Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	ordination_n	power_n	presbyter_n	3,665	5	10.0489	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91392	The true grounds of ecclesiasticall regiment set forth in a briefe dissertation. Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the pretended independencie of the prelates, &c. Together, vvith some passages touching the ecclesiasticall power of parliaments, the use of synods, and the power of excommunication.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1641 (1641)	Wing P428; Thomason E176_18; ESTC R212682	61,943	101

THE TRUE GROUNDS OF Ecclesiasticall Regiment SET FORTH In a breife Dissertation Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the Pretended Independencie of the PRELATES c. TOGETHER VVith some passages touching the Ecclesiasticall Power of Parliaments the use of Synods and the Power of Excommunication LONDON Printed for Robert Bostock 1641. The Divine Right of Episcopacie refuted IN this Controversie about Episcopacie by reason of many mistakes of either side much time hath beene spent to little purpose and the right and truth is yet as farre imbosked and buried in darknesse as ever it was Me thinks the case is as if two well imbattail'd Armies had marched forth for a mutuall encounter but both not taking the same way there never was yet any meeting in any one certain place where this great strife might bee decided These mistakes and misadventures on both sides as I conceive have happened for want of an exact and adequate definition of Episcopacie first set downe and agreed upon by both and then by both equally pursued It shall be therefore my care at this time to begin with a definition of Episcopacy and that such a one as I shall take out of Bishop Hall one of the greatest asserters and in that the noblest of Episcopacy and that which hee indevours to maintaine as being of Divine right I according to my power shall indeavour to disprove The first definition given by the same Bishop is this Episcopacy is an holy Order of Church-government for the administration of the Church This definition I hold to be too large and unadequate for the determining of this doubt for Calvins discipline may according to this definition be called Episcopacy and it may be affirmed that Episcopacie has bin in all ages since God had never yet any Church wherein was not some holy Order of Church discipline for better ruling of the same And by the way I must here professe to shake off and neglect the mentioning or answering of any thing which the Patrons of Episcopacie have alledged and stuft their volumes withall in defence of Order and disparity in the Church for let our Adversaries be never so clamorous in this point yet it is manifest that no Church was ever yet so barbarous as to plead for anarchy or a meere equalitie neither did Calvin ever favour any such parity as was inconsistent with Order and government neither do we see any such confusion introduced into Geneva it selfe as our Hierarchists seem to gainsay To let passe all impertinent vagaries our dispute must be not whether Church politie be necessary or no but whether that Church policy which is now exercised in England be necessary unalterable or no And not whether such parity as is the mother of Confusion be politique or no but whether such parity as now is at Geneva amongst presbyters be politique or no but my present scope is not to defend the Presbyteriall discipline in all things it is only to maintain against the necessity of such an immutable Episcopacy as is now constituted in England so far to defend parity as our Hierarchists take advantage against it for the upholding of their own side To this purpose I cānot chuse but say that in nature that seems to be the best parity which admits of some disparity in Order and that seems to be the best disparity which prevents confusion with the most parity And therefore we see that our Saviour recommended as unlordly a disparity as might be not unlike that of marriage for there is a great and sweet parity in the tie of Wedlocke between man and wife and that is not maintained without some disparity yet that disparity is as little as may be and that only for parities sake Non aliter fuerint foemina virque pares But of this no more I come to Bishop Halls next more exact definitions and they run thus Episcopacy is an Eminent Order of sacred function appointed in the Evangelicall Church by the Holy Ghost for the governing and overseeing thereof and besides the Word and Sacraments it is indued with power of Ordination and perpetuity of jurisdiction Or thus A Pastor ordained perpetuall moderator in Church affaires with a fixed imparity exercising spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority is a Bishop Or thus Adde majority above Presbyters and power of jurisdiction by due Ordination for constant continuance and this makes a Bishop take away these and he remaines a meere Presbyter It is to bee observed now that foure things are here asserted First Episcopall power is such as none are capable of but only men within Sacred Orders A Bishop must be a Presbyter indued with power of Ordination and spirituall jurisdiction by due Ordination and without these hee remaines a meere Pastor Secondly Episcopall power is such as is wholly independent