Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	king_n	power_n	regal_a	2,103	5	11.1413	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39998	The hierarchical bishops claim to a divine right, tried at the scripture-bar, or, A consideration of the pleadings for prelacy from pretended Scriptural arguments, presented and offered by Dr. Scott, in his book intituled, The Christian life, part II, A.M., D.D. in his Enquiry into the New Opinions, &c., and by the author of the second part of the Survey of Naphtali ... / by Thomas Forrester ...	Forrester, Thomas, 1635?-1706.; Scott, John, 1639-1695. Christian life.; Monro, Alexander, d. 1715? Enquiry into the new opinions.	1699 (1699)	Wing F1596; ESTC R4954	340,417	360

his peculiar Charge So that whatever be the particular individual Limits of the Charge which is left to the Churches Prudence to assign yet the persons having such a Limited Charge as is above discribed flows from the Nature of the ordinary Ministry and the State and Case of the Church when the extraordinary Office of Apostolat is expired And to Convince the Dr. of this and of the Folly of this Lax Assertion that Confinement to a particular See proceeds not from the Nature of the Priesthood I would put to him this Querie Whether the Assigning unto one Bishop an U●niversal Inspection and Primacy over the Catholick Church would be any impeachment of the Nature of his Priest-hood or Ministry Assigned to him by G●d yea or not If not then who sees not that he owns the Lawfulness and Divine Warrands of a Papal Primacy especialy if the Church should Corroborat this by an Universal Constitution If he say that this extension were contrary to the Nature of the Priest-hood Then he Contradicts himself in Asserting that the Priest-hood of its own Nature requires no Confinment as he calls it and in Calling it so he Insinuats some sort of Violence offered to the Nature of this Ministry Besides these Constitutions he mentions Confining Bishops to a certain Charge are either cross or Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel-Ministry expressed in Scripture If cross thereunto then sure they are not Lawful unless he will say God gives the Church Authority to enact Constitutions cross to his Revealed Will and consequently paramount to his own Rules and Authority Which whether it be greater nonsense or Blasphemy is hard to determin If they be Correspondent to the Nature and ends of a Gospel Ministry how can he deny that such a Confinment or Constitutions proceed from the Nature thereof His Reason added viz. That the Apostles ordained Bishops for the Spiritual Service of such as should believe is as void of Sense or connection as any can be For so are all Pastors the true Scripture Bishops ordained by Apostles But will he be bold to say or if he say will not all Men of Sense hiss him That the Apostles ordained all and every Bishop or Minister for the actual immediat Service of all Believers of the Catholick Church as their proper peculiar Work and Charge This he must either say or his Reason is nought Nay will he not thus contradict himself in affirming his Secondary Apostles as he calls them to differ in Extension of Power from the first Apostles P. 105. We are told That the Apostles committed their Rectoral Power over subordinat Ecclesiasticks to particular persons succeeding in their Room in particular Churches Another piece of Repeated nonsense The Apostles by their Office had an Universal immediat Inspection over all Ecclesiasticks or Church Officers of the Catholick Church as himself describs their Office Yet this their proper formal Office thus described by him he will needs have them to devolve upon particular persons fixed to particular Churches as good Sense as to say the King Commits his Regal Primacy and Rectoral Power over his Kingdom when dying or leaving it unto the Man whom he hath enstalled in the Office of a Sheriff But the Dr. tells us that he will now propose the true State of the Controversy I am sorry a Doctor has disputed so long upon a Question and has yet the State of the Controversy to propose Common Ingenuity and Rules of Dispute would have prompted him in the first place to propose the true State of the Question and explain the Terms thereof But these Rules are too Pedantick for our Dr. who is more inclined to Pamphleting Harrangues than Systematick Divinitie Well what State of the Question offers he Thus it is Whether the Apostles committed their Apostolick Authority they exercised in particular Churches to such single persons duelie and regularlie chosen Or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs in a perfect Paritie and Equalitie I shall be glad to admit this State of the Question when one