Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	john_n	13,096	5	6.2353	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10620	An animadversion to Mr Richard Clyftons advertisement Who under pretense of answering Chr. Lawnes book, hath published an other mans private letter, with Mr Francis Iohnsons answer therto. Which letter is here justified; the answer therto refuted: and the true causes of the lamentable breach that hath lately fallen out in the English exiled Church at Amsterdam, manifested, by Henry Ainsworth.	Ainsworth, Henry, 1571-1622?	1613 (1613)	STC 209; ESTC S118900	140,504	148

pag. 51.52 professeth that the hierarchie of Archbishops Lord bishops Preists c. are a strange and Antichristian Ministerie and officers not instituted in Christs Testament nor placed in or over his church These have placed over them one that was made Preist by a Lord bishops ordination so as because of it they did not ordeyn or impose hands on him when at the same time they ordeyned and imposed hands on others whom togither with him they set over the Church 5. The 32. article wherto our Apologie agreeth pag. 52.53.54 testifieth that al such as have received any of those false offices of Lord bishops Preists c. are to give over and leave them and so hath it been practised here before by al such Preists as came to our faith and Church Now one is Minister over thē ordeyned Preist by the Prelates as is before sayd The Confirmation of these points in our Apologie besides the scriptures quoted in our Confession is of the one by 8. of the other by 12. reasons deduced from many scriptures Hereunto they make these answers First that this point is of like nature with the 2. 3. here before where therfore see the answers And there also let the reader see our replies But they would blind their reader with shew of answer where none is For the first point was of every Churches power to cast out obstinate synners the secōd of their power to elect and ordeyn officers Now what are these to justify any unlawful ministerie eyther set up by a people without the power of Christ or received by the tradition of Antichrist It had been their part seing they deny their former grounds to have shewed us some better by the scripture which how they have doon eyther there or here let their writings being viewed manifest Secondly they say if wee would here imply a particular matter concerning one of their Ministers about imposition of hands that is a point also left to further consideration c. I answer no we mean others of them that were Ministers before and such as have had some of them imposition of hands twise and this they could not but see plainly to be our intent in that 4. article though they wink and wil not see it and are mute and will not defend it but wind away to other things not there intended Let them therfore in their next bring a playn defence of their Ministerie which by their new doctrine is overthrowen and use no more such tergiversation Vnto the other thing objected in the 3. 5. articles by Lawn printed First they signify that their testimonie against the antichristian hierarchie treated of in the Confession is not by them reversed or weakned any way c. I answer these are but words in deed and truth the contrary wil appear For as heretofore they proved Antichrists baptisme to be not a true but a false sacrament but now they plead for it to be the one true baptisme of Christ so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian hierarchie of prelates Preists c. their offices entrance and administration they now compare the popish ordination with the baptisme Also they bring to warrant this the Preists and Levites which were caled of God as after is to be seen and yet they would be thought not to reverse their testimonie Secondly they tel us how they were combred with the Anabaptists and occasioned to think of their ministerie as 1 That imposition of hands is of God and not an invention of Antichrists c. I answer thus also they shal be occasioned to think of the Popes excommunication for that is Gods ordinance as wel as their sacramēt of orders and of the Romish Mass or supper for that is Gods ordinance also though by them abused to idolatrie Yea thus the Iewes that f●l to paganisme mought take occasion to think of the hethēs sacrifices for they also were Gods ordinances in their first institutiō as wel as Antichrists sacraments But as for the Anabaptists thēselves long since so refuted them without this their new plea that ther needed no fear of their strength at al. Finally the impositiō of hands by an Antichristian prelate upon that ministerie which is not of Christ but of Antichrists apostasie I deny that such imposition of hands is of God and that such the whole ministerie of Rome is is proved at large by many scriptures in M. Iohnsons Reasons and Arguments against spiritual cōmunion with the M●nist pag. 17.18 c ● Their second observation is that baptism and imposition of hands are joyned togither among the principles Heb. 6 2. I answer so are baptism the Lords supper now of Antichristians caled the Mass joyned in 1. Cor. 10.2.3 12.13 that if this reason be good their next thoughts must be about the lawfulnes of the Mass. 3. Thirdly they allege that imposition of hands is in Rome stil given to the office of ministerie and in the name of the Lord. I answer so also the Popes bulls of excōmunication goe forth from the office of Ministery and in the name of the Lord but so all mischeif began and gave occasion to the proverb in nomine Domini incipit omne malum But let us take a view how imposition of hands is used now in Rome as they say in the name of the Lord. Ordination of ministers there is a sacrament the outward signe or rite wherof is imposition of hands the thing signifyed is the promise of grace They have seven orders Preists or Sacrificers Deacons Subdeacons A●oluthes Exorcists Readers and Ostiaries or keepers of the dore They are made Preists when by the Bishop who onely can give this order it is sayd Receiv power to offer sacrifice vnto God and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead in the name of the Lord. The Bishop sayth with al Receiv the holy Ghost the Preists are also shaved on their crownes and anoynted with oyl on their hands that by that unction and the Bishops bles † sing those hands may be consecrated and sanctified of God A stole of innocencie is put upon the Preist and he promiseth to the Bishop and his successors reverence and obedience and the Bishop gives him again the blessing of God the Fa † ther the † Son and the holy † Ghost that he may be blessed in his preistly order and may offer placable hosts or sacrifices to God for the synns of the people This ordination hath a double effect 1. a perpetual spiritual power in sign wherof a character or mark indeleble is imprinted on them and 2. grace making them acceptable wherby they are inabled to execute their office So this Bishoply ordination conferreth grace and if any shal say that the holy Ghost is not given hereby let him sayth the Council of Trent be accursed This is that holy ordination or rather that abominable Idol and mark of the

