Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	offer_v	priest_n	sess_n	48	3	16.7563	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85088	Two treatises The first, concerning reproaching & censure: the second, an answer to Mr Serjeant's Sure-footing. To which are annexed three sermons preached upon several occasions, and very useful for these times. By the late learned and reverend William Falkner, D.D.	Falkner, William, d. 1682.; Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.; Sturt, John, 1658-1730, engraver.	1684 (1684)	Wing F335B; ESTC R230997	434,176	626

to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any

apprehend to be most natural the Apostle in those latter words v. 5. which are the key to the former owneth and confesseth some sudden unadvisedness in what he had expressed v. 3. When in the beginning of v. 3. he said God shall smite thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive S. Paul by the Spirit of Prophecy did know that Ananias would come to an untimely end and in these words expressed so much For he would not have made use of this form of speech in the name of God meerly in a passion And though Ananias lived after this several years in honour yet afterwards (m) Joseph de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiding himself for fear of the Bands of Robbers who were very mischievous in Judea he with his Brother was taken and murdered by them That phrase of a whited wall with other such like might in some cases admit of a favourable interpretation to denote painted innocency and not real according to the usage of the Jewish way of expression (n) Par●●2 ch 1.11 hereafter noted Yet this and the words following being spoken in some passion as appears from the connexion of these clauses Thou whited wall for sittest thou to judge c. the Apostle being admonished thereof readily owns that there was something unawares uttered in those sudden expressions His form●r sudden words not free from all fault There are indeed by many great pains taken to acquit S. Paul from being chargeable with any even the least fault in what he had here spoken notwithstanding his own free acknowledgement as the like is done by many also to free S. Peter from all blame Gal. 2. notwithstanding S. Paul's own reproof of him and his plain declaration that he was to be blamed v. 11. And therefore I think it may be worth my pains in a weighty matter of practice to endeavour the clearing this place from difficulty and I hope there will appear so much usefulness therein as may excuse the largeness of my discourse concerning the explication of these words 44. Some with (o) Chrys in Act. 23. S. Chrysostome think that what the Apostle said to Ananias contained no expressions of any undue disrepect but that he used a just freedom in speaking thus to a Ruler and that when he unjustly received hard measure from him notwithstanding S. Chrysostom endeavours to excuse them it was requisite he should so speak to him with this openness and sharpness But this is opposite to the genuine sense of v. 4. 5. And therefore to reconcile those words to this sense they think that the Apostle spake these words I wist not that he was the High Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people in such a way of complyance with his auditory that his hearers might think him to have blamed the use of such expressions towards Rulers when in truth he did not do so nor intended any such thing And by this method that there might not appear any even the least fault in the Apostles practice they admit a want of sincerity in what he declared as a duty and doctrine that thereby he intended to guide men into a mistake and deceit and that includes a very great fault in practice also And this is much the same thing with that which S. Austin justly blames (p) Aug. Ep. 15. in S. Hierom's defence of the fact of S. Peter above-mentioned and the admitting this would cast a mighty aspersion on the Apostolical Doctrine And that S. Paul himself did not think sharp words needful to be returned to a Ruler in such a case of injury is manifest enough in that when Festus told him he was besides himself and was mad Acts 26.24 25. he presently treated him with honourable respect I am not mad most noble Festus nor did the Holy Jesus give such a return though but to an inferiour Officer of the Court who stroke him with the palm of his hand John 18.22 23. 45. Many others are of opinion that when S. Paul said and several methods used by others he wist not that he was the High Priest he thereby justified his former words by denying him to be an High Priest to whom if he had been so indeed he ought not to have thus spoken To this sense (q) Aug. Ep. 5. ad Marcel l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. S. Austin inclines upon thoughts that S. Paul would now own none other under the title of High Priest but only our blessed Saviour And yet it is plain that S. Paul did give this very title of High Priest to him who was so called amongst the Jews Acts 22.5 and when all the Christians in Judea were still zealous for the Law even the Apostle also still expressed so much honour to the Priestly Service at the Temple that he there purified himself and designed to offer his Offering Acts 21.26 Others think that he denyed Ananias to have any just authority (r) Erasm in Act. 23.3 because he tyrannically commanded him to be smitten as if Christians were not to reverence them that are over them not only the good and gentle but also the froward 1 Pet. 2.18 and our Religion teacheth that if we do well and suffer for it and take it patiently this is acceptable with God v. 20. And (ſ) Annot. in Act. 23.5 Grotius supposeth the Apostle might reject the authority of Ananias because saith he he came into his Office by purchasing it with money But I can see no particular proof of his accusation and Josephus speaks oft of him as a person of great reputation and honour and however such a crime in an inferiour Officer will not make invalid the authority of a superiour by which he acts untill the superiour shall think fit to recall it even as David's sentence concerning the possessions of Mephibosheth was not void of it self though procured by Ziba's lye until David had otherwise determined And it is abundantly sufficient against alll these pretences in this Paragraph to observe that the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God in them do frequently own Ananias to be at that time an High or Chief Priest Acts 23.2 ch 24.1 ch 25.2 and it is a bad way of solving a difficulty by presuming that to be false which the Holy Scriptures declare to be true Nor would it be any thing considerable in this case if it be granted that Ananias was not properly the High Priest as will appear from what I shall now add 46. Whether Ananias was High Priest or not He was manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an High or Chief Priest but very probably he was not eminently the High Priest who entred into the Holy of Holies In the Old Testament sometimes and often in the New there are more persons than one who are called Chief Priests and so there were in this very Council before which S. Paul now appeared Acts 22.30

