Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	bishop_n	jurisdiction_n	ordination_n	4,138	5	10.4414	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78957	The papers which passed at Nevv-Castle betwixt His Sacred Majestie and Mr Al: Henderson: concerning the change of church-government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.; Marshall, William, fl. 1617-1650, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2535; Thomason E1243_3; ESTC R209178	25,946	63

Act. II. 22 26. And because that Church was governed by Elders Acts 11.30 which were Elders of that Church and did together for Acts of Government And the Apostles themselves in that meeting Acts 15. acted not as Apostles but as Elders stating the Question debating it in the ordinary way of disputation and having by search of Scripture found the will of God they conclude It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us which in the judgement of the learned may be spoken by any Assembly upon like evidence of Scripture The like Presbyterian Government had place in the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. in the times of the Apostles and after them for many yeares when one of the Presbytery was made Episcopus Praeses even then Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur saith Jerome Episcopos magis consuctudine quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere ecclesiam regere 5. Farre be it form me to think such a thought as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy in your other maine Argument from Antiquity As we are to distinguish between Intentio Operantis Conditio Operis so may we in this case consider the difference between Intentio Argumentantis Conditio Argumenti And where your Majesty argues that if your Opinion be not admitted we will be forced to give place to the Interpretation or private Spirits which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle Peter and will prove to be of dangerous consequence I humbly offer to be considered by Your Majesty what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have taught us That the Interpretation of Scriptures and the Spirits whence they proceed may be called private in a threefold sense 1. Ratione Personae if the Interpreter be of a private condition 2. Rationen Modi Medii when Persons although not private use not the publique meanes which are necessary for finding out the Truth but follow their owne fancies 3. Ratione finis when the Interpretation is not proposed as Authenticall to bind others but is intended onely for our owne private satisfaction The first is not to be despised the second is to be exploded and is condemned by the Apostle Peter the third ought not to be censured But that Interpretation which is Authenticall and of supreme Authority which even mans conscience is bound to yeild unto is of an higher nature And although the Generall Councell should resolve it and the Consent of the Fathers should be had unto it yet there must alwaies be place left to the judgment of Discretion as Davenant late Bishop of Salisbury beside divers others hath learnedly made appeare in his Booke De Judice Controversiarum where also the Power of Kings in matter of Religion is solidly and unpartially determined Two words onely I adde one is that notwithstanding all that is pretended from Antiquity a Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction will never be found in Prime Antiquity The other is that many of the Fathers did unwittingly bring forth that Antichrist which was conceived in the times of the Apostles and therefore are incompetent Judges in the Question of Hierarchy And upon the other part the Lights of the Christian Church at and since the beginning of the Reformation have d●scovered many secrets concerning the Antichrist and his Hierarchy which were not knowne to former Ages And diverse of the learned in the Roman Church have not feared to pronounce That whosoever denies the true and literall sense of many Texts of Scripture to have been found out in this last Age is unthankfull to God who hath so plentifully powred forth his Spirit upon the Children of this Generation and ungratefull towards those men who with so great paines so happy successe so much benefit to Gods Church have travailed therein This might be instanced in many places of Scripture I wind together Diotrephes and the Mystery of Iniquity the one as an old example of Church-ambition which was also too palpable in the Apostles themselves And the other as a cover of Ambition afterwards discovered which two brought forth the great Mystery of the Papacy at last 6. Although your Majesty be not made a Judge of the Reformed Churches yet you so farre censure them and their actions as without Bishops in your judgment they cannot have a lawfull Ministery nor a due Administration of the Sacraments Against which dangerous destructive Opinion I did alledge what I supposed your Majesty would not have denied 1. That Presbyters without a Bishop may Ordaine other Presbyters 2. That Baptisme administred by such a Presbyter is another thing than Baptisme administred by a private Person or by a Midwife Of the first your Majesty calls for proofe I told before that in Scripture it is manifest I Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee which was given Thee by the Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery so it is in the English Translation And the word