Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	authority_n	bishop_n	presbyter_n	4,112	5	10.2023	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56416	An answer to the most materiall parts of Dr. Hamond's booke of schisme: or a defence of the Church of England, against exceptions of the Romanists written in a letter from a Catholique gent. to his friend in England.	B. P.	1654 (1654)	Wing P5; ESTC R220298	14,092	28

saith we judg them and despise them as to the first I have often wondered and do now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our Judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we press it upon them out of love and kindness to keep them from the harm that according to our beleef may come unto them but since they deny they are scismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought until we have cause to beleeve them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed Judgment against them In the last Chapter he compiaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the loss of their Church and arguing with their Disciples in this sort communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst Heoker Ecle poll cha 5. most prudent persons confessedly that ever was amongst them to be a building likely to last but 80 years to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick beleeve his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what he hath said before for ask him how doth it remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters amongst them for his defence against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it wil follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and un-bishoped by another secular Authority if it be said the Parliament which pulled them down had not the 3. bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spirit was wanting both in Parlament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pul them down as to set them up but it will be replyed that though they are pulled down yet are they stil Bishops viz the character remains with them Alas what is their characters if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doct makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the layity and so no character can be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the people as bodie and flock and consequently their Church is gone and this he does out of a word in Rufinus which he supposeth to be taken in a special propriety of Law wheras indeed that Authors knowledg in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such beleef especially learned men saying the contrary But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependant upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or new but from Peter and Paul so shal stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their Doctrines and Arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same Authortly that set them up as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with theirs difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this a counterfeit and tyrannical one to punish a better as concerning the Drs. prayer for Peace communion all good People wil joyn with him if he produce Fructus dignes penitentiae especially if he acknowledg the infallibility of the Church and supremacie of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz We desire that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacie over all the World and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in St Peter from Christ a f●● power to feed direct ond govern the Catholick Church so far the Councel without obeying this the Dr is a Scismatick without consing the other an Heretick but lee him joyn with us in these all the rest will follow Thus Sir you have my sence of Dr Hammonds Book in all the Particulars which I think to the purpose my time nor the brevity fit for a Letter not permitting I should be more methodical and do rest Your Friend and humble Servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. FINIS

be only against Monarchicall power or against fraternall charity which is very much besides the principles of those Protestants who pretend so much to the authority of Councells me thinks he should have remembred there might be Schisme against Consiliatory authority whether this be called so when the Councel actually sitteth or in the unanimity of beleefe in the dispersion of the Churches so that the Doctor supposing he concluded against the Pope hath not concluded himself no Schismatick being separated from the Catholique world in this Chap. he telleth us many things some true some not so but all either Common to us both or not appertaining to the controversie untill he concludes that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it selfe to all stately and this he does out of a word in Rufinus which he supposeth to be taken in a speciall propriety of Law whereas indeed that Authors knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such beleefe especially learned men saying the contrary Than he telleth you that the Office of Primats and Patriarchs was the same Sect 22. only authorizing that affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus He urgeth Gratian too the which as soon as occasion serveth he will tell you is of no Authority but fictitious then he saith there was no power over the Patriarchs his proof is because the Emperor used his secular Authority in gathering of Councels concluding that because the Pope did not gather general Councels therfore he had no Authority over the Universal Church which how unconsequent that is I leave to your judgment but I must not forget here what I omitted to insert before that in his division of schism he omitteth the principal if not indeed in the use of the word by the Antients the only schism which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God for though a breach made from the immediate superiour or a particular Church may in some sort and in our ordinary manner of speaking be called a schism yet that by which one breaketh away from the communion of the whole Church is properly and in a higher sence called schism and is that out of which the present question proceedeth whereas other divisions as long as both parts remain in communion with the universal Church are not properly schisms but with a diminutive particle so that in this division he left out that part which appertained to the Question In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation Saint Peter had a primacy over the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an Universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more then to any K. who received his Kingdom from his Ancestors a time out of mind to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof until the contrary be convinced as who should Rebel against such a King were a Rebel until he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may by prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such Authority from Christ lyeth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and wil do so until the very last as for his proofs which he cals evidences Sect 5. he telleth us first that Saint Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gentiles to prove this he saith the Apostles distributed their great Universal Province into several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by his interpretation lesser Provinces and citeth Act. 1. v. 25. where Saint Peter with the other Apostles prayeth God to shew which of the two proposed he was pleased to have promoted to the dignity of being an Apostle this they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this rigorous interpreter saith it signifies the special Province Saint Matthias was to have though the Scripture it self expresseth the contrary saying the effect was that afterward he was counted amongst the Apostles could any man not blinded with error make so wretched an interpretation but he goes on presently adding that Saint Peter in the same place calleth these particular provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will you know what this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or proper place is read the Text and you shall find that Saint Peter speaketh of Judas his going to Hell to receive his eternal damnation Me thinks you should wonder I can go on without astonishment at such blasphemous explications for sure it can be no less so to abuse the Word of God and after this what do you expect His position is as directly against Scripture as if he had done it on purpose the Scripture telling us how by a special Vision Saint Peter was commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile first of all the Apostles and himself in the Councel of Jerusalem protesting the same and yet this Doctor can teach he was made Apostle to the Jews exclusively to the Gentiles though all story say the contrary Again if he were made the Apostle of the Jews exclusively to the Gentiles by the same reason St. Paul was made Apostle of the Gentiles exclusively to the sence for the words are like and yet the Scripture teacheth us that where ever he came Sect 7. he preached first to the sence is not this to make Scripture ridiculous but he goes on telling us that the Gentiles exclusively to the Circumcision were the lot of St. Paul by Saint Peters own confession his words are for the uncircumcision or Gentiles they were not Saint Peters province but peculiarly Saint Pauls c. but look on the place and you shall find no word of exclusion as the word peculiarly is and wheron lyeth the whole question so that the Doctors Evidence is his own word against the main torrent of Scripture on either side Again see how he wrongs St. Peter Sect 8 9. and his Jewish profelites where he saies he withdrew from all communion with the Gentile Christians Whereas the Text expresseth no more then that he withdrew from eating with them that is keeping the Gentile diet upon this wisely laid ground he would perswade us followed the division of the Bishoppricks both in Antioch and Rome but bringing not one word of antiquity proving this to have been the cause Sect 18. yet is he so certain of it that he will find a collonie of Jews even in England for fear St. Peter should have touched a Gentile and yet he cites Saint