Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	ordain_v	ordination_n	presbyter_n	4,289	5	10.5064	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63266	An apology for the non-conformists shewing their reasons, both for their not conforming, and for their preaching publickly, though forbidden by law : with an answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's sermon, and his defence of it, so much as concerneth the non-conformists preaching / by John Troughton ...	Troughton, John, 1637?-1681.	1681 (1681)	Wing T2312; ESTC R1706	102,506	125

they bear any Testimony to them But some of those Martyrs refused Conformity to them themselves as was shewed before and those who were the chief occasions of retaining that form of Worship and those Ceremonies and to pleas whom the better men consented to them turned Papists again as Gardiner and Tunstall by Name and were the Persecutors of the rest CHAP. II. The Second Argument from the Principles and Practise of the Old Non-Conformists considered Their Principles and Practise the same with ours so farr as their circumstances did bear The Difference of Circumstances betwixt them and us THE Dr's Second Argument is taken from the Principles and Practise of the Old Non-Conformists and largly prosecuted from § 6 unto 17 shewing That they condemned Separation from the Church of England did not like of gathering separate Congregations wrote earnestly against the Separation of the Brownists and when silenced themselves pleaded for quiet submission hoping that others might teach the people better then themselves ' Ans An Argument from Authority and Example especially in a matter of practise as this is is of great force though not to convince yet to induce mens mind to further consideration of what they do especially when it hath been proved by reason before as farr as the nature of the thing will bear but the Dr. having not given any direct argument either in his Sermon or this Book to prove the Preaching of the Non-Conformists Unlawfull which was the thing in question and from which I will not wander the Judgment of former men is of much less weight when it is brought instead of Scripture and Reason but we shall examine the force of it such as it is to remove the prejudice or Calumny that may be Created by it though it be no argument for what if the former Non-Conformists thought it unlawfull to preach when silenced by Law which yet by the way they generally were not but by the new impositions of Arch-Bishop Whitgift and the Canons of K. James which were not Law is it therefore certainly so indeed what if they thought it unlawfull for them in their circumstances is it therefore unlawfull for us in our present case or doth it follow that they would have thought it so had they lived under the same circumstances The circumstances of every Generation vary things and make many actions Lawfull or Unlawfull expedient or not expedient prudent or imprudent and of this none but the persons living and concerned in them are competent Judges Spectators can see but the outside of things Ancestors know nothing of them only they whose business and duty it is to consider what they ought to do in the present case are able throughly to judge what is meet for them to do or forbear But the Old Non-Conformists direct all their Zeal against Separation from the Church of England as it was practised by the Brownists and what hence can be inferr'd against the present Non-Conformists Preaching the Reader must judge For the further clearing of this matter I will briefly consider what were the general and avowed Principles of the old Non-Conformists in Ecclesiastical Matters what was their practise and what is peculiar in the present case beyond theirs 1. For their Principles 1. The Old Non-Conformists generally held the National Constitution of the Church of England as it is Collected into one body under the Bishops as the general Heads and Spiritual Officers of it to be unlawfull yea Antichristian injurious to the several Congregations or Parishes and contrary to the King 's unquestionable Supremacy The Dr. Confesseth this of those that presented the Admonition to the Parliament 1570 Part 1 Sect. 7. viz That they condemned the Government of Bishops as Antichristian and that they disliked the Ministry of the Church of England as ordained by and derived from the Bishops Now this Admonition was written by Mr. Cartwright in the name and by the consent of most Non-conformists then living Doctor Fuller saith that the Non-conformists in the latter end of Queen Elizabeth Church Hist Cent. 16. had a kind of Synod met in Coventry Ann. 588 agreed upon divers things as Canons some whereof were That Christ had appointed no Ministers in his Church but Presbyters and Deacons that the Bishops pretending themselves to be neither Presbyters nor Deacons but Officers distinct from them both were no Ministers of Christ nor to be acknowledged as such in his Church and that none ought to receive Ordination from them because they Ordained not as Presbyters but as Bishops i. e. by a power not derived from Christ This and much more he took from Bishop Bancroft Dr. Ames the supposed Author of the English Puritanism delivers this Dang posit Book 3. cap. 6. for the Judgment of the