whether by divine or humane constitution Also if these differences were added as Bishop Bilson acknowledgeth rather for the honour of the calling then for any necessity of Gods Law it is next to be questioned whether or no a Parliament hath not now power and cause to reduce these additions of Episcopacy into more modest limits for it seems that from Adam till Christ no such grandour and splendor was in Church-men nor from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine to the Reformation we know how they were abused to the mischief of the Church and decay of Religion and in the reformation we know all Nations besides us did utterly remove them and we know that the Church in England is now much impoverished by many impropriations and commendams c. now deteined by Bishops and Cathedrals besides that which it suffers by Lay-men and it seems strange that the Pastors of the flock should be starved that Prelates should abound and swim in too great excesse and that the meer livelyhood of holy preachers should be held lesse necessary then the proud pomp of unusefull nay as some think mischievous dominators As to the third branch if the end of Episcopacy as Bishop Bilson holds be to prevent the confusion of parity in the Church we are first to question whether Ordination by imposition of hands and guiding of the keyes be necessary to Episcopacy and so necessary as that confusion cannot be prevented without them All wise men will allow some authority requisite whereby Ministers may be duly elected and their true qualifications of learning and integrity tried and that being rightly elected they may be further consecrated by prayer and the solemnity of hands and being consecrated that they may be further instituted and designed to some particular charge The Presbyterians do not dislike such authority nor are negligent in the same the question is therefore onely to whom this authority may be committed whether to Bishops onely or to some such judicatory as the Presbyterians use or some other of humane institution As for example if the Vniversities or some select Committee therein be intrusted to try the sufficiency of Scholars and to give Orders and upon the vacancy of a Rectory to present three c. to the King and the King out of those three to present two c. to the parish and the parish out of two to chuse one for their Pastour the question onely is whether such election ordination presentation and induction be not as legall and religious as if it were by Bishops and be not far more politike in preventing simony and in better satisfying the right of the flock whose soules are mainly concerned and whose tithes are to that purpose contributed And now it seemes S. Ierome allowes no further use of Bishops to have been of old for he sayes plainly that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter in no act exceptâ ordinatione and as for the power of the keyes that has been alwaies held common to the whole Clergie but we wil not stand upon this we will freely grant an authority necessary as well to superintend over Ministers in their charges as to place them therein and when B. Bilson appropriates to Bishops the guiding of the keyes we will understand not the meere power of them but the government of that power we will admit also under this terme of guiding the keyes to be comprehended 1. The power of making Ecclesiasticall Canons 2. Of giving judgement and executing according thereto 3. Of issuing the sentence of excommunication 4. Of deciding controversies And the question now is whether the keyes may not be so guided by some other Ecclesiasticall judges and magistrates besides Bishops if the King thinke fit to designe them for First the Legislative power of the Church was never yet only committed to Bishops the whole Clergie and the King were never yet excluded from Synods and Councels neither are the acts of Synods and Councels binding to any Nation unlesse the secular states ratifie them And I think there is no question of the validity of such Canons as are now made in those Protestant Countries where Bishops have no command or being at all And secondly spirituall jurisdiction is not only appropriated to Bishops but to Lay-men under Bishops Canonists and Civilians are held more able and knowing herein than Bishops and Bishops are held lesse fit by reason of their more sacred imployments so the question here will be only this Whether or no the jurisdiction of Lawyers and such like as now execute justice in the spirituall Courts under Bishops will be as competent under the King without Bishops as it is now under Bishops immediately Some say that Chancellours c. are not meere Lay-men no matter For by the same reason any others to whom such Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction shall be committed by the King shall be held sacred and if they are not meere Lay-men yet they are not meere Bishops if they are preferred to some equality with the Clergie yet they are not preferred above the Clergie and this preferment is no other but such as may be bestowed upon any other Lay-man that is not otherwise insufficient And even amongst Presbyterians