upon temporall Rulers Its institution was from the Holy Ghost in the Evangelicall Church It must rule out of its owne peculiarly demandated authority Thirdly Episcopal power consists in Ordination and spiritual jurisdiction and in majority above Presbyters Fourthly Episcopal power is unalterable by any temporal authority it is perpetual by divine right As it was fixed and where it was settled by Christ and his immediate successors so and there it must continue unchanged til the worlds end In briefe the summe of all these definitions is this Episcopacy is a forme of Ecclesiasticall policy instituted by Christ whereby a Superiour Order of Presbyters is indued with a perpetual independent power of Ordination and spiritual jurisdiction and with majority above Presbyters and this power as it appertaines to all that Order so it appertaines only to that Order And those things which we oppose herein are chiefly two First we see no ground in the word of God why Bishops should arrogate to themselves such a peculiar independent perpetual power of Ordination spirituall jurisdiction and such a majority above Presbyters as now they injoy excluding from all such power and majoritie not only all Laymen and Princes but also Presbyters themselves Secondly if power of Ordination and spirituall jurisdiction and preheminence above all the Clergie bee due only to Bishops yet we complaine that now in England that power and preheminence is abused and too farre extended and to such purposes perverted as the Apostles never practised or intended Of these two points in this Order but for my part I am no favourer of extreames some defend Episcopacie as it is now constituted in England as Apostolicall others withstand it as Antichristian my opinion is that the government is not so faulty as the Governours have beene and that it is better then no government at all nay and may be better then some other forms which some Sectaries have recommended to the World And my opinion further is that it is not alike in all respects and that it ought to be severally examined and ventilated and that so it will probably appeare in some things unprofitable in some things

inconvenient in some things mischievous in notihng necessary or unalterable And it ought to be observed that evill formes of policie have been sometimes well ordered and rectified by good Commanders and so the State of Boetia once flourished under Epaminondas and Pelopidas and yet it owed this prosperitie not to the government of the Citie for that was ill constituted and composed but to the Governours for they were wise and vertuous The contrary also happened to Lacedaemon for that fared ill sometimes and suffered much distemper because though its fundamentall Laws were good yet its Kings and Ephorie were many times tyrannous and unjust And this should teach Bishops not alwayes to boast of the sanctitie of their Order because such such in ancient and modern times were Martyrs or were humble and fortunate to the Church nor always to blame all other formes of government for the faults of such such Governors But in this my ensuing discourse I must undertake almost all Churchmen at least some if not all of all Religions opinions Papists allow somthing to secular Magistrates in the rule of the Church but Supremacie of rule they do utterly in very terms deny The Protestants though divided amongst themselvs some placing supreme power in Episcopacie others in presbytery yet both in effect deny it to the King though in words they pretend otherwise The grounds of this mistake as I conceive are these when our Saviour first gave commission to his Disciples to preach and baptise and to propagate the true faith in the World Secular authority being then adverse thereunto Hee was of necessity to commit not only doctrine but all discipline also to the charge of his Apostles and their Substitutes only Wherfore though Secular authority be now come in become friendly to Religion willing to advance the spirituall prosperity of the Church aswel as the temporall of the State yet Clergiemen having obtained possession of power in the Church and that by Christs own institution they think they ought not to resigne the same againe at the demand of Princes And because the certain forme of discipline which our Saviour left and to whom it was left is doubtfully and obscurely set forth in Scripture and is yet controverted of all sides therefore some contend for one thing some for an other but all agree in this that whatsoever forme was appointed for those times is unalterably necessary for these and that to whomsoeever rule was designed to Christian Princes it was not my drift therefore must now be to discover the erroneous conceits herein of all sides and to doe as the Romans once did when they were chosen arbitrators betweene two contesting Cities I must neither decree for the Plaintiff nor Defendant but for the King who is in this case a third party I am of opinion that some order and imparitie was necessary in the Primitive Church in the very House of God and therefore was so countenanced by our Saviour but for ought I see that power which was then necessary was not so large as our Prelates nor so narrow as our Presbyterians plead for but whatsoever it was or wheresoever it rested questionless it is now unknown and not