Exception is offered by way of Caution Viz That as we grant an Ordinary Authority which the Apostles exercised in particular Churches contained in their Office Eminenter which they transmitted to Successors So we deny that the Authority which they transmitted to these ordinary succeeding Officers was an Authority properly and formally Apostolical or such in a formal Sense as themselves exercised And this I have made appear to be the Harmonious Sense and Judgement of sound Divines who distinguish the expired Apostolick Office and Authority from that ordinary Power and Authority which they transmitted to Successors What next We are told ibid. That the Scripture-confusion of Names might I presume to prescribe a better Term to such a Master of Language as our Dr. I should rather to evite an apparent Reflection on the Holy Ghosts Language call it Community or Homonymie will not prove Community of Offices when persons are undenyablie distinguished with regard to their Authoritie If we forget this mighty Caution of our warry Dr. we must not blame him if an unwearied Repetition will help us The Dr. will have this fixed that we fight not in the dark The Presbyterians do hold this as fixed as he What next P. 105.106 The LORD promised a perpetual Duration of the Apostolick Office not in their personal but Spiritual Capacitie he loving his Church as much after as before his withdrawing If then they conveyed their Episcopal Power to single persons in all particular Churches and not to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a Paritie and Equalitie then the Divine Right of Episcopal Government is clearlie Estabilished But 1. How often will this Man cant over his Petitio Principii and take that for the Ground and Topick of his Argument which is in the Question Yea and in the Question by his own Confession viz That the Apostolick Office is perpetual permanent and succeeded unto in a proper formal Sense What strange may I call it Impertinency or Inadvertancy is this Since himself asserts that we deny such a perpetual Office of Apostolat and he opposes above his definition anent their permanent perpetual Office unto Presbyterians assertion of the contrary and their Definition asserting the Apostles Transitorie Function 2. His Proof from Christs promise and constant care of the Church is in the Sense of all Protestants unsound and foolish and he is therein inconsistent with himself For in their Sense yea and by his own Confession there are many expired Prerogatives of Apostles yea Gifts of Officers in the first Apostolick Church which notwithstanding impeaches not either that promise of Christs constant Care of his Church or his constant Love thereunto And therefore it reflects neither upon the one nor the other that this formal Office of Apostolat consisting of such expired Prerogatives is ceased Nay himself confesses that without Impeachment of either of these the Apostles Extensive universal Power

forbids his Disciples to do so it shall not be so among you therefore it is concluded that there should be no Superiority or Governing Power of Ministers of the Church above Ministers but all should be equal Ans. These Texts have been above considered and improven It is evident that our Lord Commanded Parity of Official power among his Apostles his First Ministers and by clear Consequence the same equality among Pastors who are equal and of the same Order as Apostles were and their proper Successors in the ordinary power of Government That the Prelats acclaimed Power in Civils and Dominion over Church Judicatories brings him within the Compass of the prohibition in these Texts is above made good The Surveyer in his way of expressing our Argument seems to oppose to this Official equality of Pastors the Superior power and Authority of greater to the lesser Judicatories which is the necessary Ligament of all Government and of Presbyterian consequently But to proceed The Surveyer in his First Answer will needs question That there is at all a Prohibion in these Texts given to Christs Apostles but only a mere prediction of what was to be their Lot in the VVorld Viz. That they were not to have a Stately Glorious Pompeous worldly Superiority over others Christ assuring them they were to be dispised of the World It was as Incongruous to prohibit them to Reign as Grandees as to Charge a Man not to act the King who is assured that all his days he is to be a Beggar Ans. This pitiful Shift and Gloss out of the Road of Interpreters discovers what a desperate falling Cause the Surveyer was maintaining which needed the support of such a Conceit as this To which we oppose 1. The Circumstances and Scope of the place clearly refuting this irrational Subterfuge It is evident