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	primitive_a	2,286	5	9.3719	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78957	The papers which passed at Nevv-Castle betwixt His Sacred Majestie and Mr Al: Henderson: concerning the change of church-government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.; Marshall, William, fl. 1617-1650, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2535; Thomason E1243_3; ESTC R209178	25,946	63

Victory 3. When I was commanded to come hither no such thing was proposed to me nor expected by me I never judged so meanly of the Cause nor so highly of my selfe as to venture it upon such weaknesse Much more might be spoken to this purpose but I forbeare 2. I will not further trouble your Majesty with that which is contained in the second Section hoping that your Majesty will no more insist upon Education prescription of Time c. which are sufficient to prevent Admiration but which your Majesty acknowledges must give place to Reason and are no sure ground of resolution of our Faith in any point to be believed although it be true that the most part of men make these the like to be the ground and rule of their Faith an Evidence that their Faith is not a Divine faith but an humane Credulity 3. Concerning Reformation of Religion in the third Section I had need of a Preface to so thorny a Theame as your Majesty hath brought me upon 1. For the Reforming power it is conceived when a Generall Defection like a deluge hath covered the whole face of the Church so that scarcely the tops of the Mountains doe appeare a Generall Councell is necessary but because that can hardly be obtained severall Kingdomes which we see was done at the time of the Reformation are to reforme themselves and that by the Authority of their Prince and Magistrates if the Prince or supreme Magistrate be unwilling then may be inferior Magistrate and the People being before rightly informed in the grounds of Religion lawfully Reforme within their owne Sphere and if the light shine upon all or the major part they may after all other means assayed make a Publique Reformation This before this time I never wrote or spoke yet the Maintainers of this Doctrine conceive that they are able to make it good But Sir were I worthy to give advice to Your Majesty or to the Kings and supreme Powers on Earth may humble Opinion would be that they should draw the minds tongues and pens of the learned to dispute about other matter then the power or Prerogative of Kings and Princes and in this kind your Majesty hath suffered and lost more then will easily be restored to your selfe or your Posterity for a long time It is not denied but the prime Reforming power is in Kings and Princes Quibus deficientibus it comes to the inferior Magistrate Quibus Deficientibus it descendeth to the Body of the People supposing that there is a necessity of Reformation and that by no meanes it can be obtained of their Superiors It is true that such a Reformation is more imperfect in respect of the Instruments and manner of Procedure yet for the most part more pure and perfect in relation to the effect and product And for this end did I cite the Examples of old of Reformation by Regall Authority of which none was perfect in the second way of perfection except that of Josiah Concerning the saying of Grostead whom the Cardinals at Rome confest to be a more Godly man than any of themselves it was his Complaint and Prediction of what was likely to ensue not his desire or Election if Reformation could have been obtained in the ordinary way I might bring two unpartiall Witnesses Jewell and Bilson both famous English Bishops to prove that the tumults and troubles raised in Scotland at the time of Reformation were to be imputed to the Papists opposing of the Reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline as an Hereticall Innovation and note to be ascribed to the Nobility or People who under God were the Instruments of it intending and seeking nothing but the purging out of Errour and setling of the Truth 2. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I conceive whether it was begun or not in K. Henry the 8. time it was not finished by Q. Elizabeth the Father stirred the humors of the diseased Church but neither the Sonne nor the Daughter although we have great reason to blesse God for both did purge them out perfectly This Perfection is yet reserved for your Majesty Where it is said that all this time I bring no Reasons for a further Change the fourth Section of may last Paper hath many hints of Reasons against Episcopall Government with an offer of more or clearing of those which your Majesty hath not thought fit to take notice of And learned men have observed many Defects in that Reformation As that the Government of the Church of England for about this is the Question now is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles which they at least cannot deny who professe Church-Government to be Mutable and Ambulatory and such were the greater part of Archbishops and Bishops in England contenting themselves with the Constitutions of the Church and the Authority and Munificence of Princes till of late that some few have pleaded it to be Jure Divino That the English Reformation hath not perfectly purged out the Roman Leaven which is one of the Reasons that have given ground to the comparing of this Church to be Church of Laodicaea as being neither hot nor cold neither Popish nor Reformed but of a lukewarme temper betwixt the two That it hath depraved the Discipline of the Church by conforming of it to the Civill Policy That is hath added many Church Offices higher and lower unto those instituted by the Sonne of God which is as unlawfull as to take away Offices warranted by the Divine Institution And other the like which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent nisi jam 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 differences 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 as your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luther's time One part of the common Answer is that is 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 Jerusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That the Church of Jerusalem 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 these Congregations were under one Presbyteriall Government because they were for Government one Church