Puritans in those dayes They hold that there are not by any divine institution in the word any ordinary National Provincial or Diocesan Pastours Eng. Purit chap. 3. pag. 2. or Ministers under which the Pastours of particular Congregations are to be subject as Inferiour Officers and that if there were any such that when the word of God would have set them down mored istinctly and precisely then any of the rest for the higher place that one Occupies in the Church of the more necessity he is to the Church the more carefully would Christ the head of the Church have been in pointing him out and distinguishing him from other c. The same thing Dr. Ames layes down and proves as his own Judgment There is a Treatise written in the Name of all the Non-conformists directed to King james Medul Theol. cap. 32. de Eccl. instit item 35. called a Protestation of the King's Supremacy wherein they say pos 27. We hold that these Ecclesiastical persons that make claim to greater power and authority than this i. e. in particular Congregations as in the former position especially they that make claim jure Divino of power and Jurisdiction to meddle with other Churches then that one Congregation of which they are or ought to be members do usurp upon the Supremacy of the Civil Magistrate who alone hath and ought to have as we hold and maintain a power over the several Congregations in his Dominions and who alone ought by his Authority not only to prescribe Common Lawes and Canons of Vniformity and consent in Religion and worship of God unto them all but also to punish the offences of the several Congregations that they shall commit against the Lawes of God the Policy of this Realm and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions Enacted by his Authority and pos 28. We hold that the King ought not to give this Authority away or to commit it to any Ecclesiastical person or persons whatsoever but ought himself to be as it were Arch-Bishop and general Over-sear of all the Churches within his Dominions and ought to imploy under him his honourable Council his Judges Lieutenants c. and Pos 32. They crave that the Bishops may not be

a better and publickly authorized Translation they judg'd it a matter of no small Offence 7. The Reading of the Apochryphal Scriptures as parts of the publick worship and that without any distinction from the Canonical They accounted it an intolerable thing that Fables and Fictions should be solemnly Read to the People with the same Reverence as the Word of God and such are many of the Apocryphal Books and the rest being only of Humane Authority the reading of them ought not to be made a Solemn part of Divine Worship The Conformists say that Reading the Scripture is Preaching and the Non-conformists say it is not fit meer Humane or Fabulous writings should be preached to God's People when they meet to Worship him by hearing his word Above all they were offended that a great deal of the Holy Scriptures is left out of the Liturgy and so never to be Read in the Congregation and Apocryphal Chapters put in their Room 8. Holy-days or Festivals in the honour of Saints They would not deny but if the Church thought fit they might observe the days of Our Saviours Nativity Passion Resurrection Ascension and sending the Holy Ghost as other Protestant Churches do provided they might be kept seriously and not made of the same necessity with the Sabbath but when all divine worship of the Creatures is Idolatrous and the keeping of days in Honour of them as well as Building Temples to them was ever reckoned a part of Divine Honour and to be sure is more Honour then ever God commanded or allowed to any of his Servants They knew not how to excuse this practice that it should be a part of a Churches Liturgy 9. Nor could they approve the Doctrines of the certain Regeneration of all in Baptism and that Infants dying after Baptism before the Commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved which are laid down in the Liturgies as undoubted Articles of Faith whereas there is no Scripture that clearly proveth either of them and at best they are points disputed on by Learned men on both sides Nor could they excuse the practice of refusing Parents to promise for their own Children in Baptism seeing it is upon their Account only and Gods Covenant with them that the Children are admitted to be Baptized and they are thereby engaged to breed them up in Faith and Obedience much less that Strangers should receive the charge of the Baptized who have no authority over them who neither care what they promise nor are ever called to account how they perform their promise for if they should few would undertake the charge and so this custom would fall to the ground 10. They excepted against the Ordination of Deacons to read Divine Service Baptize and Bury and to preach with special License this they say was to create a new fort of office in the Church which Christ never appointed nor gave his Ministers Authority to appoint it Deacons were to look after the poor and that was all their work and though the Primitive Christians sometimes used them to read the Scriptures in the Congregation yet they never ordained them to this as an office yea though they should be admitted to read Prayers to Marry or