our Lord was here curing the Disciples Emulation and sinful Debate about Superiority and Chiefness in his Church and Kingdom and directing them both negatively and positively in the exercise of their Spiritual power as his Ministers and this in order to the preventing of mistakes in Judgment and contravention of their Practice in Reference to the Nature and Exercise of Church Government In order to which Scope the pointing at the events of Providence merely in their external Condition had been utterly extraneous and impertinent And as in this Gloss the Surveyer doth Violence to the prohibiting part of the Text so most palpably to the positive Injunction He that will be great or Chief as Luke hath it let him be as the Youngest recommending to them a Humble Ministry in Opposition to Pompous greatness 2. The Surveyers Reason is palpably absurd and impertinent for notwithstanding of our Lords warning them of their despised State in the World yet he also Instructed them in the Nature and Exercise of his Kingdom did shew he was to have a Church which is his Kingdom against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail In which Kingdom they being Officers and Governours it was necessary they should understand its nature in order to a due exercise thereof and as necessary it was their Successors should have the same knowledge The Offices in the House of GOD are truely Honourable to be counted worthy of Honour and Highly Esteemed by the Members of the Church was it not then necessary that the Nature of this Spiritual greatness and Honour in opposition to worldly Pomp should be thus pointed out The Surveyer holds there was a Prophetick Intimation that Apostles and their Successors should not have a Glorious Pompous Worldly Superiority and thus excludes from an Apostolick Succession Prelats who are Princes of the Empire and Peers of the Land and must set them in Terms of Contradiction to this his supposed Prophecy Secondly Granting there is here a Prohibition the Surveyer will consider what is prohibited and to whom For the First He tells us It is that Sort of Dominion exercised among Kings of the Gentiles according to the Notion the Apostles had of Christs Kingdom Act. 1.6 Luk. 24.21 Mat. 18.1 Mark 9.34 So that our Lord discharged Earthly Pomp Coactive Power of Worldly Kingdoms not all Superiority of one of his Ministers above others non Rem sed Modum Rei Ans. This is above Examined and Confuted We have made appear that all Masterly Power and Dominion is here forbidden as inconsistent with that Humble Ministry and Ministerial Service enjoyned in the positive part of this Precept which doth not Discriminat one Dominion from another as if one sort were allowed and another forbidden or as if Government which is in the Nature of Lordship and Dominion were Diversified and Distinguished in respect of its manner of Exercise good or bad but all Masterly Power though in its self lawful is here both as to matter and manner forbidden to Christs Ministers in the Exercise of their Authority This Man acknowledges Earthly Pomp to be forbidden and Worldly Grandure and what could his thoughts be of Prelats being a third Estate of Parliament bearing State Offices of the Highest Sort He says our Lord discharged not Rem but Modum Rei If by this Modus Rei he understand a Civil Dominion he hath cut off the Prelats Civil Rule and in so far acknowledges their Transgressing this Precept If he restrict the Sense to a Dominion which he may call Spiritual he leaves still a Latitude for the highest Extension thereof even to a Papal Primacy He tells us that a Chiefness is rather supposed than forbidden as he labours to prove P. 201. from Luk. 22.26 And thus neither the Disciples Distemper nor Emulation about a Primacy nor the Papal Pretensions thereof are ever touched by this Prohibition according to his Gloss And in this as he crosses our Lords Scope so he contradicts himself since P. 199. he asserts with Cyprian that the Apostles were Pari honoris potestatis consortio praediti had equal Power and Authority This Answer of the Surveyer wherein he embraces the Popish Distinction and Evasion upon this Text viz. That our Lord discharged that Sort of Dominion only exercised among the Kings of the Gentiles and as he expresses it non Rem sed Modum Rei brings to Mind a remarkable Passage of the Learned Turretin Institut Theol. Elenct Part. 3. Loc. 18. Quest. 16. de Regimine Ecclesiae P. mihi 164 165. Having Cited this Passage Luk. 22.25 26. against the Papal Monarchy together with the paralell 1 Pet. 5.2 And from both having inferred that Dominion in the Church is forbidden and a Ministerial Service enjoyned He brings this Popish Argument and Exception Nec dici potest apud Lucam Monarchiam Dominationem absolute non interdici sed tantum ejus modum qui non sit simulis Dominationi Politicae seu Tyrannidi Regum Gentium That is It cannot be said in the place of Luke that Monarchy and Dominion is not absolutely forbidden but only the manner thereof or such as is like to that Tyrannical

