Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	church_n	ordain_v	presbyter_n	3,546	5	10.1419	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77860	Reasons shewing the necessity of reformation of the publick [brace]1. doctrine, 2. worship, [double brace] 3. rites and ceremonies, 4. church-government, and discipline, reputed to be (but indeed, not) established by law. Humbly offered to the serious consideration of this present Parliament. By divers ministers of sundry counties in England.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1660 (1660)	Wing B5678; Thomason E764_4; ESTC R205206	61,780	69

de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct

within two moneths after his Induction c. upon default hereof to be ipsofacto immediately deprived And if any Ecclesiastical Person shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented shall persist therein or not revoke his errour or after revocation return again to it he shall be deprived of his Ecclesiastical Promotions This is the effect of that Statute as to this Point But these Articles are both Doubtful and Defective 1. Doubtful 1. Because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13 Eliz. for as much as they are not therein in expresly inserted nor so much as their number but onely the Title-Page of them mentioned Nor is it known where the Original is enrolled 2. Of those 39 Articles there were 36 of them set forth yet not ratified by Parliament in Edw. 6. his reign the other were added by the Convocation in An. 1562. 3. In the Books of Articles now printed and ever since 10 Caroli 1. there is a Declaration of that his late Majesty prefixed thereunto by the advice and procurement of the then Bishops after Arminianism began to perk and to be openly preached by the rising Party to this effect viz. 1. That those Articles contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods Word all therefore are required to continue in the Vniform Profession thereof and the least difference from them prohibited 2. That the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire should have licence under the Broad * This shews who did pen it Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by his then Majesty shall concern the setled continuance of the said Doctrine as well as Discipline then established from which no variying or deparing in the least degree should be endured 3. That all curious search and disputes touching any points contained therein be laid aside and shut up in Gods Promises as generally set forth and in the general meaning of these Articles And that no man shall either print or preach to draw any Article aside any way nor put his own sense or Comment upon it but shall take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it This Declaration is published with the said Articles by Command If this be still continued and confirmed then all these sad Consequences must needs follow 1. That no Minister shall have so much liberty to interpret any one of those Articles as is not onely allowed but required of him in his Ordination to expound the Word of God it self But this is a notorious truth that after that Declaration was printed and published as also a Proclamation to the same effect issued those of the Prelatical Party had their Spies every where to see who durst to preach a word against any Arminian Tenet or to explain any one Article as not making for but against any of those Opinions If any were found so to do he was sure to be Convented for breach of the Kings Declaration and Proclamation yea some have been brought into the High Commission-Court for this very cause While in the mean time that other Party took liberty to vent and preach up those points without controul Which no Anti-Arminians durst call into question for that the then Bishops of greatest power who might by that Declaration obtain licence to explain all things as they thought fit favoured those Advocates of Arminianism and must have been their Judges if they had been complained of 2. That where in Art 16. it is said Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is a sin against the Holy Ghost We may not dare to open the nature of deadly sin nor to say that all sins are deadly contrary to the Popish distinction of sins into mortal and venial Nor may we presume to explain the next part of that Article viz. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given c. which Clause Bishop Montacute and after him others allege to prove falling from grace and thereby pretend that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England which is contrary not onely to Art 17. but to 1 John 3.9 1 Pet. 1.5 3. That it being said Art 20. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith we may not enquire what is meant by the Church whether the Church Catholick or of England nor what the Church of England is what Rites or Ceremonies it may ordain or how far her Authority extendeth in Controversies of Faith And if she do happen to ordain ought contrary to Gods Word or expound one place of Scripture repugnant to another or to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation that is beside the Word no man may question it but we must if a Convocation once declare for it assent and subscribe unto it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it or be deprived of all Ecclesiastical Promotions 4. That whereas the 34 Article treateth of the Traditions of the Church we must not curiously search what is here meant by Traditions and whether it be meant of the Traditions of the Church of Rome or of any other Church But we must rest in this General That whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly as offending against the common Order of the Church hurting the Authority of the Magistrate and wounding the weak Whereas this Church hath no where set forth what she meaneth by Traditions whether distinct from Ceremonies or the same with them how a Tradition may be said to be ordained and what is meant by common Authority Yea if power be given to the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation when and so often as they shall desire it to ordain any more Traditions which seems to be a strange Expression and new Ceremonies and the Royal Assent pass thereupon all Ministers must subscribe thereunto before they know what they be yea before they be ordained after which it will be too late to dispute them or to vary from them in the least degree upon any pretence whatsoever It will be too late then for any man to say They are repugnant to the Word of God 5. That all being by Art 35. to admit both Books of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times and therefore to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently men must subscribe to false Doctrines or assertions Take instance in but one or two particulars for brevities sake Par. 2. Hom. 2. Of the place and time of Prayer pag. 147. Pluralities of wives was by special Prerogative suffered to the Fathers of the Old Testament not for

