Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	bishop_n	power_n	presbyter_n	2,561	5	10.5876	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46641	An apology for, or vindication of the oppressed persecuted ministers & professors of the Presbyterian Reformed Religion, in the Church of Scotland emitted in the defence of them, and the cause for which they suffer: & that for the information of ignorant, the satisfaction and establishment of the doubtful, the conviction (if possible) of the malicious, the warning of our rulers, the strengthening & comforting of the said sufferers under their present pressurs & trials. Being their testimony to the covenanted work of reformation in this church, and against the present prevailing corruptions and course of defection therefrom. Prestat sero, quàm nunquam sapere.	Smith, Hugh.; Jamieson, Alexander.	1677 (1677)	Wing J446; ESTC R31541	114,594	210

〈◊〉 fulness of prelacy to the well but not to the being of the political Ministerial Church which they grant ●ay be such without it as most of the former opinion ●●●ld 3. Others that lean not to Scripture for the 〈◊〉 of prelacy in the Church found it upon Ecclesia●●● 〈◊〉 ●●●stitutio●s canons customes which they take to be the Interpreters of Scripture in this debate as Dounhame and others with him that make most use of antiquity 4. Others more moderat pious and more learned then the rest do so clip its wings that they bring it to a meer constant presidency in the meetings of presbyters for government making it a pure non-entity as to what is established by law amongst us and for which they bring no Scripture of which judgment was that godly and learned Bishop Usher who for knowledge in all the controversies of the Church especially in Antiquity was Nemini secundus 5. Some others argue for it as a mat●er of indifferency that may be received or rejected as Churches and states see it fits their interests asserting that all its authority and goodness depends upon and flowes from the power that brings it in thus Stillingfleet 6. Some of that party have fallen on a new method for justifying its divine right being straitened as it seems with our arguments and the weakness of their owne alleadging that Presbyters were not institute in Scriptur●-times by the Apostles that all Ministers mentioned in the Scriptures were Bishops in the sense controverted as Doctor Hammond but his evidence from Scripture and antiquity is so dimme that for any thing we know he hath gained few or none to follow him in this 7 These of the court party place all its goodness in the authority lawes establishing it granting it signifies nothing antecedently to these 8. If we shall consider prelacy and view it in its several parts as it is by law constitute and setled amongst us and bring them to the test and rule of the word of God that we may give judgment of them according to it how lite●● of prelacy will be found to be of divine right 〈…〉 the confession of our adversaries of all that have appeared on the feild for its defence there is none that ever pleaded scriptural institutions precepts and instances for the Lordly titles eminencies and wordly dignities of the Prelats that are now annexed to their office nor yet for their civil places and power in the State nor for their several orders and degrees as Primats Metropolitans Archbishops c Or for the like among their dependents in their numerous and various distinctions of degrees of superiorities and subordinations as Vicars Chancelors Deans Arch deacons Subdeans Deacons Parsons c. whoever hitatherto did put pen to paper and contended for the divine right of prelacy never opened a mouth to plead either Scripture or antiquity for thes● except Doctor Hammond who argues for Archbishops and what is prelacy in its constitution amongst us without them The only thing debated betwixt us and our Antagonists anent it is the superiority of one Pastor over other Pastors and their respective congregations to the probation of which from scripture and pure Antiquity there are two things that must of necessity be made out from these first the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and secondly Diocesan Churches made up of several ●esse● Churches and their respective Pastores and Officers in these does the essential difference lye in their owne confession betwixt Bishops Presbyters or ordinare Pastores none of which two hath been proven from scripture and antiquity And if that which differences prelats from other Pastores of the Church be ●or made to appear from scripture how will their office 〈◊〉 of divine right and how can it be expected from 〈◊〉 ●ho are under such strait divine engadgments against it that we should comply therewith and submit to the lawes injoining conformity thereto We complaine of the subdolous and uning enuous way of our opposites in this debate who always keep in generals and never condescend on the particular differences betwixt Prelates and Ordinate Pastores nor undertake to prove these and the truth is they cannot for they are forced to confesse that it is clear from antiquity that Presbyters have ordained sometimes in conjunction with Bishops and sometimes without them And for diocesan Churches with one fixed pastor over-feeing other Pastores and their flocks we cannot meet with the least probable evidence from scripture and pure antiquity we find no argument from our adversaries concluding this It is empty arguing to say there were Apostles there were Priests and Highpriests in the Old Testament there were seven Angels in the seven