Testament Perpet Gov. Chap. 2. viz. That the Tribe of Levi was not subject to another and had its special Governours That the Books ●f Moses containing their Mould of Civil Government the Levites were on the Benches with the Judges That the Offices of the Sanctuary and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof were various That all except the Levites being restrained therefrom this required several Degrees ●f Administrators in this Diversity of Offices and Services But the Word and Sacraments Concredited to all Ministers without Distinction are of one kind and admitteth no Difference of Administration And therefore no different Degrees of Ministers Thus we have seen what good Harmony our Dr. keeps in this his Notion of the Iewish Po●icy with the Sense and Judgment of Protestant Divines And how this Famous English Bishop has Checkt him for the same But now to come more closely to his Argument If that Policy had bee● pulled down our Lord would in Commending Parity to Presbyters have stated the Opposition betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy and that of the New Testament Church not betwixt his Disciples and that of the Gentile Princes Ans. 1. That this Oeconomy was to end as Typical with other Typical Ordinances is made good And if the Dr. admit that it was to be removed in any Measure and as Typical he stands in so far upon the same Grounds with us and is obliged to Answer this Notion or acknowledge it nought 2. The Dr. himself in his Way of Arguing Answers himself He says That our Saviour designed to discharge and prohibit a Violent Secular Way of Aspiring to Greatness such as is Fashionable in Secular Courts and that the Disciples were prohibited to Exercise their Power by a Spirit of Pride and Domination And the Dr. will not say that this was the Method of Attaining Offices in the Iewish Policy or their allowed Practice God having subjected the same to his own Holy Rules and Measures And that consequently what our Lord prohibited and even according to the Dr's Sense and Expressions was only and fitly represented by the Dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles which he holds to be of this Nature and thus Exercised and who did not understand Gods Law or Measures either as to the Attaining or Exercise of Government But 3. I must tell him that in Commanding Parity among Ministers for otherwise we owne an Imparity and Subordination among Church Officers in general our Lord could not state an Opposition betwixt them and the Priests of the Iewish Oeconomy there being no such Dominion among them as he here discharged As we heard Wallaeus assert None of them had an Episcopal Dominion or a sole Decisive Suffrage in Ecclesiastick Courts or such a Negative Voice therein as the Gentile Princes Dominion did import and Prelats assume and Exercise The Learned Iunius de Cler. Cap. 24. Not. 13. makes evident and will inform the Dr That par Consortium fuit Honoris Potestatis inter Sacerdotes sed Ordine impari qua Familiarum qua Temporis suspectu penes concessum Sacerdotem ex Lege fuit ordinaria Iurisdictio Ecclesiastica That there was a like Share of Honour and Power among Priests though in a different Order partly in respect of Families partly in respect of Times The ordinary Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction belonged to the Assembly of the Priests according to the Law Hence we may by clear Consequence inferr that it belonged not in the Sense of Iunius to the High Priest nor to any of them solely Now where there was such a well ordered Parity of Power and Government among these several Orders of Divine Appointment it was very unsuteable to Exemplifie such an Arbitrary Dominion thereby as the Dr. here supposeth and such a Civil Greatness and Supremacy as the Apostles affected Besides the Dr. and we doth both hold a Subordination of Courts and Officers under the New Testament wherein both Oeconomies were alike and there being under the Old Testament Oeconomy no such Headship and Soveraignity as is said the stated Opposition betwixt the two Governments could not so well correspond to our Lords Scope in this Precept and Prohibition But finally the Dr. cannot but acknowledge that the Distemper the Apostles now Laboured under was their Fancy of a Temporal and Earthly Kingdom of our Lord admitting of Worldly Dignities and Degrees of State and Honour as the Kingdoms of the World which