Bury yet this is no sacred office appointed by Christ that should constitute a distinct order of Ministers and if as grave and prudent persons they might be admitted to do these offices either for want of Ministers or to assist them yet may they by no means be suffered to Baptize it being as peculiar to the Ministry as to administer the Lords Supper and the admission of Members into the Church as sacred and solemn a work as to confirm and Build up the Members of it These were the principal objections of the Non-conformists against the Liturgy which were some of them at least exemplified and confirmed by many particulars of lesser moment in themselves but all tending to make their desire of a Reformation of the Service Book to seem reasonable and the work necessary Rea. 2. The Second thing the Old Non-conformists disliked in the Church of England was the Government of it by Prelates i. e. Bishops with sole power of Jurisdiction Many of the Old Non-conformists thought Episcopacy utterly unlawfull and an usurpation not to be born but the rest who looking upon it as a humane constitution as our Law doth thought it Lawfull and that it might be submitted to did yet dislike our Episcopacy partly because of the secular grandure power and imployments our Bishops were invested with which made them unable and unwilling to discharge the office of a Pastour in the Church partly because the Church hath nothing to do in their election except an empty shew and therefore persons were most commonly prefer'd not for true Episcopal Qualifications but because they could make interest with Superiours but principally because the Bishops arrogated to themselves the whole power of governing the Church and excluded all the Ministers from any share therein a thing most unexcusable in them who acknowledge themselves to be of the same order with the Presbyters and only in a degree of honour above them and that by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate Whereas even those that with any probability or sobriety maintain the Divine Right of Episcopacy do nevertheless acknowledge that he may neither ordain nor govern without the advice and consent of his Presbyters This was look'd upon as intollerable that the power of governing the Church which was committed by Christ to all his Ministers should be wrested from them generally by a few of their Brethren And that they who are thought fit to dispense the Word and Sacraments the cheif keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby men are brought to the Faith admitted into the Church and bnilt up in it should not have power to censure offenders and to receive the Penitent again to Communion which are things of lesser moment and depending on the former and yet without which the former could not be managed in a fit manner for Edification By this means Ministers are deprived of one half of their Office and Power and are both discouraged and hindered in the other half For who will regard their Preaching who have not Liberty to judge what persons are fit to be admitted into the Church or who in it deserves censure or to be cast out of it And the Bishops themselves in undertaking the whole work of Governing the Church took that upon them which they never could nor did manage for the Churches Edification R. 3d. The Non-Conformists were much dissatisfied about the Discipline of the Church both in respect of the Rule of it and the Officers that manage it The Rule they say is not taken out of the Scripture which is the only Rule and Law of Christ's Church but it is the Roman Civil and Canon Law which at best were suited to their own times and People in many things very defective and in others erroneous and superstitious There

and Holyness elsewhere then foregoe our Edification to keep Peace with the Church The Dr hints at general Inconveniences that will follow if people find Fault with their Governours and withdraw from them and to such inconveniences all things in this world are subject and there ought to be the greater care to prevent them but must People bear always still there is nothing left but the name of a Church and their Communion with that be a hindrance to their Communion with Christ besides nothing would more awe both Pastours and People to their duty then if they knew that the soberest and most carefull Christians of their own Salvation would leave their company if they would not mend their manners and this would be a more Universal Benefit to the Church then the inconvenience of now and then one unseasonably withdrawing out of prejudice or finding too much Fault can do hurt to any Congregation 4. When a Church hath neither the exercise nor power of Government The Catholick Church is a Society under the Government of Christ by his Spirit and every particular Church is a part of the Chatholick gathered into a Politicall Body that it may edify and preserve it self which is done by Government and the exercise of Discipline as well as by preaching the word and administring the Sacraments and indeed the latter will be as ineffectual without the former as a Charge at an Assize or Sessions wherein the Laws are recited would be if there were neither presentment nor punishment of Offenders A Church without Power of Government is no Church