Churches of Asia therefore there must be Bishops now If they will from scripture make out the difference now assigned betwixt Prelats Presbveers in these instances of the Apostles Priests and Angels we shall yeeld the cause Let none therefore blame us in holding to this as a necessare consequence of our Antagonists succumbing in the probation of these things that a parity among the Ministers of the Gospel in point of power or office is of divine right for if in the institution of the Ministery there be alike power given to all called thereto there can be no superiority of one above another by divine right 9. It is a question much debated among the Popish school men and in which they are not agreed to this day wh●●ther their Prelacy be an order or office distinct from that of Presbyters or only a different degree of the same 〈◊〉 with Presbyters including no power formally distinct from theirs which last opinion asserts that all power acclaimed by the prelats is formally in Presbyters so that by office they are empowered to and may doe all that the prelats pretend to How hotly and stifly was this question tossed the Councel of Trent betwixt the Italian Gallican and Spanish divines which for this cause received no decision in this Councel but was left undetermined as before As is to be seen from the History of the said Councel 10. If any will consider our adversaries arguments for prelacy and compare them with the arguments of Papists especially Bellarmins for the Papacy they shall finde that they plead as strongly for the Pope or an Universal Bishop to the Catholick Church as for the Prelat or Bishop now controverted betwixt us as wil be made appear by a particular condescension if our intended brevity would suffer it We referre such as question this to the arguments of both and upon an impartial collation of the same we nothing doubt but it will be manifest Doth not the much courted and endeavoured reconciliation with Rome by the prelatical party in former and later times with their concessions to them for making way to this agreement speak this with full evidence As their denying the Pope to be the Antichrist their granting a primacy to him over the Catholick Church their purgeing

who give it out to the world that we contemne a Ministery ordinances and are against hearing while our practice declares the contrare to all and for which we are dayly suffering We hold that as it is our duty to withdraw from and not to subject to the Prela●●●s and their Creaturs so it is likwise our duty to cleave to our former Ministers in hearing of the Gospel and receiveing of ordinances from them as we can have access we have given reasons for the affirmative shall the Lord willing do the like for the negative 6 It would also be adverted that there is a great difference betwixt a Churches bringing in and carrying on of a defection willingly in a Church way and the Magistrats doing this of himself without the Church yea forcibly Ecclesia renitente ac reclamante although there should be no difference as to the mater yet there is much as to the maner and way to influence regular and diversifie ministers and Christians carriage under them all in the Church are to subject to the power proper and peculiar to her which they ought not to do to others usurping this power and taking it out of her hands 7 In this mater a difference or distinction is to be made betwixt the personal scandals and corruptions in ministers walk and administration of holy things and these that may be or are found in the way of their entry which may be such that although they do not invalidate their ministerie in their dispensing of the word and its ordinances to the rendering of these nullities yet may give sufficient ground to peoples withdrawing from and not subjecting to them as their lawful and sent pastours 8 There is a great difference betwixt a Church regularly constitute according to the Word of God in her ministerial political being enjoying the exercise of all ordinances in purity that comes afterwards while under that constitution to be intruded upon by the sole power of the Magistrat and persecuted in officers and members for adhereing to her constitution in opposition to the intruders and the corruptions brought in upon her by them against her consent and a Church declining from her former purity in doctrine worship and government abuseing her power to the bringing in and furthering of the said defection and universally concurred with and submited to in the same The first is our cas● concerns the state of the question betwixt us and our opposites in the charge of separation th●y lay on us The question then betwixt us and our adversaries is not whether we may lawfully separat from publict ordinances for the corruptions and personal miscarriages of fellow-worshipers whether ministers or others as one in a little manuscript doeth maliciously or ignorantly state it we are still of the same minde with our worthy predecessours in their debats against the Brownists and Separatists as our practice this day doeth confirme in our assemblies and meetings for worship differing in nothing as to this from what it was before Neither is it whether it be simply or in it self sinful to hear receive ordinances from these who have entered by submitted to the prelates abstract from our present case for we grant the case may be in which it is lawful yea duty to hear and receive ordinances from such yea and hath been But the true state of the question is whether a Church or Churches constitute according to the rules of the word