is the Notion that the Iews to this day entertain of the Messias Kingdom understanding in a Literal Sense the Magnificent discriptions thereof exhibit by the Prophets Hence the People came to make our Saviour a King and were mainly Stumbled at his Humble and low Estate and which is to this purpose very considerable we find the Disciples themselves propose that Question to him after his Resurrection wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel So that its clear that the Ambitious affectation of Earthly Grandure Pomp and the greatness of this Worlds Potentats was the distempering Principle leavening the two Brethren and which prompted them to propose to our Saviour the Sute which excited their Fellow-Disciples emulation against them and gave occasion to the Precept under debate And hence the opposition was most fitly stated betwixt the Honour and Offices of Christs Kingdom and that of the Kingdoms of the World and Earthly Potentats and it was needful that our Saviour should thus shew the Disciples the Distinction betwixt his Kingdom and the Kingdoms of this World as himself asserted to Pilate Ioh. 18. Besides the Pomp and Corruptions of the Kingdoms of the World being to continue in after-Generations and consequently the tentation thereof endangering the inflaming of this Ambition in Church Officers But not the Iewish Oeconomy now to be abolished the opposition which our Lord stated was most fit and sutable to his Scope Upon what is here offered we may see the inconsequence and insufficiency of what the Dr further adds in Confirmation of this his Notion P. 21. viz That our Lord did state the opposition betwixt the current Doctrin and his own when he would direct in better Morals And therefore if he had forbidden Subordination and Degrees of Priests and Established Equality he would have Stated the opposition betwixt the Model of the Temple and that of the Christian Church This is no Reason For 1. We deny that our Lord enjoyned an absolute Parity of Church officers but among those only of the same kind he did not forbid all Imparity and Jurisdiction among Church Officers 2 The opposition betwixt the Tmple-Model and that of the New Testament could neither so well sute the Apostles distemper and tentation nor our Lords design in this prohibition and Precept There was 1 A Subordination and jurisdiction required therein so in the New-Testament dispensation 2 Ministers therein were to attend their Charges diligently so also in the New Testament Church 3 None of them had an Imperious arbitrary or Civil Rule over their fellow-Priests and thus it is

to all their Successors the Bishops in this Apostolick extent For he affirms that this Power of the Apostles is perpetual and necessary in the Church and that the Bishops are their proper Successors therein And here the Dr. would do well to inform us of what Character and Mould in Point of Power these Bishops are whom he owns to succeed to this Apostolick Office For that de facto there is a great variety in the extent of their Power he will not deny Whether doth he hold that every ordinary Bishop is such a Successor or the Arch Bishop or only Primats If every Bishop does thus succeed which the Series of his Arguing seems to import then I would know how a Bishop with a derived subaltern subordinat Power limit to a certain and may be not a very great Precinct or district can be said to succeed the Apostles in a Supreme Iurisdiction over all Believers and Ecclesiasticks Let him make Sense of this if he can If he say that the Bishops Succession relates to their Power within their own district Then 1. They no more succeed the Apostles in the Power by him described than Successors to a Sheriff in a Kingdom can be said to succeed to the Regal Throne 2. If he once break square thus and infringe his own Rule his measures and description he must consequently acknowledge that a Government in the smallest precinct yea even of a Pastor over his Flock is eaten us a Succesion to the Apostles If he say the Pastor has no Rule over Ecclesiasticks and consequently no Apostolick Succession in his Sense I Answer neither has the Bishops over all Ecclesiasticks which is also his Sense and description of the Apostolick Succession If he own that only Arch Bishops are such Successors Then 1. How comes he to owne the Bishops in universum as succeeding the Apostles in a Rectoral Power 2. Since the Bishops can give Rules to subordinat Ecclesiasticks Preach if their Lordships please give Rules of Disciplin hear complaints decide Controversies c. wherein he makes this Apostolick Succession to consist how can he deny even to Diocesan Bishops this Succession 3. Suppose but one Diocesan Church in a Countrey gathered the Dr. will