Presbytery so often as it is used in the New Testament alwaies signifies the Persons and not the Office And although the Offices of Bishop and Presbyter were distinct yet doth not the Presbyter derive his power of Order from the Bishop The Evangelists were inferior to the Apostles yet had they their power not from the Apostles but from Christ The same I affirme of the 70. Disciples who had their power immediately from Christ no lesse then the Apostles had theirs It may upon better reason be averred that the Bishops have their power from the Pope than that Presbyters have their power from the Prelats It is true Jerome saith Quid facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter but in the same place he proves from Scripture that Episcopus Presbyter are one and the same and therefore when he appropriates Ordination to the Bishop he speaketh of the degenerated custome of his time 2. Concerning Baptisme a private Person may performe the externall Action and Rites both of it and of the Encharist yet is neither of the two a Sacrament or hath any efficacy unlesse it be done by him that is lawfully called thereunto or by a Person made publique and clothed with Authority by Ordination This Errour in the matter of Baptisme is begot by another Errour of the Absolute Necessity of Baptisme 7. To that which hath been said concerning your Majesties Oath I shall adde nothing not being willing to enter upon the Question of the subordination of the Church to the Civill power whether to King or Parliament or both and to either of them in their owne place Such an Headship as the Kings of England hath claimed and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave with Appeales from the supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicature to them as set over the Church in the same line of Subordination I doe utterly disclaime upon such Reasons as give my selfe satisfaction although no man

power immediately from Christ yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear distinction between the twelve Apostles and the rest of the Disciples which is set down by three of the Evangelists whereof Saint Marke calls it an ordination Mark 3.15 and S. Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luke 6.13 onely S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction Mat. 10.1 I suppose out of modesty himselfe being one and the other two being none are more particular For the administration of Baptism giving but not granting what you say it makes more for Me then you but I will not engage upon new Question not necessary for My purpose 7. For My Oath you doe well not to enter upon those Questions you mention and you had done as well to have omitted your instance but out of discretion I desire you to collect your Answer out of the last Section and for your Argumeent though the intention of My Oath be for the good of the Church collective therefore can I be dispensed withall by others than the representative Body certainly no more than the People can dispence with Me for any Oaths I took in their favours without the two Houses of Parliament as for future reformations I will onely tell you that incommodum non solvit Argumentum 8. For the King my Fathers opinion if it were not to spend time as I believe needlesly I could prove by living and written testimonies all and more then I have said of Him for His perswasion in these points which I now maintaine and for your defensive Warre as I doe acknowledge it a great sinne for any King to oppresse the Church so I hold it absolutely unlawful for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to make Warre though defensive against their Lawfull Soveraigne against which no lesse proofs will make Me yeild but Gods word and let Me tell you that upon such points as these instances as well as comparisons are odious 9. Lastly you mistake the Quaere in my first Paper to which this pretends to answer for my Question was not concerning force of Arguments for I never doubted the lawfulnesse of it but force of Armes to which I conceive it saies little or nothing unlesse after My example you refer Me to the former Section that which it doth is meerly the asking of the Question after a fine discourse of the several wayes of perswading rather than forcing of conscience I close up this Paper desiring you to take notice that there is none of these Sections but I could have enlarged to many more lines some to whole pages yet I chose to be thus brief knowing you will understand more by a word than others by along discourse trusting likewise to your ingenuity that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large C. R. June 22. 1646. For His Majestie Concerning the Authority of the Fathers and practise of the Church July 2. 