Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	ephesus_n	3,999	5	11.0253	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44125	D.E. defeated, or, A reply to a late scurrilous pamphlet vented against the Lord Bishop of Worcester's letter, whereby he vindicated himself from Mr. Baxter's misreports. / By S.H.	Holden, Samuel, fl. 1662-1676.	1662 (1662)	Wing H2381; ESTC R19194	22,454	35

make particular inquisition into the execution of their functions And for A Bishop's adopting to himselfe a limited number of deputies whose more neighbouring deportments he may with much facility survay and determine of them according to their known actions What will any man judge but that D. E. his witts were at Rome all this while But he informes us That he forbears to urge how contrary this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Apostles Paul and Peter hoping the Bishop will not take it angrily that he did not call them Saints Since that these holy men did not need any style of honour out of the the Pope's Kalender The Saints are very little oblig'd to the Charity of this irreverent fellow who will not give them what they deserve but what they need And their Necessities not their Merits must prescribe a proportion to their titles But why do not Bishops follow the Doctrine of these Apostles Paul saith he had sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bidding them feed the Church of God over which not be himselfe by his sole authority as Bishop of the Diocese but the Spirit had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Overseers And did the Spirit I wonder immediately without any instrumentall Cooperation of St. Paul make them overseers Or doth the Bishop now pretend to make Men overseers without any respect had to the Influence of the Spirit Wherein then lies the difference between the Bishop's practise and the Apostles Doctrine O but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them signifie the same T is true sometimes they did signifie the same yet they were not allwayes of the Same Extent Every one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no more might in some sense be calld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not è converso Every Bishop or overseer could not be calld a Presbyter and no more For my part I will not envy the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most undeserving priest in it's genuine signification But withall I would have D. E. know that a Community of name doth not alwayes involve an indistinction of dignity or a parity of degree Else would I enquire why St. Paul who was also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did so imperiously summon the rest Or what plea St. Peter could produce for his Commanding the ministers to feed the Flock as D. E. himselfe tells us Which two occurrences are so far from patronizing our Replicant's Asseverations that they utterly defeat them Manifestly holding forth a disparity of eminence and command I would desire him therefore to be inform'd that Custom is guilty neither of Blasphemy nor heresy the Degrees being still the same with those of the Apostles in the restriction of the title A Scholar I will not say D. E. knowes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formerly was a word equally appropriated to men and Spirits employ'd in embassies but now the eminence of the latter hath engross'd the Name especially in it's translations as likewise the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●-ness of the Bishops office hath attracted the use of the title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the next place we are told to detract from the Episcopal power that Whoever feed the flock are under Christ Whom the Apostle terms the Chief-Shepheard the next and immediate pastours of the flock though his wits were gone a wool-gathering and now I have found them among the flock In the first of his Exceptions he is strongly provok'd against Bishops as detracting from his Majesty's Ecclesiastick prerogative And yet here he thinks it no impeachment to the Kings supremacy to give the most inconsiderable priest the upper hand of him inspiritualls T was well he discovered no more of his name than D. E. else this sentence might chance to have made his neck crack since it savours little better than reason For I would willingly know of him whether the Pastour of the Flock be not the Governour of the flock If that he be as he cannot deny it then whosoever feeds that flock is next and immediately under Christ supream governour in Ecclesiasticals and the immediate head of the Church next to God for D. E. tells us that he is the immediate and consequently next to God the supream Pastour So farewell to one of his Majesty's titles Is not this to be a most affectionate lover of the Kings person and Government as he elsewhere pretended But he tells us moreover that To extend the power beyond the actuall care of feeding is a Notion altogether unscripturall Unless I am as farre out of the way as our Authour and Animadvertour is out of his wits here is a false 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he takes it for granted that a Bishops care is not actuall How unwarily doth he confound those two termes actuall and Immediate which last he would have said and so have excluded the Kings power from most parochiall congregations in England thinking them of the same import and signification If D. E. did understand what actuall meant he would know that a mediate care such as Episcop●l is likewise actual The word signifying nothing else than existent and in Act. Let us a little for illustration suppose an owner of a great flock dividing them into severall parts giving them to the tuition of one Pastor he distributing them to the Care of others whose executing of their office he supreviseth Will D. E. say that this Supravisour doth not take an actuall care of the flock or that he is not the shepheard more immediate to the Owner Or that he may not dispose of the more inferiour pastours pro arbitrio alwayes respecting their actions and his Master's permission Or that there is the same reason for ones feeding by vicegerents whom by reason of their multitude and remotion he cannot oversee and for another's deputation of feeders whom by reason of their paucity and vicinity he may easily survey I think he will not although his indiscretion and malevolence might counsell him to the assertion III. EXCEPT HE calls it A light and unseemly trifling with sacred Writ to understand the words spoken concerning th●se that go not in by the door and are therefore theeves and Robbers of such Ministers as preach to Congregations without the Bishop's license Little dreams he that they are called theeves and Robbers not as preaching only to Congregations for so they do but come in the wrong way but as they preach out of a designe to prejudice and plunder the true Shepheard And indeed such postick irruptions imply something of a malevolent Complexion and the ensuing practises of such intruders have bin an ample Comment on those preceding designes that encourag'd them to the Attempt But he tels us that If besides ordination there must be a License then 1 He knows not what Ordination mean's Indeed I am easily induc'd to believe this latter Clause He doth not know that ther 's a difference between the power and

