Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	world_n	write_v	yield_v	73	3	6.4780	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92075	The Cyprianick-Bishop examined, and found not to be a diocesan, nor to have superior power to a parish minister, or Presbyterian moderator being an answer to J.S. his Principles of the Cyprianick-age, with regard to episcopal power & jurisdiction : together with an appendix, in answer to a railing preface to a book, entituled, The fundamental charter of presbytery / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1696 (1696)	Wing R2218; ESTC R42297	93,522	126

with our Author's Book or with his own against Separation from the Episcopal Chairs let the Reader judge It 's true Mr. Dodwell it is 521 522. pretendeth not to be afraid of the Consequence of this Assertion with Respect to the Bishop's absolute Power because Kings also are Invested by their Subjects this Paralell I might but shall not Debate with him but how can he on this Supposition defend their sole Power of Ordination to be of Divine Right I cannot see but shall be glad to be instructed I insist not on the Suspicion that Cyprian ' s Epistles are corrupted tho' Augustine Ep. 48. Vincentio hath these words neque enim potuit integritas atque notitia literarum unius quantumlibet illustris Episcopi Cyprian scil custodiri quemadmodum Scriptura Canonica c. What is said may derogate much from the Testimonies that my Antagonist bringeth and warrant our putting a sense on them different from the sound they have in the Ears of this Author and some others of his Perswasion The Reader may know that our Debate is not about the Jus but Factum not how the Church should be Governed but how it was done in the Age mentioned In which I affirm that tho' it is manifest that the Bishop was above the Presbyter in Dignity and Order yet he did not Rule the Church by himself but the Presbyters had equal Power with him in managing Church-Government THE Cyprianick-Bishop Examined c. SOME of the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland who have lost their places wherein they sat silent without troubling the Presbyterians with their Controversal Writings for they then dealt with them by other Weapons are now at leasure to maintain the Stickle that way and some are so irritated by their Losses that much more of their passionat Resentment and personal Reflections against such as never did them wrong appeareth in their Books than Strength of Arguments for what they hold in our present Debates I have with much weariness and Reluctancy considered some of these Pieces and hoped our Debates had been at an end after their silence for some time and that we should no more be that way diverted from our more necessary Work till I lately met with a Treatise called the Principles of the Cyprianick Age c. which I find to be written in a more Schollar like and less unchristian Strain than what I have hitherto seen from these men He dealeth fairly by Arguments tho I am not terrified nor convinced by the Strength of them and I am resolved to treat him with the same Civility and for the weight of my reasonings let the Reader judge It is not Victory but the clearing and maintaining of Truth that I design and shall not be ashamed to become his Proselyte if what I hold be found to be an Error § 2. Before I consider his Book in the particular Contents of it I shall make a few general Remarks about it 1. Then if we should grant all that he pleadeth for it would not ruine the Cause of Presbyterians nor establish Prelacy It would amount to no more but this that one Presbyterian and he among the meanest of them did mistake in matter of Fact as it is related in the Antient History He might know that neither the Presbyterians generally nor that Author in particular did ever lay the Stress of their Cause on the Practice or Principles of the Church after the Apostolick Age Tho' we will not yield the Suffrage of later Antiquity to be for our Adversaries yet that is the Antiquity that we build upon for it is Divine not humane Authority that we take for the Rule of our Belief and Practice in the matter of Church-Government and managing the Affairs of the House of GOD. Timothy was to be guided by it 1 Tim. 3 14 15. and so will we And even the Defender of the Vindication against the Apologist or his Friend as our Author calleth him P. 4. hath fully declared his Opinion to this purpose Rational Defence of Non-conformity P. 158. which Book our Author seemeth to be no stranger to for he is P. 69 at pains to cite and try his critical Skill upon a Passage in it He could not then think to silence Presbyterians by this his Attempt we have other Grounds if we were beaten from this as I hope we shall not If his Book was written only to convince the World that he who wrote the Defence of the Vindication against the Apologist is not infallible in all that he asserteth he might have spared his pains that should easily have been yielded to him To write a Book of Twelve Sheets on such a Subject is such Work as we have no time for Egregiam verô laudem spolia ampla He had read Cyprian's Epistles which are not very voluminous and had made a Collection of Citations and thus they must have a vent § 3. The Passage that he buildeth his whole Fabrick upon was by the Defender which is my second Remark set down with that Brevity that was sutable to the purpose in hand tho' may be not sufficient to preclude all the critical Notes that a Man of this Author's Skill and Learning could make when he is so disposed to do The Apologist had in a rambling and incoherent way started a Number of Debates that are between us and the Prelatists insisting on none of them And the Defender thought not fit to make a large Treatise on each of these Heads but answered what he proposed with a sutable succinctness If he had then thought it convenient or had imagined that so large a Book as our Author 's would have been built on this Passage he would have made the Foundation broader tho' not more commodious for what this Author buildeth on it He could have told him that tho' he might be bold to venture his Credit on the Cyprianick Age being more on our side than on that of our Adversaries And tho' our Cause duely and distinctly stated should suffer no loss by being tryed at that Barr yet neither did he venture any bodies Reputation but his own nor will he quit the more divine Letters Patents that we have for Presbytrey to rest in this either as our only or our chief Strength Notwithstanding of what I have now remarked concerning this Author snatching at a fancied Advantage against us I hope to make it evidently appear that he hath wholly missed his Aim and that these two or three Lines of my Book will stand against the shock of his long Treatise § 4. I thirdly observe that this Author who is so profuse in his Refutation of a few Lines in my Book hath in his own given occasion to any one who were of as scripturient a Disposition as himself for vast Volums as in his sarcastick denyal of Ruling Elders P. 8. That Presbyters in the Cyprianick Age were seldom called Pastors P. 9. That there can be no Church without a Bishop P. 19. That the Bishops Power is Monarchical