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 yor 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 such 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 Jerusalem 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 Jerusalem it will gaine no ground on Me As for S. Jerome 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 methinks 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 Judges I appeale unto the mischiefe of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by antiquity that Ordination and Jurisdiction belongs to Bishops thereby cleerly distinguishing them from other Presbyters I shall then begin to misdoubt many of My former foundations as for Bishop Davenant he is none of those to whom I have appealed or will submit unto but for the exception you take to Fathers I take it to be a begging of the Question as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not knowne to former Ages I shall call new invented fancies untill particularly you shall prove the contrary and for your Roman Authors it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintaine Novelties as well as the Puritans As for Church-ambition it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be Pope for I take it to be no point of humility to endeavour to be independent of Kings it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one 6. As I am no Judge over the Reformed Churches so neither doe I censure them for many things may be avowable upon necessity which otherwaies are unlawfull but know once for all that I esteeme nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church though it were by the Church of England which I avow most to reverence but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the primitive Doctrine and Discipline as I believe this doth Now concerning Ordination I bad you prove that Presbyters without a Bishop might lawfully ordaine which yet I conceive you have not done For 2 Tim. 1.6 it is evident that Saint Paul was at Timothies ordination And albeit that all the seventy had their

power immediately from Christ yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear distinction between the twelve Apostles and the rest of the Disciples which is set down by three of the Evangelists whereof Saint Marke calls it an ordination Mark 3.15 and S. Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luke 6.13 onely S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction Mat. 10.1 I suppose out of modesty himselfe being one and the other two being none are more particular For the administration of Baptism giving but not granting what you say it makes more for Me then you but I will not engage upon new Question not necessary for My purpose 7. For My Oath you doe well not to enter upon those Questions you mention and you had done as well to have omitted your instance but out of discretion I desire you to collect your Answer out of the last Section and for your Argumeent though the intention of My Oath be for the good of the Church collective therefore can I be dispensed withall by others than the representative Body certainly no more than the People can dispence with Me for any Oaths I took in their favours without the two Houses of Parliament as for future reformations I will onely tell you that incommodum non solvit Argumentum 8. For the King my Fathers opinion if it were not to spend time as I believe needlesly I could prove by living and written testimonies all and more then I have said of Him for His perswasion in these points which I now maintaine and for your defensive Warre as I doe acknowledge it a great sinne for any King to oppresse the Church so I hold it absolutely unlawful for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to make Warre though defensive against their Lawfull Soveraigne against which no lesse proofs will make Me yeild but Gods word and let Me tell you that upon such points as these instances as well as comparisons are odious 9. Lastly you mistake the Quaere in my first Paper to which this pretends to answer for my Question was not concerning force of Arguments for I never doubted the lawfulnesse of it but force of Armes to which I conceive it saies little or nothing unlesse after My example you refer Me to the former Section that which it doth is meerly the asking of the Question after a fine discourse of the several wayes of perswading rather than forcing of conscience I close up this Paper desiring you to take notice that there is none of these Sections but I could have enlarged to many more lines some to whole pages yet I chose to be thus brief knowing you will understand more by a word than others by along discourse trusting likewise to your ingenuity that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large C. R. June 22. 1646. For His Majestie Concerning the Authority of the Fathers and practise of the Church July 2. 1646. Mr. Alex Henderson's third Paper HAving in my former Papers pressed the steps of your Majesties Propositions and finding by your Majesties last Paper Controversies to be multiplied I believe beyond your Majesties intentions in the beginning As concerning the Reforming Power The Reformation of the Church of England The difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter The warrants of Presbyterian Government The Authority of Interpreting Scripture The taking and keeping of Publique Oathes The forcing of Conscience and many other inferior and subordinate Questions which are Branches of those maine Controversies All which in a satisfactory manner to determine in few words I leave to more presuming Spirits who either see no knots of Difficulties or can find a way rather to cut them assunder than to unloose them yet will I not use any Tergiversation nor doe I decline to offer my humble Opinion with the Reasons theoreof in the owne time concerning each of them which in obedience to your Majesties command I have begun to doe al-already Onely Sir by your Majesties favourable permission for the greater expedition and that the present velitations may be brought to some issue I am bold to entreat that the Method may be a little altered and I may have leave now to begin at a Principle and that which should have been inter Precognita I meane the Rule by which we are to proceed and to determine the present Controversie of Church policy without which we will be led into a labyrinth and want a thred to wind us out againe In your Majesties first Paper the universall custome of the Primitive Church is conceived to be the Rule In the second Paper Section the 5. The practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made a convincing Argument when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtfull In your third Paper Sect. 5. the practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made Judge and I know that nothing is more ordinary in this Question then to alleage Antiquity perpetuall Succession universall Consent of the Fathers and the universall practice of the Primitive Church according to the Rule of Augustine Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec à Consilio institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissime creditur There is in this Argument at the first view so much appearance of Reason that it may much worke upon a modest mind yet being well examined