provided and settled with ministers regularly called and submited to should yeeld to the Magistrats and Prelates violently ejecting their ministers and thrusting in other ministers upon her not only without but against her consent in subjecting to such hearing and receiving of ordinances from them while the Magistrat does all this for furthering and perfecting a course of d●fection contrare to solemne Covenants and oaths by which they were oftener then once ejected and cast out of this Church To this we answer negatively that the Church should not subject to such in hearing and receiving of ordinances from them but ought to disowne and withdraw from these thus entered into the Church and complying with the introduced corruptions This conclusion we prove thus First They who have no just authority nor right to officiat fixedly in this Church as the proper pastores of it ought not to be received but withdrawne from But the Prelates and their adherents the Curates have no just authority nor right to officiat in this Church as her proper pastours Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawne from It is expected they will not deny the first proposition all the debate will be about the second which we make out thus They who have entered into and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her authority and consent have no just authority and right so to do but the Prelates and their Curats have entered into this Church and do officiat therein without her authority and consent therefore they have not just authority c. The first proposition is clear and we suppose will not be gainsaid by our Antagonists seing the power of mission of calling and sending of ordinare fixed pastours is only in the Church and not in any other as all Divines do assert The Second is evident from maters of fact for there was no Church judicatory called or convocated for bringing of the Prelats into this Church all was done immediatly by the King acts of Parliament without the Church she being by violence disenabled to meet in her officers for fear of opposition from them a practice wanting a precedent in this and for any thing we know in all other Churches Object 1. But our Prelats were consecrat by the Prelats of the Church of England Ans What signifies that to the Church of Scotland and their just right to officiat in her suppone the office of prelacie were right and institute Does any think the Church of England would acknowledge the authority of Prelats consecrat here and subject to the same if all were done not only without but against her consent we suppose not Either the Church of Scotland at that time had no power of mission or els she had if she had none wanting prelacy then our Ministers were no Ministers of Christ Jesus and all ordinances dispensed in her for many years were nullities which some of our adversaties we hope will not say if she had the power of mission how came she to be neglected and usurped upon by another Church to whom she was not subordinat Object 2. But Presbyters cannot consecrat Bishops they being an inferior order Ans if it could be shown from Scripture that Bishops are not only an Order and office different from Presbyters but that they have a different ordination to their office from that of Presbyters it would say much but nothing of this can be made to appear from the Word of God But. 2. We ask whether consecration be different from ordination If

the Romane Church of Idolatry and superstition their asserting the difference betwixt Papists and us in doctrine worship and government not to be fundamental nor on their part damnable c. All which discover to the world the native tendency of prelacy and what it will if 〈◊〉 ●●nue ultimatly resolve into 11. Do not the opinions of prelatists their practises the ways taken for bringing in and establishing of Prelacy among us reflect upon and condemne all the reformed Churches and their divines except Scultetus who in their confessions treatises reformations conforme thereto disclame prelacy as no office of divine appointment As will be evident to any that peruse them We know there was a Pamphlet emitted in the beginning of prelacyes last introduction that undertakes to prove the contrare but it is so destitute of all evidence of truth that we wonder exceedingly at the impudence affrontedness of the author in alleadging of Calvine Beza Bucer c. for prelacy who in their practise and writings have argued and debated against it Did not this Author know that their writings are extant and others as much versed therein as himself But the unjust know no shame 12. As prelacy or prelatical government in its constitution and exercise is a compound of additions to the Word of God which for want of its authority we reject so presbytery or presbyterian government in the confession of our Opposites is in all its parts of divine institution or right which we offer to make out from scripture and the concessions of our Antagonists who first yeeld all our Church Offic●rs except Ruling elders to be of divine appointment Doctor Hammond only excepted granting that presbyters or ordinare Pastores and Deacons to be institute by the Apostles and alwayes used in the Church to this day they likewise grant the power of ordination and jurisdiction in Presbyters till of la●● As also the meetings of Pastores lesser and greater for government and discipline and all the particularities of power anent these asserted by and formerly exer●●●●● among us We think strange of Stillingfleet in denying of Presbytery to be of Divine institution who