1646. Mr. Alex Henderson's third Paper HAving in my former Papers pressed the steps of your Majesties Propositions and finding by your Majesties last Paper Controversies to be multiplied I believe beyond your Majesties intentions in the beginning As concerning the Reforming Power The Reformation of the Church of England The difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter The warrants of Presbyterian Government The Authority of Interpreting Scripture The taking and keeping of Publique Oathes The forcing of Conscience and many other inferior and subordinate Questions which are Branches of those maine Controversies All which in a satisfactory manner to determine in few words I leave to more presuming Spirits who either see no knots of Difficulties or can find a way rather to cut them assunder than to unloose them yet will I not use any Tergiversation nor doe I decline to offer my humble Opinion with the Reasons theoreof in the owne time concerning each of them which in obedience to your Majesties command I have begun to doe al-already Onely Sir by your Majesties favourable permission for the greater expedition and that the present velitations may be brought to some issue I am bold to entreat that the Method may be a little altered and I may have leave now to begin at a Principle and that which should have been inter Precognita I meane the Rule by which we are to proceed and to determine the present Controversie of Church policy without which we will be led into a labyrinth and want a thred to wind us out againe In your Majesties first Paper the universall custome of the Primitive Church is conceived to be the Rule In the second Paper Section the 5. The practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made a convincing Argument when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtfull In your third Paper Sect. 5. the practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made Judge and I know that nothing is more ordinary in this Question then to alleage Antiquity perpetuall Succession universall Consent of the Fathers and the universall practice of the Primitive Church according to the Rule of Augustine Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec à Consilio institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissime creditur There is in this Argument at the first view so much appearance of Reason that it may much worke upon a modest mind yet being well examined and rightly weighed it will be found to be of no great weight for beside that the minor will never be made good in the behalfe of a Diocaesan Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction there being a multitude of Fathers who maintaine that Bishop and Presbyter are of one and the same Order I shall humbly offer some few Considerations about the major because it hath been an inlet to many dangerous Errors and hath proved a mighty hinderance and obstruction to Reformation of Religion 1. First I desire it may be considered that whiles some make two Rules for defining Controversies the word of God and antiquity which they will have to be received with equall veneration or as the Papists call them Canonicall Authority and Catholicall Tradition and others make Scripture to be the onely Rule and Antiquity the authentick Interpreter the latter of the two seemes to me to be the greater errour because the first setteth up a parallel in the same degree with Scripture but this would create a Superior in a higher degree above Scripture For the interpretation of the Fathers shall be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accounted the very Cause and Reason for which we conceive and believe such a place of Scripture to have such a sence and thus Men shall have Dominion over our Faith against 2 Cor. 1.24 Our faith shall stand in the wisdome of man and not in the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 and Scripture shall be of private interpretation For the Prophesie came

will or at the pleasure of another 2. It is a true saying of the Schoolemen Voluntas imperat intellectui quoad exercitium non quoad specificationem Mine owne will or the will of another may command me to thinke upon a matter but no will or command can constraine me to determine otherwise then my reason teacheth me Yet Sir I hope your Majesty will acknowledge for your Paper professeth no lesse that according to the saying of Ambrose Non est pudor ad meliora transire It is neither sinne nor shame to change to the better Symmachus in one of his Epistles I thinke to the Emperour Theodosius and Valentinian alledgeth all those motives from education from prescription of time from worldly prosperity and the flourishing condition of the Roman Empire and from the Lawes of the Land to perswade them to constancy in the ancient Pagan profession of the Romans against the imbracing of the Christian Faith The like reasons were used by the Jewes for Moses against Christ and may be used both for Popery and for the Papacy it selfe against the reformation of Religion and Church-Government and therefore can have no more strength against a Change now than they had in former times 3. But your Majesty may perhaps say That this is petitio principii and nothing else but the begging of the Question and I confesse it were so if there can be no Reasons brought for a Reformation or Change your Majesty reverences the Reformation of the Church of England as being done legally and orderly and by those who had the Reforming Power and I doe not deny but it were to be wisht that Religion where there is need were alwaies Reformed in that manner and by such power and that it were not committed to the Prelats who have greatest need to be reformed themselves not left to the multitude whom God stirreth up when Princes are negligent Thus did Jacob reforme his owne Family Moses destroyed the golden Calfe the good Kings of Judah reformed the Church in their time but that such Reformation hath been perfect I cannot admit Asa tooke away Idolatry but his Reformation was not perfect for Jehosaphat removed the high Places yet was not his Reformation