not deny an Apostolick Succession and Government there according to his Pattern and Principles But to proceed if the Dr. hold that only the great Arch Bishops or Metrapolitans have this Supremacy and Apostolick Succession I would know upon what ground he can defend this in his Principles I know none except that of the extent of their Power be alledged But here the Dr. is still at odds with himself For the Apostolick Power which he holds to be Succeeded unto and Permanent extended to all Churches to all Ecclesiasticks and Believers And besides suppose an Oecumenick Council Assembled the Dr. will not assert that he has an Authority paramount to it by his Office and that there may not be a greater Metropolitan than he existent whose Power may be paramount to his in the Council or otherwise Thus we see how our Dr. in his Phantastick Description of the Apostolat and Pleadings for the Bishops Succession thereunto has involved himself and is Rolling Sisiphus Stone which still returns upon him and renews his Labour But in the next place the Dr. P. 97.98 tells us That extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost Power of Miracles Languages other Spiritual Furniture were temporary extrinsick advantages necessary for first forming the Christian Church and when this Fabrick is erected Scaffoldings are removed But I should think if the Apostolick work and necessary duties required these extraordinary Gifts as necessary advantages and furniture for the same then they were intrinsick not extrinsick to the Office it self Which I will prove to the Dr by a paralel Argument the Topick whereof he must needs owne To be apt to Teach to have Spiritual knowledge and the Gift of utterance in a competent Measure prudence a competent knowledge of the Scriptures and Languages thereof he will acknowledg are needful for the Pastoral work of Feeding by the word and Doctrin Therefore say I they are essential and intrinsick to the Pastoral Office For 1. Else there were no need of a previous trial of these Gifts in order to admission to that Office And 2. God conjoins the call to the Office with the Gifts for it and the one in an ordinary way must be made Appear by the other I hope the Dr and I are agreed as to the Soundness of this Reasoning Now let me subsum upon this Conclusion In like manner the Apostolick Office required these works or duties whereunto were necessarly annexed the forementioned Gifts and Eurniture for the fame 1. They were to teach all Nations this they could not do without the Gift of Tongues wherefore on the day of Penticost they were thus sealled Yea were Commanded to stay and wait at Ierusalem for this Seal 2. Another piece of their work was to Confirm their Doctrin by Miracles then new and unknown thus to seal their Commission to an Infidel world as also to the Iews as Moses and Aaron were to Pharaoh and Israel before whom the Signs were shown of the Rod and Leprous hand This Work required the Gift of Miracles 3. They were to form the Christian Church and lay the ground plott of its Government and deliver the Rules and plat-form of its Doctrine and Worship This required an infallible directive Power and Authority in reference to all the Ordinances and Officers thereof 4. Their Work and Office required an immediat Relation in actu secundo to all Churches so that they were while alive solely such Officers thereof Hence their very Office being of this Nature and supposing the Christian Church a forming erecting it is certain that taken in a proper formal Sense with these its Ingredients i● is the Scaffolding which is removed when this Fabrick is erected since now no Mortal can pretend to such a Mission Commission and Authority Further The Command Go teach all Nations he must hold still vigent as essentially included in the Apostolick Office for he distinguishes this part of their Permanent Power from their extraordinary expired Priviledges P. 96. so that he must needs acknowledge that this requiring the Gift of Tongues it was essential thereunto Again he holds there is a Supreme Power of Government constant and transmitted to the Church And this Supreme Power necessarly requires 1. Infallibility in all the Methods and Measures of Government For that upon the ground of such a Supremacy the Apostles had an Infallibility in all their Measures and Ordinances of Government delivered to the Churches the Dr. will not deny 2. He cannot deny this necessary Consequence That therefore they were priviledged with unaccountableness and uncontrolable Power And this in his Principles he must needs hold to be transmitted For if Supremacy and Infallibility will not infer these two surely nothing will And the Dr. will not say that Supremacy over all Church