manifest in Scripture but if it were manifest and that such as the Prelacie or such as the Presbytery mayntaines it is so far from being now unchangeable since Princes are come in to doe their offices in the house of God that I think it cannot remayne unchanged without great injury to Princes and damage to the Church and by consequence great dishonour to our Saviour And this is that now which I shall endevour to confirme and demonstrate In the first place then I am to impugne those grounds whereby a sole independent perpetuall power of Church Government is appropriated to Ecclesiasticall persons only and whereby Princes c. are excluded as incompetent for the same That there is no such thing as Ordination and spirituall Jurisdiction due and necessary in the Church is not now to be questioned the question is what persons are most capable of the same whether such as are commonly called Ecclesiasticall or no It is agreed by all that God hath not left Humane nature destitute of such remedies as are necessary to its conservation and that rule and dominion being necessary to that conservation where that rule and dominion is granted there all things necessary for the support of that rule and dominion are granted too It is further agreed also that Supream power ought to be intire and undivided and cannot else be sufficient for the protection of all if it doe not extend overall without any other equall power to controll or diminish it and that therefore the Supreme Temporall Magistrate ought in some cases to command Ecclesiasticall persons as well as Civill but here lies the difference the Papists hold that though spirituall persons as they are men and Citizens of the Common-wealth in regard of their worldly habitation are subject to temporall Commanders yet this subjection is due ob pacem communem or quoad commune bonum and that per accidens and indirectè and that no further neither but only secundum partem directivam seu imperativam Thus whatsoever they pretend to the contrary they doe erect regnum in regno they give temporall Monarchie an imperfect broken right in some things but controlable and defeasible by the spirituall Monarchie in other things And the World ha's had a long sad experience of this whilst Kings had the Pope for their superiour in any thing they remayned Supreame in nothing whil'st their rule was by division diminished in some things they found it insufficient in all things so that they did not command joyntly with the Pope but were commanded wholly by the Pope And in Popish Countries now Princes do suffer themselves in word to be excluded from all spirituall Dominion and execute not the same in shew but by subordinate Clerks under them and that by privilege of the Popes grant but we know in truth they hold it and use it as their own and the Pope is more officious to them then they are to him And whereas the Canon Law allows temporall Princes to punish the insolence and oppressions of Bishops within their respective Territories modò sint verae oppressiones wee know this comes to nothing if Princes claime it not by somthing higher then Canon Law For how shall this be tryde how shall it appeare whether these oppressions be true and hainous or no if Bishops will not submit themselves in this tryall and refuse to appeale Kings are no competent Judges nor can take no just cognizance hereof and what redresse then is in the Kings power Even Popish Princes now know well enough how ridiculous this favour of the Canonists is therfore as the Popes fed thē heretofore with the name and shadow only of painted Sovereignty in temporalibus so they feed him the like now in spiritualibus Protestants dissent much

custodie of the Law from Gods hand and to receive Orders from God for the Tabernacle and all religious services and did performe the act of consecration to Priests and did always consult with God by Priests and command all men as well Priests and Levits as other men Hooker and Bilson and I thinke most of our Divines doe confesse not only this that Moses retained all Ecclesiasticall Supremacie to himselfe but that hee left the same also to his Successours Hooker sayes that by the same supreame power David Asa Jehosaphat Josias c. made those Lawes and Statutes mentioned in sacred History touching matters of meer Religion the affairs of the Temple and service of God And by vertue of this power the piety and impietie of the King did alwayes change the publike face of Religion which the Prophets by themselves never did nor could hinder from being done And yet if Priests alone had bin possest of all spirituall power no alteration in Religion could have beene made without them it had not beene in the King but in Priests to change the face of Religion And the making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes also with other like actions pertayning to the power of dominion had still been recorded for the acts of Priests and not of Kings whereas we now find the contrary Hooker says this and more and Bilson sayes not one jot lesse Hee confesses the Jewish Kings were charged with matters of Religion and the custodie of both Tables nay publishing preserving executing points of Law concerning the first table hee assignes as the principall charge committed to Kings as Kings Religion being the foundation of policy Hee