read this definition of Charity we use to terme it Amare Deum supra omnia propter seipsum vicinum aequè ac nosmet propter Deum So that the part of charity looking towards our Neighbour teacheth us to love him as our selves but still for God's sake Now whether this Charity depends upon unity and consequently on uniformity or else Unity and uniformity on Charity will easily appear If the breach of charity hangs upon disunion and disunion upon difformity then Charity dedends upon union and union on uniformity But the Antecedent is manifestly true that the rending of the Church breaks the bonds of Charity in that it detracts from the honour of God without which the love of our Neighbour is no Charity and that this rending or disunion depends on difformity in that difference of circumstantials causeth heart-burnings and an mosities Whereupon D. E. is clearly mistaken in the dependance Charity depending on and being proportion'd to Unity not Unity to Charity But what if we should concede Unity to depend on Charity yet still D. E. is in his old non sequitur For Unity would still depend though mediately on Uniformity since Charity whereon he would have Unity depend would be preserved by Uniformity and broken by Difformity D. E. his candid forbearance then of one another in Circumstantials is so far from being Charity that it is the infringement of it since such a forbearance or connivence at Non-conformists would by the rending of the Church which would unavoydably follow tend to Gods dishonour But D. E. is not farther out in this than in that which follows viz. The Warrs did not arise from the Separation of Conscientious dissenters in this he speaks truth for it was not Conscience but Obstinacy counselled them to dissent but from the fury of unconscionable imposers But sure it was dissenting caused the rigid imposing And then if it must be Imposing that broach'd the Warres it may thanke forward Dissenting Which same dissenting practises whether they may not produce a relapse into their former consequences I would fain have those recusants consider Unlesse they delight in Animosities and like Salamanders long bath'd in flames disgust the influence of a milder Element VIII EXCEPT D. E. Pretends to have great insight into the Ecclesiastick laws of the French and Dutch Protestants And probably he may for his understanding hath been beyond sea a long time But yet he never read of any Imposition of standing sitting or any other posture at the Administration of the Eucharist But yet if there were saith he it doth not justifie our imposition of kneeling 1 Because the question is de jure whether it be lawfull for them to prescribe any one posture D. E. might do well to step over and convince those Churches of their Errour But why may not they enjoin one particular Posture since an Oleo and mixture of carriage at the reception of the Sacrament is not only undecent But when every man shall adopt to himself a frame of deportment they will approach the Lords Table either with affectation partially applauding their own judgments or else with regret maligne the dissimilary composure of others Either of which are enough to render a Man an unworthy receiver Besides though some have made it their endeavour to prove the carriage of the Apostles discrepant from ours Yet none ever dream'd that they had a plurality of postures among themselves 2 Saith D. E. None of those postures us'd by other Churches are so lyable to exception as kneeling I answer that they are more lyable to exception Sitting partaking much of irreverence and standing being not such an ample expression of humility and devotion In kneeling there is an obligation of Decency For considering the importance of the ordinance and the Majesty of the person with whom we have to do I know no reason but that the most submisse and reverential situation of the body should even proscinded from an enjoyning power be obligatory and more than indifferent But why is kneeling so liable to Exception 1 Because it varies most from the old form Believe him who will Which I pray doth standing sitting or kneeling more border on discumbency But what though it should most differ from the old form although D. E. cannot prove it They in their demeanours consulted conveniency we to expresse our devotion But 2 Kneeling hath been monstrously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatry What though doth the abuse of a thing argue the illegitimacy of it's use I believe then that D. E. never saith his Praiers on his knees Or probably he saith them in his sleep because waking praiers were abus'd by Papists in their Vigils and it may be this made many Presbyterians wink and pray Or which is most likely D. E. never saith any Praiers at all because Papists have made the Saints groan with their innumerable Supplications and have made Pictures the Objects of clamorous Peritions D. E. sure never puts the Bible to the penance of a consultation because the most damned Hereticks have father'd their pretensions thereon and have had recourse to Scripture for the Patronage of their Positions IX EXCEPT D. E. complains again of the injury was done in reviling the whole body of Presbyterians for the faults of Mr. Baxter upon supposition that he is a Presbyterian Supposition that he is a Presbyterian Why will any think otherwise I cannot conceive but Mr. Baxter would repute it a Calumny of the greatest Magnitude for any to exclude him out of the number nay not to suppose him their ringleader Do not others yea and his own over-weening fancy look on him as the pillar of their reeling Cause Do not all stand indicted of He esie in the thoughts of the rest who swarve from his positions and comply not with an eager subscription to what he deposeth It seems though D. E. scruples not to affirm it the Age is not too wise to be gull'd with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our Animadverter would have every man bear his own burden And although he doth not expresse it yet he hath a pretty good reason for such a request for he knows Presbyterians to be of that sort of Animals which is very good at bearing But he wonders in what Bible the Bishop found that he might asperse a whole order of men for the pretended miscarriage of one I wonder in what book I will not say Bible for I conjecture that he little troubles that did D. E. read that a man might not reprove a whole Society for the reall misdemeanour of their supposed Chieftain Or where did he find that there is reason to rebandy the phrase Crimine ab uno Disce omnes upon the order of Episcopacy because of the Lord of Worcester's dreamed fault since he pretends not to such an universality on the one side as Mr. Baxter doth on the other But not to gratifie the petulant and Sawcy humour of our Pamphleter I would beseech him to know that the