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

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78783	His Majesties finall ansvver concerning Episcopacie. Delivered in to the commissioners of Parliament the first of Novemb. 1648.	England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I); Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.	1648 (1648)	Wing C2306; Thomason E469_17; ESTC R205464	21,665	30

and that in terminis he was the Bishop some naming the very persons of some of them as of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and others some calling him the chief Pastor or Superintendent of that Church and those that speak least and were more or less disaffected to Bishops as Beza Doctor Reynolds the Geneva Noto and even Cartwright himself the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President or chief among the Presbyters And this they do sundry of them not crudely delivering their Opinions onely and then no more but they give Reasons for it and after examination of the several Opinions prefer this before the rest affirming That Doctissimi quique interpretes all the best learned Interpreters so understand it and that they cannot understand it otherwise vim nisi facere Textui velint unless they will offer violence to the Text. That which His Majesty said concerning the Subdivision of those that had divided themselves from the common judgement of this Church was meant by His Majesty as to the Subdivision in respect of this particular of the Angels wherein they differ one from another as to the division in respect of their dislike of Bishops wherein they all agree And truly His Majesty doth not yet see how either their differences can be possibly reconciled in the former no accommodation in the world being able to make all the people of the whole Church nor yet a Colledge consisting of many Presbyters to be one single person or their recess wholly excused in the latter their dissenting from the common and received judgement practice of the Christian Church in the matter of Episcopacy and the evil consequents thereof having in His Majesties opinion brought a greater reproach upon the Protestant Religion and given more advantage or colour at least to the Romish party to asperse the Reformed Churches in such sort as we see they do then their disagreement from the Church of Rome in any one controverted point whatsoever besides hath done IX Reply 17 18. As to the Apostles Successors HEre little is said the substance whereof hath not been Answered before His Majesty therefore briefly declares His meaning herein That the Apostles were to have no necessary Successors in any thing that was extraordinary either in their Mission or Unction That His Majesty spake not of Succession into Abilities otherwise then by instance mentioning other particulars withal which thing he thinketh needeth not to have been now the third time by you mentioned That in the Apostles Mission or Commission for His Majesty under the name of Mission comprehended both and consequently in the Apostolical Office as there was something extraordinary so there was something ordinary wherein they were to have Successors That Bishops are properly their Successors in the whole Apostolical Office so far as it was ordinary and to have Successors That therefore the Bishops Office may in regard of that Succession be said to be Apostolical That yet it doth not follow that they must needs be called Apostles taking the Denomination from the Office in as much as the Denomination of the Apostles peculiarly so called was not given them from the Office whereunto they were sent but as the word it self rather importeth from the immediateness of their Mission being sent immediately by Christ himself in respect whereof for distinction sake and in honor to their persons it was thought fitter by those that succeeded in common usage to abstain from that Denomination and to be stiled rather by the Name of Bishops That if the Apostles had no Successors the Presbyters who are their Successors in part immediately and subordinately to the Bishops will be very hard set to prove the warrant of their own Office and Mission which if not derived from the Apostles who onely received power of Mission from Christ by a continued line of Succession His Majesty seeth not upon what other bottom it can stand X. Reply 19-23 As to the standing Officers of the Church YOu insisted upon two places of Scripture Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. to prove that there were to be no more standing Officers in the Church then the two in those places mentioned viz. Presbyters who are there called Bishops and Deacons whereunto His Majesties answer was That there might be other though not mentioned in those places which Answer though it were alone sufficient yet ex abundanti His Majesty shewed withal that supposing your interpretation of the word Bishop in both the places viz. to denote the Office of Presbyter onely there might yet be given some probable conjectures which likewise supposed true might satisfie us why that of Bishop in the distinct sence should not be needful or proper to be named in those places His Majesties former Reason though in Hypothesi and as applied to the Church of Philippi it be but conjectural yet upon the credit of all Ecclesiastical Histories and consideration of the condition of those times as it is set forth in the Scriptures also it will appear in Thesi to be undoubtedly true viz. That the Apostles themselves first planted Churches that they were perpetual Governors and in chief of all the Churches whilest they lived that as the burthen grew greater by the propagation of the Gospel they assumed others in partem curae committing to their charge the peculiar oversight of the Churches in some principal Cities and the Towns and Villages adjacent as James at Jerusalem and others in other places sooner or later as they saw it expedient for the service of the Church That the persons so by them appointed to such peculiar charges did exercise the powers of Ordination and other Government under the Apostles and are therefore in the Church Stories called Bishops of those places in a distinct sence That in some places where the Apostles were themselves more frequently conversant they did for some while govern the Churches immediately by themselves before they set Bishops there and that after the Apostles times Bishops onely were the ordinary Governors of the Churches of Christ And His Majesty believeth it cannot be proved either from clear evidence of Scripture or credible testimonies of Antiquity that ever any Presbyter or Presbytery exercised the power either of Ordination at all without a Bishop or of that which they call Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in ordinary and by their own sole Authority or otherwise then as it was delogated unto them upon occasion and for the time by Apostles or Bishops For that place of Phil. 1. 1. in particular His Majesties purpose being not to interpret the place a work fitter for Divines but to manifest the inconsequence of the Argument whereby you would conclude but two standing Officers onely because but two there named gave this as one probable conjecture why there might be no Bishop in distinct sence there mentioned because possibly the Apostles had not as yet set any Bishops over that Church which His Majesty did not propose as the onely no nor yet as the most probable conjecture for which cause