and rightly weighed it will be found to be of no great weight for beside that the minor will never be made good in the behalfe of a Diocaesan Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction there being a multitude of Fathers who maintaine that Bishop and Presbyter are of one and the same Order I shall humbly offer some few Considerations about the major because it hath been an inlet to many dangerous Errors and hath proved a mighty hinderance and obstruction to Reformation of Religion 1. First I desire it may be considered that whiles some make two Rules for defining Controversies the word of God and antiquity which they will have to be received with equall veneration or as the Papists call them Canonicall Authority and Catholicall Tradition and others make Scripture to be the onely Rule and Antiquity the authentick Interpreter the latter of the two seemes to me to be the greater errour because the first setteth up a parallel in the same degree with Scripture but this would create a Superior in a higher degree above Scripture For the interpretation of the Fathers shall be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accounted the very Cause and Reason for which we conceive and believe such a place of Scripture to have such a sence and thus Men shall have Dominion over our Faith against 2 Cor. 1.24 Our faith shall stand in the wisdome of man and not in the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 and Scripture shall be of private interpretation For the Prophesie came

interpretation throughout the whole Chapter as indeed Saint Peter does 2 Pet. 1.20 which I conceive makes for Me for since that no Prophesie of Scripture is of any private interpretation First I inferre that Scripture is to be Interpreted for else the Apostle would have omitted the word Private Secondly that at least the consent of many learned Divines is necessary and so à fortiore that of the Catholique Church ought to be an authentique Judge when Men differ And is it a good Argument because Mat. 4.4.7.10 Scripture is best interpreted by it selfe therefore that all other interpretations are unlawfull certainly you cannot thinke Thus having shewed you that We differ about the meaning of the Scripture and are like to do so certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a Rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences or at least to make our Probations and Arguments Relevant therefore evading for this time to Answer your 6 Considerations not I assure you for the difficulty of them but the starting of new Questions I desire you onely to shew Me a better than what I have offered unto you C. R. Newcastle July 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A particular Answer to Mr. Alex Hendersons July 3. 16. 1646. His MAJESTIES fifth Paper UNtill you shall find out a fitter way to decide our Difference in Opinion concerning Interpretation of Scripture than the Consent of the Fathers and the Universall Practice of the Primitive Church I cannot but passe you My Judgment anent those 6 Considerations which you offered to invalidate those Authorities that I so much reverence 1. In the first you mention two Rules for defining of Controversies and seeke a most old way to confute them as I thinke For you alleage that there is more attributed to them then I believe you can prove by the Consent of most learned Men there being no Question but there are alwaies some flattering Fooles that can commend nothing but with hyperbolick expressions and you know that supposito quolibet sequitur quidlibet besides doe you thinke that albeit some ignorant Fellowes should attribute more power to Presbyters than is really due unto them that thereby their just reverence and authority is diminished So I see no reason why I may not safely maintaine that the Interpretation of Fathers is a most excellent strengthning to My Opinion though Others should attribute the Cause and Reason of their Faith unto it 2. As there is no Question but that Scripture is the farre best Interpreter of it selfe so I see nothing in this negatively proved to exclude any other notwithstanding your positive affirmation 3. Nor in the next for I hope you will not be the first to condemne your selfe Me and innumerable Others who yet unblamably have not tyed themselves to this Rule 4. If in this you onely intend to prove that Errors were alwaies breeding in the Church I shall not deny it yet that makes little as I conceive to your purpose but if your meaning be to accuse the Universall Practice of the Church with Error I must say it is a very bold undertaking and if your cannot justifie your selfe by cleare places in Scripture much to be blamed wherein you must not alleage that to be universally received which was not as I dare say that the Controversie about Free will was never yet decided by Occumenicall or Generall Councell nor must you presume to call that an Error which really the Catholique Church maintained as in Rites of Baptisme Formes of Prayer Observation of Feasts Fasts c. except you can prove it so by the Word of God and it is not enough to say that such a thing was not warranted by the Apostles but you must prove by their Doctrine that such a thing was unlawfull or else the Practice of the Church is warrant enough for Me to follow and obey that Custome whatsoever it be and thinke it good and shall believe that the Apostles Creed was made by them such Reverence I beare to the Churches Tradition untill other Authors be certainly found out 5. I was taught that de posse ad esse was no good Argument and indeed to Me it is incredible that any custome of the Catholique Church was erroneous which was not contradicted by Orthodox learned Men in the times of their first Practice as is easily perceived that all those Defections were some of them may be justly called Rebellions which you mention 6. I deny it is impossible though I confesse it difficult to come to the knowledge of the Universall Consent and Practice of the Primitive Church therefore I confesse a Man ought to be carefull how to believe things of this nature wherefore I conceive this to be onely an Argument for Caution My Conclusion is that albeit I never esteemed any Authority equall to the Scriptures yet I doe thinke the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers and the Universall Practice of the Primitive Church to be the best and most Authenticall Interpreters of Gods word and consequently the fittest Judges between Me and you when we differ untill you shall find Me better For example I thinke you for the present the best Preacher in New-Castle yet I believe you may erre and possibly a better Preacher may come but till then must retaine My Opinion C. R. Newcastle July 16. 1646. THE END ERRATA PAg. 9. l. 29. 30. read It cannot be brought But that is not the Ben p. 11. l. 4. r. onely in the p. 29. l. 28. r. very