thē before himself as in giving his life a ransome for many in being as he that serveth at the table wherat his disciples sate in which respect he expressly teacheth thē to be greater thē himself and in washing their feet as they sate at supper so was not his order an ord of service in it self but of headship and kingship which if our Ch ●officers could prove their order to be we would then acknowledge it in deed superiour to the order of saynts But their order being merely an order of servāts me thinks cōmon sense should serve to judge the same inferiour to the order of the Church whose servants under Christ they are I ad in my book pag. 225. that the officers being by their order servants the Church may in that relation be called a Lord not for the governing of them in the outward policie and affaires in the church as he injuriously collects but as they are for the Churches use and service which he conceals though I expresly so note in the same place as also that the same Church-servants are Church-governours the gogernment of the Church being a mere service And for the thing If the officers be to be called servants to the Church what is the Church to be called to the officers A servant is a relative and must have a correlative and I would know by what name he would call it if not by the name of Lord Mayster Mistress or the like And if he deny this he takes away from men the use of cōmon reason and understāding Let the servants know yea though stewards as are the Church-officers add so betrusted with the goverment in a special māner that the wife of their Lord and Mayster is a degree above thē and so to be acknowledged by them least they not onely wrong her but provoke him to wrath Lastly because he imputes new doctrine to me I wil note down the doctrine of some few others both more ancient and more worthy of respect then my self Musculus in his Cōmentaries vpon 1. Cor. 3 22 23 24. Let no man glorie in men for all are yours c. sayth thus Is it not absurd that the greater to wit the Church should glory in the less to wit the officers the Lord or mayster in the servant And in this sense sayth he further the perversnes of the false Apostles is noted who when they wer servants of the Church did make of a Mistress or dame a servant and of servants Lords And agayn the foolishnes of the Church is taxed who when they were Lords of their Ministers gloried in their servants Bullinger upon the same place vers 21. sayth thus So great is the dignity of them that beleev that God hath subjected all things unto thē It is therfore great folly if the Lord of thinges subject himself to the things c. Pareus professor of Heidelberg in his Cōmentaries upon the same scripture reproving the churches glorying in Paul C●phas c. and quoting 2 Cor. 4.5 we preach not our selves but Christ Iesus the Lord and our selves your servants for Iesus sake sayth thus It is not meet that the Lord should glorie in his servant wee are your servants Therefore c. All these and many moe call the Church expresly a Lord in the very same relation with me and yet I suppose never man chalenged them for making an Idol of it or setting up a Lordly government neyther would Mr. Iohnson me had he not been immoderately jealous for the officers dignity Iohn Robinson The 2 Article objected We professed heretofore that Christ gave the power of receiving in cutting off to the whole body togither of every Christian congregation not to any one or more members sequestred from the whole c. Now we have been taught that in cases of question and controversie the greater part of the people are the Church though al the Elders and other brethren be against them c. and so have the power to receiv in cut off c. I answer ther is no contradiction in these things we hold stil in all points according to the article alleged neyther ever taught we the people onely to be the Church sequestred from their officers but the officers governing and the people governed to be the Church which hath the power to use in holy order But if these officers fal into heresie or wickednes themselves or to abett wickednes in others and wil not be reclaymed by any holy means the Church can use then may they by the Church which chose them be deposed as unworthy of their places yea and excommunicated and so al other impenitent sinners and this by the voices of the most of the congregation if al consent not aswel as members or officers are received in by the voices of the most if some doo dissent for ther is one power for them both And these our opposites must eyther manifest that if one or 2 officers or members doe dissent in a controversie ther is a sequestration of them from the whole and the Church then hath not the power of Christ to receav in and cutt off or els al may see that this is a colourable accusation of theirs no contradiction of ours For if the consent of al every one be not necessaryly to be had they dissenting through their ignorance frowardnes or the like thē the most voices must prevayl But how farr their new doctrine that the Elders are the Church is both from our former professiō and from equitie I have before shewed The 3 Article We wrote heretofore that the Elders have the reyns of government cōmitted to them now we are taught that the governmēt of the church is not Aristocratical yea the people as Kings have the power c. I answer we differ not from our former profession but they deceiv the reader by turning government into power which we in our publik profession heretofore distinguished and so doo still giving the government of the whole Church and all the actions of it unto the officers the power to the whole body and so to the officers with the people as joyntly Kings and Preists of which things we have spoken before We never held the Church to be a mere Aristocratie as they speak intending that the cratos or power should be in the hands of a few neyther shal these men ever prove it And in the book which they cite in the very same place though they dissemble it we shew the Church not the Elders onely to have Christs power to judge al within the same and that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to the whole Church as the Protestants have heretofore testified against the Papists That these men doo but feign contradiction and would blind the reader by confounding the Churches power and goverment as one The 4. article Wee professed hertofore that no sacraments should be