a Bishop according to the mind of Christ expressed in his Word If the late Episcopal Party shall pretend and plead that unless Bishops be restored to all their power and pomp they arrogated before 17. Car. they shall not be able to do his Majesty that service which otherwise they might if so restored To this it is answered 1. That if they mean thereby that they cannot do his Majesty service in Parliament unless they be restored to their Lordships again and re-admitted to the House of Peers we cannot think but that there be Noble Lords enow left in that Honourable House who are far more able to do his Majesty service then the Bishops can do there 2. Whereas the Bishops and Clergy obtained a Command and Charter from William 1. to exclude the Sheriff and the rest of the Laity from medling with matters Ecclesiastical in their Courts as was before shewed we see no reason why Bishops excluded in 17. Car. 1. his reign should be again admitted to intermeddle in the Supreme Court and Judicatory of the Realm in Civil Affairs 3. If they be confined to the Apostolique Constitution and more Bishops made they will be in a capacity of doing God and his Majesty more and better service in a more diligent and circumspect Government of the Church then ever yet they have done or were able to do By all which it appeareth that if they labour to recover their former power the pretence of doing his Majesty better service is but to make way to their own Greatness and to render them less able to serve God or the King as in that Office they ought Nor will his Majesties interest in the Clergy be diminished by making more Bishops without an election by a Dean and Chapter but much increased if by Act of Parliament the same Course be taken for the election of all Bishops which by the Statute of 26. H. 8.14 is appointed for the constituting of Bishops Suffragan and their power of Jurisdiction set out unto them by the King and Parliament as it was in 1. Eliz. at what time the Articles to be ministred in all their Vis●tations were set forth by the Queen c. are yet extant with her Injunctions Hereby also his Majesty would be sure to have a far greater influence into all the Clergy of note by how much the more the number of Bishops is increased and more learned men made capable of such preferments which a quarter of them cannot be if Episcopacy be confined to twenty six Bishops III. Of DISCIPLINE HAving spoken of the Subject or Persons in whom the Power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realm resided we proceed to offer somewhat touching the Rules or Laws for execution thereof under this Head of Discipline which containeth the Canons or Rules to wit the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws by which alone all persons trusted with Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction have been enabled to exercise that Government How that Discipline is bounded appeareth in and by the Acts of Parliament still in force in 25. H. 8.19 and 1. Eliz. 1. which bounds a great Sciolist is pleased to call sad restrictions and limitations * D. Heylin Certam Epistol pag. 89. which sheweth how they like the Laws and how far they would go in making Laws if they durst The bounds in the former Act are these 1. That none of the Clergy should from thence forth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any other Canons Nor shall enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they may be called in their Convocations in time coming which always shall be assembled by Authority of the Kings Writ unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent and License to make promulge and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodal upon pain of every one of the said Clergy doing contrary to this Act and being thereof convict to suffer imprisonment and make Fine at the Kings Will. It is true that at the suit of the then Clergy divers Constitutions Ordinances and Canons Provincial or Synodal which heretofore had been Enacted and then thought to be not only much prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative royal and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness Subjects by that Act the King was to chuse thirty two Persons to review approve or reject the same which being begun but not perfected by the time limited so as to get the Royal Assent thereunto 3.4 Edw. 6. cap. 11. that Act revived in 3.4 Edw. 6. authorizing him to chuse thirty two Persons to perfect that work The persons were chosen they did the work compiled a Book intituled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum yet extant but for lack of the Royal Assent thereunto within the time prefixed that Act expired and their Book of Reformation with it which was never since renewed In the Act of 25. H. 8.19 it is provided that such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial being already made 1 El. 1. which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the damage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative-Royal shall now still be used and executed as they were before the making of this Act till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered determined by the said thirty two persons or the more part of them according to the tenor form and effect of this present Act. By occasion hereof Dr. Heylin * Ubi supra affirmeth that so much of the Popes Canon-Law first intended for the Church in general as is not contrary to the Laws Customs c. of the Land is still in force in our Courts Ecclesiastical as the Civil or Imperial Laws are in our Courts of Admiralty and Prerogative for probate of Wills But we humbly conceive this cannot be so because however the Civil Law is still in use in maritine and Testamentary Affairs in regard that Forrainers as well as Natives are or may be therein concerned and so those Civil Laws are permitted not in relation to the Emperour but as the Law of Nations which never was by any Act of Parliament in those eases prohibited in England The Popes Canon-Law on the contrary is ever since disabled by the Statute of 24. H. 8.12 and by that Act before-mentioned is wholly abrogated and null For if his power be renounced can his Laws which are the chief part of a Law-givers power be still in force especially where no Canons but such as have the Royal Assent may be used in England And if that might be admitted yet that very Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8.19 puts a period to it after the time the thirty two persons or major part of them did view and search them and drew up a Body of Ecclesiastical Laws to be used