yeelds all we seek for if all the former be of Scriptural institution and practise must it not be of divine right even as to its forme We cannot for bear to declare our resentments to the world of the high indignities done to our Royal and great Master Christ Jesus and his blessed word the holy Scripture in that 1. The forme of the government of his house is asserted to be mutable at the pleasure of men and made capable of any forme they please to assigne to the same Was it ever heard in the world that the forme of any government was taken from the Officers thereof and not from the Supream head in whom the Legislative power is lodged All that ever treated of governments and spoke to their different forms did always found their forms on the head and not on the Officers of it Is not Christ Jesus the Supream and only Head of the Church by divine appointment Are not ordinare Pastores or Presbyters found institute in the word with all the parts of their power that we afterwards grant to them c Will it not then necessarily follow that the forme is of divine right both in the head and officers which is truely Monarchicall and not alterable at the will of any 2. For making way to this the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripturs as to matters of obedience and practice in the Church is denied and thereby the fundation of the Protestant Religion is shaken How inconsistent is this with their granting the perfection of the Scripturs in maters of faith For if all maters of obe●●●●●● be first and primarily Maters of faith must 〈◊〉 they be perfect in these also How our Oppo●its will defend our arguments for the perfection of the Scripturs in matters of faith and manners against the Papists who in this speak more consequentially then the Prelatists and maintaine the former affertion is unintelligible to us For our arguments plead as much and as strongly for their perfection in the one as in the other But must it not be a desperat cause that needs such a prop to support it 13. In the last place We humbly offer the following particulars to be considered by all nothing doubting that when they are duely and seriously weighted it will soone appear that our exceptions against Prelacy are not light and groundless As 1. There is no good to the Church and immortal souls attainable by Prelacy that may not be win at without it It is a sure truth that every ordinance of Divine institution hath it's proper good to the Church in order to which as it's end it was appointed by Christ which is not easily reachable by other ordinances As will appear to any on a particular condescension for as there is nothing defective in divine institutions so there is nothing redundant and superfluous Now we desire to know what is that good to the Church and immortal souls that cannot be obtained without Prelacy let our Antagonists give instances If they think that ordination and jurisdiction is the good that the Church hath by prelacy we offer to prove from Scripture and antiquity as hath been done before us without a reply yea and granted by many of them that Presbyters have the power of ordination and jurisdiction and the truth is it was never questioned by any but yeelded by all till of late for we have not only instances in Scripture and antiquity for Presbyters exercising ordination and jurisdiction but the reason that all gave for it was that the ministery conferred by ordination consisting of the power of order and jurisdiction as it 's integral constituent parts persons ordained receive the power of both If this be a truth why may not the Church have these by Presbyters as much to her advantage and benefite as by Prelats But son e say there can be no unity or peace in the Church without Prelacy The contrare is evident from the Churches experience in former later times for as the Church was never more rent and filled with contentions and schisms then under by Prelates of which there are innumerable instances in history so there hath been much flourishing unity and peace under Presbyters in Churches that wanted Prelats as is to be seen in the present case of the reformed Churches and will be evident to any that is acquainted with and seen in the records of the Church what unity peace hath the Churches of Britan and Ireland beyond other reformed Churches Yea is there not more of these among them then is with us at this day But what sayes unity and peace in the Church if they have not truth and righteousness for their cement and foundation which are seldome the attendents of Prelacy But some place the good of Prelacy in the oversight and inspection it takes of Ministers

it be one with the same why may not Presbyters consecrat and if they may ordaine as we undertake to make out from Scripture and Antiquitie what necessitie was there for going to England for it seing it might have been done by the Presbyters of this Church If consecration differ from ordination sure it is a humane custome and invention for which we have nothing in the Scriptures and pure Antiquity that only speaks of ordination the only way in which all Pastors entered into the pastoral office 3. The truth is as a Church Ministerial and politick constitute according to the Word of God with all officers of divine appointment hath the full power of the keys of the kingdome of God so there is no sort of officer necessare by divine institution to her edification but she is enabled to furnish her self with such without a necessitie of seeking to other Churches for them and if it be so the Presbyters of this Chruch being her representatives