p. 22. That the Bishops Deed is the Churches Act. p. 24. That Episcopacy is of Divine Institution p. 26. That he is subordinate to none p. 27 28 35. That the Bishop is a supream Ecclesiastical Magistrat p. 43. And Majesty is ascribed to him Ibid. he is called a Soveraign and Peerless Governour p. 65. Supream and unaccountable Power is ascribed to him p. 67. These and many more such Assertions are the Stars by which his Treatises is bespangled And each of them might afford matter for a long Discourse to one who hath nothing else to do A fourth Remark is that through the whole course of his Argumentations he useth such confidence and these Pretences to conclusive and irrefragable evidence as may fright an unintelligent or unwarrie Reader while the Strength of his Ratiocinations is no way proportionable but apparent to be built on Words rather than Matter Every one knoweth that the Signification of several Words used about Ecclesiastical Things in Cyprian's time was far different from what is our modern Dialect The truth of this will I hope be more fully manifest in our considering his particular Arguments § 5. My Assertion against which his Book is levelled he seemeth to wonder at as strangely rash and a putting our being or not being Schismaticks on a desperate Issue The Assertion is a Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination If he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastour of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbyterie If he can prove that we separate from our Pastours or from the Presbytery with their Moderator under whose Inspection we ought to be let him call us what he will But we disown the Bishops in Scotland from being our Bishops we can neither own their Episcopal Authority nor any pastoral Relation they have to us He seemeth p. 1. to divide his Book into two parts First to take to Task what I had said to wit the words above set down 2. to add perchance something concerning our main Argument The first part he hath largely insisted on with what Strength or Success I am now to examine Of the 2 I find nothing but that p. 94. he hath fairly waved it But with confidence that he could accomplish it and leaving to the person to whom he directeth this long Letter to command him to prosecute what is left undone The Import of which is that it is much more his Inclination to write ad hominem against a particular person than ad rem for that which he taketh to be the truth of God § 6. His first work is to expose the above-mentioned Passage in my Book as yielding a large Field if one had a mind to catch at Words and that it were easie to insist on such escapes if one had a mind for it His first Remark is Suppose the word Diocess was not in use in St. Cyprian's time as applyed to a Bishops District doth it follow that the thing now signified by it was not then in use Answ Pray Sir who made that Consequence the Words cited catch at them as much as you will import no such Consequence and design no more but that which we call now a Diocesan Bishop with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was not in that Age. His next Remark is in this Question What could move him the Author of the Passage now under Debate to insinuate that we assign the sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination to our Diocesan Bishop Answ It is a greater wonder what should move this Author to except against our thinking that they assign such Power to their Bishop seing himself ascribeth all that Power to the Cyprianick-Bishop and affirmeth him to be of Divine Institution as hath been already observed Hath he not said that the Bishops Power is Monarchial pag. 23 32. and expresly pag. 38. near the end he saith the Bishop had the sole Power of Ordination and saith it hath been frequently and fully proved by learned men that he need not insist on it and pag. 39. telleth us of Cyprian's Ordaining without asking the consent of the Clergy or People and pleading for this as the Right of all Bishops If he do not ascribe this sole Power to his Scots-Bishops then ex tuo ore they are not the Bishops that Christ instituted Nor these of the Cyprianick-Age nor these for whom the learned men that he speaketh of hath pleaded neither can I guess what kind of Animals he will make them they must be a species of Bishops that never man pleaded for but himself I suppose his Lords the Bishops will give him small thanks thus for pleading their Cause What I have now observed sheweth his Questions to be impertinent viz. When did our Bishops claim that Power and when was it ascribed to them by this Constitution When did they exercise it When was it thought necessary for raising a Bishop to all the due Elevations of the Episcopal Authority I give this general Answer to all these Questions our Scots Bishops look on themselves and are lookt on by their Underlings and by this Author as Scripture-Bishops or at least as Primitive-Bishops and the Bishops that the learned men of this and the preceeding Ages have pleaded for but our Author saith these had the Power we now speak of and therefore he must say that that Power was given them by the Institution that they do claim it and ought to claim it that it is necessary for their due Elevation If they shun to exercise it at least openly by not laying on of Hands without Presbyters it is because they know that practice cannot take nor be born with in a Nation where Parity hath been so much known and generally liked I always understood that the main thing debated between us and the Prelatists was about the sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination and I am not alone in this the Synod of London Vindication of Presbyterial Government pag. 24. proposeth the Controversie in the same Words So doth also Smectymnus § 8 9. and I think he will not find many if any one of either side who handleth this Controversie without respect to this Power To his Question When was it ascribed to them by the Constitution I Answer it was done with respect ●o Ordination anno 1635 in the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical chap. 2. § 3. where the Examination of the Candidate and consequently the Power of determining who shal be ordained is laid on the Bishop and he is allowed to perform this Examination by himself or his Chaplain And for Jurisdiction a person ordained to a Charge may not Preach unless he be also licensed by the Bishop ibid. chap. 7. § 5 Nor may he refute Error preached by another unless he first ask and obtain leave of the Bishop ibid. § 7. Yea a Presbyter may not go a Journey for some time without the Bishops leave