but a Company of Neighbours that meet sometimes to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments together which Members of several Congregations may do for power of Government is the form of a Church as of a Civil Polity by which only it differeth from a confused accidental conventing or cohabitation of persons now it is no sin to separate from that which is no Church but a Duty as much as it is for every one to be a Member of some visible Church This case is too common with us where Ministers of Parishes are sometimes Deacons at least for a while who have no Ministerial power at all and if Presbyters yet such as pretend to no more then to preach and administer the Sacraments all power of Government as they say belonging to the Bishop and whatever their private Judgment may be of their power of Government we know they neither do nor dare exercise any solemn admonitions or suspension from the Sacrament much less Excommunication or Absolution when this is the case that the Church hath no power to govern her self hath long lost it and is out of hopes to recover it nothing can oblige men to live Members of it though there may be reasons why we should hear and receive with them occasionally as with Brethren If it be said that the Bishop hath a power of Government over all his Diocess I answer this shuts out all the Parish Ministers from Government and makes them but the Bishops Curates and makes all the Parishes cease to be distinct Churches and to become one general Church under a Bishop who is utterly uncapable to manage the charge of such a Congregation be it only to govern and not to preach as some men would have it and so it is still destructive of the end of a Church viz self-edification and preservation but moreover the Bishop himself is subject to the Metropolitane and all causes in his Diocess admit of an appeal to the Arch-Bishops Court so that neither hath the Bishop supream and full power of Governing his Church and therefore neither is the Diocess a Church but a part of the whole province all under the Government of the Arch-Bishop alone the Bishops being but his Deputies and this still makes the Government more impossible and Separation more necessary 5. A 5th just eause of Separation is when men are certainly and constantly debarred of some Principal Ordinances of Christ necessary to their Edification and Communion with Christ The end of a Church is the joynt practice of all the Laws and Ordinances of Christ in their proper seasons It is possible there may not be occasion for the exercise of some of them as Church Censures for a considerable time and it is possible some Ordinances may be carelesly neglected or for some reasons for a time omitted as the Lords Supper This is no cause of withdrawing at least not properly but if there be constant Bars put that any of these Ordinances shall be excluded the Church as the Sacraments are with many Sectaries or that they shall be made unaccessable by sinfull or unnecessary additions alterations interpolations or any other Corruption so that the most conscientious Christians cannot Communicate in them this after a convenient waiting and seeking for redress will justify Separation for the people may not be contented with one part of the Worship of God and the means of their Salvation this is to betray the Gospel and their own Souls nor have Church Governours power to add any thing either essential or circumstantial to the Ordinances of Christ that may hinder the people from Communicating in them and if they have no such authority to enjoyn such things there is no obligation upon the people either to comply with them in obedience or to bear their usurpation by continuing in Union with them If it be pleaded that the Jews never separated from their Church when they could not Communicate in the Sacrifices at the Temple under Idolatrous Kings or when the Passover or other Ordinances were wholly neglected or little used I answer this is not the case of Christian Churches the Jews were one single though large Congregation instituted by Moses to continue till Christ should come who should have power to new moddle the Church as he should think fit they were all tyed to one Altar and one Temple and might Sacrifice no where else they were also obliged to one Priesthood the House of Aaron and therefore in what-place-soever they were they must hold Communion with this people and Priesthood at this Altar and if publick worship was neglected or corrupted they could in no case separate or gather New Congregations or chuse new Priests or build new Altars but must be content with private helps till things were reformed but Christians though of one Nation or City are not obliged to one Congregation indispensably for then men may not move to other Parishes nor to one place of publick worship nor to one Minister or company of Ministers the Christians Church being tyed to no Countrey as the Jews were nor to any particular people nor kindred nor having any promise to be continued to the end in any one place or amongst any one people it hath therefore power to distribute it self into diverse Congregations and consequently again to withdraw from any one of them when there is need 6. Gross infringement of Christian Liberty we are commanded