whose warrant the Apostles would not either have exercised it themselves or derived it to others Yet for that the practice in them is so cleare and evident and the warrant from him exprest but in generall Terms As my Father sent me so send I you and the like His Majesty chose rather as others have done to fixe the claime of the power upon that practice as the more evidentiall way than upon the warrant which by reason of the generality of expression would beare more dispute 3. Reply Sect. 6. As to the Definition of Episcopacy First whereas you except against it for that it is competent to Archiepiscopall and Patriarchall Government as well as Episcopall His Majesty thinketh you might have excepted more iustly against it if it had been otherwise Secondly His Majesty believeth that even in the persons by you named Timothy Titus and the Angells the definition in all the parts of it is to be found viz. That they had each their several peculiar Charges and that within their severall precincts they had authority over Presbyters aswell as others Neither Thirdly doth his Majesty thinke it needfull that any word be added to the Genus in the definition or that the Scripture should any where put all the parts of the definition together It would be a hard matter to give such a definition of an Apostle or a Prophet or an Evangelist or a Presbyter or a Deacon or indeed almost of any thing as that the parts thereof should be sound in any place of Scripture put altogether Fourthly His Majesty consenteth with you that the point in issue is not the Name or Worke meerly but the Office and that it were a Fallacy to argue a particular Office from a Generall or Common worke But judgeth withall it can be no Fallacy to argue a Particular Office from such a worke as is peculiar to that Office and is as it were the formalis ratio thereof and therefore no fallacy from a work done by a single person which a single Presbyter hath no right to doe to inferre an office in that person distinct from the Office of a Presbyter 4. Reply Sect. 7. As to the Scriptures cited by you viz. Tit. 1. Acts 20. 2 Peter 5. First when you say you take his Majesties Concession That in those times of the Church and places of Scripture there was no distinct Office of Bishops and Presbyters If you take it so truly you take it gratis His Majestie never gave it you and you mistake it too more wayes than one for to speake properly His Majesty made no Concession at all It was rather a Preterition in order to the present businesse and to avoide unnecessary disputes which ought not to be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the Truth of your Expositions of those places For his own expresse words are Although his Majesty be not sure that the Proof will reach so far in each of those Places which words plainly evidence that which you call his Majesties Concession to be indeed no Concession but to have been meant according to that forme of Speech very usuall in disputations Dato non concesso But in that Concession such as it is his Majesty is not able to imagine what you could find whereon to ground those words That in those times of the Church there was no distinct c. there being not any thing in the whole passage that carrieth the least sound that way or that hath relation to any particular times of the Church Neither is the Concession such as you take it as it relateth to those places of Scripture What his Majesty said is confessed on all sides which are the words you take for a Concession was but this That supposing but not granting the word Bishop to be used in all those places to signifie a Presbyter the Office and Worke in those places mentioned as the Office and Worke of a Bishop are upon that supposall the Office and Work of a Presbyter which is so manifest a Truth that no man without admitting Contradictions can say the contrary But how wide or short that is from what you make to be his Majesties Concession your selves by comparing his words with yours may easily judge But your selves a little after make a Concession which his Majesty warned by your Example how soone anothers meaning may be mistaken when his words are altered is willing to take in the same words you give it viz. When you say and you bring reasons also to prove it That it seemeth manifest that Ordination and Censures are not to be exercised by a single Presbyter Secordly you repeate your Arguments formerly drawne from those places and presse the same from the force of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from the Circumstances of the Text and otherwise adding withall that his Majesty hath waved the notice or answer of something by you alleged therein Hereunto His Majesty saith that he waved not any thing in your former Paper f●r any great difficulty he conceived of answering it but being desirous to contract his answer and knowing to what frailties Arguments drawn from Names and Words a●d Conjectural Expositions of Scripture are subject he passed by such things as he deemed to be of least Consideration in order to the end of the whole debate to wit the satisfaction of his Judgement and Conscience in the main businesse Otherwise his Majesty could have then told you That there are who by the like Conjectures grounded as seemeth to them upon some probabilities in the Text interpret those places in the Acts and in St. Peter of Bishops properly so called and in the restrained Ecclesiastical sence rather than of Ordinary Presbyters That supposing them both meant of Ordinary Presbyters the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie to feed to oversee might not unfitly be applyed to them as inferiour Pastors in relation to their Flocks under their charge and over sight the Flock being in both the places expresly mentioned which hindereth not but the same words may in a more peculiar manner be appropriated to Bishops in respect of that Authority and oversight they have even over Presbyters themselves also That still granting your own interpretation of the word Bishop in that place to Titus it can prove no more than that the two names in that place are given to the same Function That from all the premises in your Paper there layed together and supposed true his Majesty doth not conceive it justly proved That the Office of a Bishop and Presbyter is wholy the same but at the most that the Offices were not in those places distinguished by those Names Thirdly if the Assignement of any Particular Qualification worke or duty unto a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter by the Scripture would as you say put this question neer to an issue His Majesty should wel have hoped that it might soone be brought to a near point and