authority of his Chair to avenge himself of him and might be certain that what he should have done by his sacerdotal power would be acceptable to all his Collegues In which words he plainly asserts the authority of inflicting an Ecclesiastical Censure even upon a Deacon to be wholly in the Bishops power by virtue of his Office And it is indeed no mean authority which is committed by the Institution of our Lord to the Officers of the Christian Church who are appointed to be as Shepherds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and to rule his flock Joh. 21.16 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 25. Indeed they of the Congregational way do assert some special authority to the Pastors and Teachers of their Congregations and to them they particularly reserve the administration of the Sacraments They declare (ſ) Of Instit of Churches n. 16. that where there are no teaching Officers none may administer the Seals nor can the Church authorize any so to do But then they also place the power of making these Officers and committing authority to them in the people and attribute very little to the power of Ordination Indeed concerning a Pastor Teacher or Elder they tell us that (t) Ibid. n. 11. it is appointed by Christ but no such appointment can be produced he be chosen by the common suffrage of the Church it self and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with imposition of hands of the Eldership of that Church if there be any before constituted therein But if there be no Eldership in that Congregation as there can be none in the first erecting any particular Congregational Church and in the after appointing a Pastor it must be at least of those who are in inferiour Office (u) Answ to Qu. 13. they think it neither lawful nor convenient to call in the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches by way of authority when the Church is to ordain Officers But this Position proceeds upon their dividing notion in not owning the true Unity of the Catholick visible Church and thereupon they assert that as to (x) Answ of Eld in New Engl. to 9. Posit Pos the 8. acts of authority and power in dispensing Gods Ordinance a Minister cannot so perform any Ministerial act to any other Church but his own But how little they esteem that irregular way of imposing hands which themselves speak of as Christs Institution may appear from their declaring that a Pastor Teacher or Elder chosen by the Church (y) Inst of Ch. n. 12. though not set apart by imposition of hands are rightly constituted Ministers of Jesus Christ To the like purpose the Elders of New England speak who also give power (z) Answ to Qu. 21. to those who are no Officers of the Church to ordain Officers and also judge that a Minister Ordained in one Church if he afterwards becomes a Minister in another Church must receive a new Ordination But surely those who let loose their fancies at such a strange rate used no great consideration of what they wrote 26. And it greatly concerns the people since they undertake to act in the name of Christ in dispensing any part of the power of the Keys as in inflicting Spiritual censures and to exercise his authority in constituting Officers in his Church by giving Office-power to them that they be well assured that they have sufficient authority from him to warrant their proceedings especially since such things as these are represented in the Holy Scripture and have been ever esteemed in the Ancient Church as well as the Modern to be peculiar acts of the Ministerial power in the Chief Officers of the Church And they whom they call Pastors or Teachers but have no better authority than this to warrant them to be so had also need to beware how they undertake to dispense the Christian Mysteries as Officers appointed in Christs name For if they to whom God hath given no such Commission presume to set apart Officers in his name and to impart to them his authority this is like the act of Micah in consecrating Priests Judg. 17.5 12. or like Jeroboams Sacrilegious intrusion in making those to be Priests who were not so according to the rules of Gods appointment 1 Kings 12.31 chap. 13.33 which thing with its concomitants was so highly offensive to God that the very next words tell us vers 34. this thing became a sin unto the house of Jeroboam even to cut it off and to destroy it from off the face of the earth Nor can it be thought a lesser affront to the Majesty of God to set up chief Officers in his name without his Commission than it would be against the Majesty of a King to erect Judicatures in his Kingdom or to confer the great Offices of the Realm and places of eminent Dignity and Trust without any Authority from him or from his Laws 27. And to exercise any proper Ministerial power in the name of God or Christ without sufficient authority is no small offence The severe punishment of Saul's Sacrificing by the loss of his Kingdom 1 Sam. 13.13 14. and of Vzziah's offering Incense by his being smitten with Leprosie which rendered him uncapable not only of Governing the Kingdom but of having society with the Congregation of the Lord 2 Chron. 26 19 21. testifie how much God was provoked thereby The dreadful Judgment upon Corah and his Company for offering Incense and pleading the right of all the Congregation of Israel against Moses and Aaron as if they had taken too much upon them was very remarkable And much more is it sinful and dangerous to intrench upon the Office of the Gospel Ministry because the Institution of Christ the authority conveyed by him and the grace conferred from him are things more high and sacred than what was delivered by Moses 28. But the making and Ordaining Ministers in the Church was both in the Scripture and in all succession of antiquity performed by those who had the chief authority of Office in or over the Christian Church as particularly by Christ himself his Apostles and the succeeding Bishops Christ himself sent his Apostles as his Father sent him and he not his other Disciples gave them their Commission S. Paul and Barnabas where they came ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 and so must Titus do in every City of Crete Tit. 1.5 And when S. Paul sent his directions to Timothy concerning the due qualifications of those who were to be Bishops and Deacons in the Church 1 Tim. 3. and wrote this for this end that Timothy might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God v. 14 15. this plainly shews that he had the main care of appointing and admitting Officers in the Church of Ephesus 29. In the Ecclesiastical History of the next ages there is nothing more plain than that the Bishops of the Christian Church who as (a) de Praescrip c. 32. Tertullian (b)