perfect for it was Hezekiah that brake the brasen Serpent and Josiah destroyed the Idol-Temples who therefore beareth this Elogie That like unto him there was no King before him It is too well knowne that the Reformation of K. Hen 8. was most imperfect in the Essentials of Doctrine Worship and Government And although it proceeded by some degrees afterward yet the Government was never reformed the head was changed Dominus non Dominium and the whole limbs of the Antichristian Hierarchy retained upon what snares and temptations of Avarice and Ambition the great Enchanters of the Clergy I need not expresse It was a hard saying of Romanorum Malleus Grofted of Lincolne That Reformation was not to be expected nisi in ore gladii cruentandi yet this I may say that the Laodicean lukewarmnesse of reformation here hath been matter of continued complaints to many of the Godly in this Kingdom occasion of more schisme and separation then ever was heard of in any other Church and of unspeakable grief sorrow to other Churches which God did blesse with greater purity of reformation The glory of this great worke we hope is reserved for your Majesty that to your comfort and everlasting fame the praise of godly Josiah may be made yours which yet will be no dispraise to your royall Father or Edward 6. or any other religious Princes before you none of them having so faire an opportunity as is now by the supreme providence put into your Royall hands My soule trembleth to thinke and to foresee what may be the event if this opportunity be neglected I will neither use the words of Mordecay Esth 4 14. nor what Savanarola told another Charles because I hope better things from your Majesty 4. To the Argument brought by your Majesty which I believe none of your Doctors had they been all about you could more briefly and yet so fully and strongly have expressed That nothing was retained in this Church but according as it was deduced from the Apostles to the constant universall practise of the Primitive Church and that it was of such consequence as by the alteration of it We should deprive our selves of the lawfulnesse of Priesthood I thinke your Majesty meanes a lawfull Ministry and then how the Sacraments can be administred is easie to judge I humbly offer these considerations First what was not in the times of the Apostles cannot be deduced from them We say in Scotland It cannot be brought that is not there ben but not to insist now in a Litourgy and things of that kind there was no such Hierarchy no such difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter in the times of the Apostles and therefore it cannot thence be deduced for I conceive it to be as cleare as if it were written with a sun-beame that Presbyter and Bishop are to the Apostles one and the same thing no majority no inequality of difference of office power or degree betwixt the one and the other but a meere identity in all 2. That the Apostles intending to set downe the Offices and Officers of the Church and speaking so often of them and of their gifts and duties and that not upon occasion but of set purpose doe neither expresse nor imply and such Pastor or Bishop as hath power over other Pastors although it be true that they have distinctly and particularly exprest the office gifts and duties of the meanest Officers such as Deacons 3. That in the Ministery of the New Testament there is a comely beautifull and divine order and subordination one kind of Ministers both ordinary and extraordinary being placed in degree and dignity one before another as the Apostles first the Evangelists Pastors Doctors c. in their owne ranks but we cannot find in Offices of the same kind that one hath majority of power or priority of degree before another no Apostle above other Apostles unlesse in morall respects no Evangelist above other Evangelists of Deacon above other Deacons why then a Pastor above other Pastors In all other sorts of Ministers ordinary and extraordinary a parity in their owne kind only in the office of Pastor an inequality 4. That the whole power and all the parts of the Ministry which are commonly called the power of order and jurisdiction are by the Apostles declared to be common to the Presbyter and Bishop And that Mat. 15.16 17. the gradation in matter of Discipline or Church-censures is from one to two or more and if he shall neglect them tell it to the Church he saith not tell it to the Bishop there is no place left to a retrogradation from more to one were be never so eminent If these considerations doe not satisfie your Majesty may have more or the same further cleared 5. Secondly