instances also in the good Kings of Iudah who as they were bound so they were commended for their dutie by God himselfe in removing Idols purging abominations reforming Priests renewing the covenant and compelling all Priests Prophets people to serve God sincerely Many of the learnedest papists doe not gainsay this evident truth and therefore Stapleton being I suppose fully convinced of it seekes to answer and avoid it another way But I proceed to the times of thraldome wherein the Iews were governed by the Persians How far the Iews were left in Babylon to the free exercise of their own Religion is uncertain it may be conceived that their condition was not always alike under all Kings but generally that they found more favour there then Christians did afterwards under the Roman Emperours before this time there is no probability of Excommunication or any spirituall Judicature wee reade nothing of Maranathaes or Anathemaes but now perhaps some such government might take place for where no peculiar consecrated Ministery is the Magistrate is fittest to officiate before God and where no Magistracie is permitted Ministers are fittest to preserve order Some Papists that wil undertake to prove any thing out of any thing alleage Cain as an instance of Excom. as if Adam were so a Priest as that hee were no Prince and had power to excommunicate in case of so horrid a murder but not to execute any other Law or as if Moses would proceed against adultery by temporall punishment when Adam had proceeded against murther by spiritual but not to insist longer upon these conjecturall passages I come to our Saviours days his government also being Regal as wel as Sacerdotall nay being rather divine then either I shal not stay there neither Our mayn strife is how the Apostles their successors governed after his Ascention during the times of persecution but little need to be said hereof For in Scripture wee finde the Apostles themselves very humble and unlordly and transacting all things according to our Saviours command and example rather by perswasion and evidence of the spirit then by command and constraint and if any difference was between a Bishop and a Priest it was in outward eminence or majoritie very small and the very termes themselves were promiscuously applyed In the next ensuing times also wee finde by ancient Testimony that Omnia communi Clericorum consilio agebantur and after that Episcopacy had gotten some footing yet as another ancient testimony informes us except â Ordinatione setting Ordination only aside it challenged no priviledge above Presbyters but as I have said before whatsoever authority did reside in the Clergie whilst temporal rule was wanting to the Church and whilst miraculous power of binding and loosing sinners and of opening and shutting Heaven was supplyed by the Holy Ghost for the emergent necessity of those times the reason thereof no longer remayning it ought now to remayne no longer as it did but to devolve againe into the Tempor●ll Rulers hands from whence it was not taken by Christ but where it was then abused and made unprofitable by the owners themselves If wee doe imagine that Timothy and Titus had Episcopall power and by that Episcopall power did send out processes and keep Courts and holds pleas of all Testamentary and Matrimoniall Causes and Tithes Fasts and all other which our Bishops now clayme and did redresse all grievances for the preventing of confusion in the Church during the malignity of Secular power if wee take all this for granted though it be some thing too large to be granted yet still wee ought to conceive that this power was conferred upon them not in derogation of Secular authoritie but for necessities sake till Secular authority should againe come in and undertake the same offices which Timothy and Titus were now to performe when confusion cannot otherwise bee prevented Timothy and Titus shall governe but when it may be prevented by that authoritie which is most competent and when more perfect order shall bee more naturally and justly induced what injury is this to Timothy or Titus Why rather is it not an ease and comfort to them that they have now leasure more seriously to attend their own proper function and ministration Hookers owne words are if from the approbation of Heaven the Kings of GODS own chosen people had in the affaires of the Jewish Religion supreame power why should not Christian Kings have the like in Christian Religion And Bilson having mayntained the supremacie of the Jewish Kings Hee ascribes the like to the whole function Hee sayes it is the essentiall charge of Princes to see the Law of God fully executed his Son rightly served his Spouse safely nursed his house timely filled his enemies duly punished and this he sayes as it was by Moses prescribed and by David required so it was by Esay prophesied by Christ commanded by Paul witnessed and by the Primitive Fathers consented too Hee sayes further that what the Jewish Kings had Christian Kings ought to enjoy and therefore Esay says Hee prophesying of the Evangelicall times foretold that the Church should suck the breasts of Kings and Queens and that milk which those breasts should afford He interprets to be spirituall milk Now what can be added to this what more excellent and perfect Regiment then this had Timothy