their consent should have been had Although we had no just exception against the office of the Prolates as it is constitute and declared by law as we have but their violent intrusion in this Church it puts a sufficient bar on our subjection to them so that we may not yea cannot owne them as the lawful pastors of this Church Obj. 3. The Magistrat consented to and procured their consecration Ans If any will make it appear that the Magistrat is the Church as Erastus does insolently assert without all probation yea a member of it as such or hath the power of mission we shall yeeld the cause and quietly submit but when we search into the Scripture we find the Magistrat as a Professor of Christianity a member of the Church without all Church power ●et be to be the fountaine of it and subjected as such to the care and oversight of Church Officers in the exercise of their ministerial authority and power We grant it is his part to put the Ministers of the Church when negligent in furnishing of her with officers to their duty anent it but not to thrust in officers upon her of himself without her consent Obj. 4. But the Curats have entered by the Church Ans 1. This we deny the contrare is clear from constant practice for the Curats come in upon congregations only by the Bishop and Patron who are not the Church nor have any power from her for what they do in this all their right and power is founded upon and derived from the supremacy and acts of Parliament and not from the Church in which the Bishop acts as the Kings delegat and substitute only impowered thereto by his law so that the Curats having and deriving all their power from the Prelates cannot have the same from the Church none gives what he hath not But. 2. The prelates not being the lawful governing Church any that enter congregations by them cannot be said to enter by the Church no more then if a Minister should enter into a congregation of this Church by a Minister or Ministers of the Church of France or Holland without the Ministers of this Church can be said to enter by the Church here for the Ministers of other Churches are not the governing Church of this Church The antecedent is to us clear for as the Prelates have entered without the Church so the lawful Ministerial ruling Church although scattered and persecuted is yet existent and in being who by the unjust and violent intrusion of others have not lost their right of ruleing this Church but in point of right and obligation do continue to be her lawful pastours for violence persecution and intrusion do not dissolve the relation betwixt the Church and her Pastours either general or particular there being nothing in our case that can justly do it other wayes it should be in the power of the Magistrat to undo and destroy the political Ministerial Church both formally and effectively which is ab●ord We ask at any who think persecution and intrusion do in our case annul the pastoral relation betwixt Ministers and Churches whether the Magistrats violent ejecting of Ministers and puting of Mahum●tan or Popish Priests in their roomes will discharge Ministers and Congregations of their obligations to one another if they think not then how can these untye their obligations in our case We ask a reason If they judge persecution and intrusion by the Magistrat in ●his case to have this effect then it will inevitably follow that the Magistrat can destroy divine commands flowing there from contrare to the practice of divine relations obligations to the obedience of the Church in the primitive times who notwithstanding of the Magistrats Edicts threatnings much actual violence performed the mutual duties of pastours and flocks Arg. 2. All power of the Prelates and their creaturs in the Church is by law fountained in and derived from the Magistrat and in its exercise subordinated to him as is evident from the act of restitution Parl. Carol. 2. 1. Ses 2. Act. 1. which derivation and subordination they owne and homologat by their compliance with what the law does require in order to it therefore such we cannot we may no● owne receive and subject to as our ministers under seing they acknowledge subject themselves in their ministery to another head then Christ Jesus which by law is set in and over this Church That the force of this Argument may be more perspicuous and clear we shall put it into forme thus Those that receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the ministers of Christ in his Church But the Prelats and their Curats do receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus therefore they ought not to be received and subjected to as the ministers of Christ in his Church We suppose the first proposition will not be denyed all the debate will be in the Second Which we prove thus These officers in the Church professing themselves such that derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church beside Christ doe derive their power from and are subornat in its exercise to another head then Christ Jesus But so it is that the Prelates and their creaturs do derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a power truely Architectonick and supream in the Church beside Christ therefore the Prelates and their Curates do derive their power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another head then Christ The major proposition is evident for whoever hath a supream Architectonick power in and over the Church must be an head to the same and the fountaine of all Church power it is a repugnancy to be supream have an Architectonick power