favour in hope of his recantation as His good nature made Him do many things of that kind but whether he did or not I cannot say To conclude this point untill you shall prove this position by the word of God as I will Regall Authority I shall think all popular Reformation little better than Rebellions for I hold that no Authority is lawfull but that which is either directly given or at least approved by God 2ly Concerning the English Reformation the first reason you bring why Q. Elizabeth did not finish it is because she tooke not away Episcopacy the hints of reason against which Government yor say I take no notice of now I thought it was sufficient notice yea and answer too when I told you a negative as I conceived could not be proved and that it was for Me to prove the affirmative which I shall either doe or yeild the Argument as soone as I shall be assisted with Bookes or such Men of My opinion who like you have a Library in their braine And so I must leave this particular untill I be furnished with means to put it to an issue which had been sooner done if I could have had My will indeed your second well proved is most sufficient which is that the English Church-Government is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles but I conceive your probation of this doubly defective for first albeit our Archbishops and Bishops should have professed Church-government to be mutable ambulatory I conceive it not sufficient to prove your Assertion and secondly I am confident you cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking position for some particulars must not conclude the generall for which you must find much better Arguments than their being content with the Constitution of the Church and the authority and munificence of Princes or you will fall extreamly short As for the retaining of the Roman leven you must prove it as well as say it else you say little But that the conforming of the Church discipline to the civill policy should be a depraving of it I absolutely deny for I averre that without it the Church can neither flourish nor be happy And for your last instance you shall doe well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named and yet in one sence I doe not conceive that the Church of England hath added any for an Archbishop is onely a distinction for order of Government not a new Officer and so of the rest and of this kind I believe there are diverse now in Scotland which you will not condemne as the Moderators of Assemblies and others 4. Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be alwaies so it is in the Apostles time now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour albeit in their time they caused diverse to be called so as Barnabas and others so that I believe this Argument makes little for you As for your proofe of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can doe more then Eusebius could and I shall believe when I see it for your former Paper affirmes that those times were very darke for matter of fact and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it then those you mention for because there were diverse Congregations in Jerusalem ergo what are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess your two first I answer but as one Argument and because the Apostles met with those of the inferior Orders for Acts of Government what then even so in these times doe the Deanes and Chapters and many times those of the inferior Clergy assist the Bishops but I hope you will not pretend to say that there was an equality between the Apostles and other Presbyters which not being doth in My judgment quite invalidate these Arguments And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. then you have for Jerusalem it will gaine no ground on Me As for S. Jerome it is well knowne that he was no great Friend to Bishops as being none himselfe yet take him altogether and you will find that he makes a cleer distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter as your self confesses but the truth is he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equall to Presbyters 5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy though I thinke to have had reason for saying what I did But by your favour I doe not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture and I appeale to the practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers to be judge between us methinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer neither of which to My understanding you have yet done nor have you shewne how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischiefe of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by antiquity that Ordination and Jurisdiction belongs to Bishops thereby cleerly distinguishing them from other Presbyters I shall then begin to misdoubt many of My former foundations as for Bishop Davenant he is none of those to whom I have appealed or will submit unto but for the exception you take to Fathers I take it to be a begging of the Question as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not knowne to former Ages I shall call new invented fancies untill particularly you shall prove the contrary and for your Roman Authors it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintaine Novelties as well as the Puritans As for Church-ambition it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be Pope for I take it to be no point of humility to endeavour to be independent of Kings it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one 6. As I am no Judge over the Reformed Churches so neither doe I censure them for many things may be avowable upon necessity which otherwaies are unlawfull but know once for all that I esteeme nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church though it were by the Church of England which I avow most to reverence but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the primitive Doctrine and Discipline as I believe this doth Now concerning Ordination I bad you prove that Presbyters without a Bishop might lawfully ordaine which yet I conceive you have not done For 2 Tim. 1.6 it is evident that Saint Paul was at Timothies ordination And albeit that all the seventy had their