Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	church_n	hold_v	2,172	5	6.0670	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93888	An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.; J. T.; Turner, Samuel, D.D.	1647 (1647)	Wing S5516; Thomason E385_4; ESTC R201455	34,185	56

it And hence t is plaine that though we should yeeld that the Apostles only did institute Bishops yet in this Revel. Christ himselfe immediately in his own person and the holy Spirit withall did both approve and confirme them And the Learned observe that the Bishops of those Sees are therefore called Angels by S. Iohn who was born a Jew because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because the Bishops were those Churches Chiefes this truth appeares not only from those cleare Texts but from the mutuall consent and pactise for more then 1500. yeares space of all the Christian Church So that neither S. Hierome nor any other Ancient did ever hold orders to be lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in this last Century which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the authority of the Text it selfe But as t is a Maxime in Humane Lawes Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres Custome and Practice is the best Interpreter So no rationall man but will easily yeeld it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly aske What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts then that very same meanes whereby I know the Text it selfe to be Text Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles and if I therefore beleeve them to be written by that Apostle because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that beliefe and there 's no other rationall way of beleeving it why doe I not beleeve the same Christian sense which the universal consent assures me they were written in Shall I beleeve and yet disbeleeve that selfe-same consent which is the best ground of my beliefe This is as it were in cleare terms to say that I beleeve such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet I doe now hold the selfe-same man to be a lyar Men doe beleeve the testimony of universall consent in the sense it gives of single termes and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions without the help of this Consent which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute your error as by the authority of your consent Admit then of that Rule that consent universall is the best interpretation of Texts and then I am sure it is as cleare as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolicall Right yea and that proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearely appeare to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and Antiquity allowed of it Extra casum necessitatis For I aske upon what Text doe they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours words to the Eleven Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations and baptize them But in the institution of the Eucharist He spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drinke yee all of this Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spake those words unto the Eleven he spake them only as to lawfull Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they will say that the generall practise of receiving the Cup is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I thinke so too where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament But if a quarreler should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone whereof many were at that time at Corinth As when in the 5. Chap. he seemes to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person yet t is plain he meanes none but the men in government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appeare out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never tooke the words in that sense And if to stop the mouthes of wranglers we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of Universall consent and the Common practise of Christs Church then you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottome There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the consent and practise of the Universall Church hath still interpreted that Text And againe t is true There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for 1500. yeares together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ T is true that this precept Go ye teach c. runnes not in exclusive words yee Apostles or yee lawfull Ministers and none but yee yet extra casum necessitatis no man was allowed to baptise but a lawfull Minister so though these commands Lay hands suddenly on no man and Do thou ordaine Elders in every City runne not in verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclvsive sense no man for 1500 yeares in any setled Church was held rightly ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopall Order will appeare clearely by this that immediately from the times of Christ his Apostles yea within the reach of those times t was universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches so that no man can name a Nationthat was once wonne unto the Christian Faith but he shall soon find that there were Bishops so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause for an Effect that was so Universall Generall Councell there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might have thence obeyed her directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit for they were soone fallen into Factions but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountaine I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before S. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees as at

Hierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome Ephesus at Creece at Athens and Colosse divers others it being easie to draw a Catalogue of them out of several Ecclesiasticall Writers And here it will be plain that its a foule corruption nay how flat a sinne is brought into the Church of Christ where Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs t is as grosse as if Lay-men should be allowed to baptize when a Presbyter doth stand by nay more it is as bad as if the Order of Presbyters should therefore be thrown downe that Lay-men might Baptize and what 's this but willingly to runne into a Necessity it selfe that wee might thence create an Apology T is a corruption farre worse then if a Church should audaciously attempt to pull down the Lords Day since the observation of that Time is neither built on so cleare a Text nor on the helpe of so Universall a Consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can thinke it sinfull to part with the Lords Day though the institution of it be meerly Apocryphall they must needs confesse there is at least so much sinne nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops and then the Oxford Doctrine which the Epistler gybes at and talkes of as transmitted for an orthodox truth will it seemes prove no lesse in earnest Secondly for the point of Sacriledge the better to cl●●●e this I must premise these Assertions 1. That God accepts of things given him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as in the Old Testament 2. That God gets this Propriety in those things he holds as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him 3. That to invade those things be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sinne of Sacriledge 4. That this sinne is not only against Gods positive Law but plainly against his Morall Law 1. Proposition God accepts of things given c. For proofe of this first I quote that Text I hungred and ye gave me meat I thirsted and ye gave me drinke c. Mat. 25. If Christ do not accept of these things he may say indeed yee offered me meat but he cannot say that yee gave it for a Present is then only to be called a Gift when it is accepted as his own that takes it And do's he thus accept of Meat and Clothing and do's he not accept of those kind of endowments that bring both these to perpetuity Will He take Meat and refuse Revenues Doth He like can you imagine to be Fed and Clothed to day and in danger to be Starved to morrow The men thus provided for He calles no lesse then His Brethren In as much as you have done it unto the least of these my Brethren yee have done it unto me Whether these were of those Brethren which he had enjoyned to teach others or of those which he would have instructed the Text there doth not decide without doubt it must be meant of both for it were a strange thing to affirme that Christ liked it extreame well to be Fed and to be Clothed in all those He called His but only in His Seventy and His Apostles but to put it out of doubt that what is done to them is done to Him too His owne words are very plain He that receiveth you teaching Disciples receiveth me in the Tenth of that Gospell where He sends all forth to preach and that reception implyes all such kind of provisions as is apparently plaine throughout the whole Tenour of the Chapter And againe I quote that so well known passage of Ananias and Saphyra his wife Act. 5. his sin was he kept back part of the price of those Lands he had given to God for the publique use of the Church yea given to God and t is as plaine that he did accept it for S. Peter you know thus reprooves him Why hast thou lyed or why hast thou deceived the Holy Ghost for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} do's properly import why doest thou cheat him of what is now his own proper right And againe Thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God and is this so strange a thing Are not all our lyes to be accounted sinnes before God yes all against God as a Witnesse and a Judge but yet not all against God as a Party and therefore t is a more remarkeable a more signall lye Thou hast not lyed unto men a negative of comparison not so much to men as to God what 's done to them is scarce worth the naming but thou hast lyed unto God as a Witnesse and a Judge yea and a party too Thou hast lyed rob'd God by lying and so runne thy selfe into an eminent sinne and that shall appeare in Gods judgement so the Fathers generally expound that place both of the Greek and Latine Church and affirme his crime was a robbing God of that wealth which by Vow or by promise was now become Gods propriety So the Modern Interpreters yea so Calvin Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur He professed that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God sayes he on that place and there Beza too Pradium Deo consecrassent the the man and his wife they consecrated this Land to God And he that will not believe so Universall a consent in the interpreting a place of Scripture should do well to consider whether upon the same ground as I told you before he may not be brought to doubt of his Dictionary for that is but Universal consent he may almost as well doubt whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifyes God and altogether as well whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifyes the Gospell The New Testament will afford more places for this purpose Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacriledge Rom. 2. 22. T is true these words are spoken as to the person of an unconverted Jew and may be therefore thought to aime only at those sinnes which were descryed in the Law of Moses but do but view S. Pauls way of arguing and you will quickly find they come home to us Christians too he there tells the Jew that he taught others those things which yet he would not do himselfe and he strives to make this good by three severall instances first Thou that Preachest a man should not steale doest thou steale Secondly Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery dost thou commit adultery In both these t is plain that the Jew he dealt with did the same things he reprehended and straightway the third comes Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge So that hence 't will follow if S. Pauls words have Logique in them that these two sinnes are of the selfe same nature too And that to commit a sacriledge is a breach of the same Law as to commit an Idolatry so that crime will

to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customes of this Realme Rex I grant and promise to keepe them Episc. Sir will you keepe Peace and godly agreement entirely according to your power both to God the holy Church the Clergy and the People Rex I will keepe it Episc. Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your judgements Rex I will Episc. Will you grant to hold and keep the Lawes and rightfull Customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have and will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lyeth Rex I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the People with a loud voice Our Lord and King Wee beseech you to pardon and grant to preserve unto us to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that you would protect and defend us as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his government The King answereth With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the People to observe the promises and laying his hand upon the Booke saith The Oath The Things that I have before promised I shall performe and keep So helpe me God and the contents of this Booke In the First Clause t is plaine he makes a promissory Oath unto the whole People of England a word that includes both Nobility and Clergy and Commons that he will confirme their Lawes and Customes And in the second Paragraph thereof he sweares peculiarly to the Clergy that he will keepe the Lawes Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward And more plainly in the fift clause he makes like promissory Oath unto the Bishops alone in the behalfe of themselves and their Churches that he will reserve and maintaine to them all Canonicall Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that he will be their Protector and Defender Where first since he sweares defence unto the Bishops by name t is plaine he sweares to maintain their order For he that Sweares he will take care the Bishops shall be protected in such and such Rights must needs sweare to take care that Bishops must first be For their Rights must needs suppose their Essence And where a King sweares defence what can it imply but defence in a Royall Kingly way Tu defende me gladio ego defendam te calamo is the well known speech of an old Church-man to a Prince For sure where Kings sweare defence to Bishops I do not thinke they sweare to write Bookes in their behalfe or attempt to make it clear to the People that Episcopacy is jure divino But a King whose propriety it is to beare the Sword sweares to weare it in the defence of Bishops for though t is against the very Principles of the Christian Faith that Religion should be planted or reformed by bloud yet when Christian Kings have by Law setled Christian Religion and sworne to defend those persons that should preach it he ought sure to beare his Sword to defend his Lawes and to keepe his soule free from perjury And by Canonicall priviledges that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implyed the honour of their severall Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all their due Rights and Jurisdictions The words Due Law and Justice cannot but import that His Majesty binds himselfe to see that justice be done to them and the Churches according to the Law then in force when he tooke that Oath And when the King sweares Protection and Defence that Clause must needs reach not only to their persons but to their rights and estates for he sweares not onely to men but to men in such a condition to Bishops and their Churches and those conditions of men grow little lesse then ridiculous if their estates be brought to ruine so that such a protection were neither at all worth the asking nor the swearing if the King should protect a Bishop in his life and yet suffer him to be made a begger since to see himselfe in scorne and contempt might more trouble him then to dye And whereas He sweares to be their Protector and Defender to his power by the assistance of God these words to his power may seem to acquit him of all the rest if he fall into a condition wherein all power seemes taken from him But that Sir will prove a mistake for one of the greatest Powers of the King of England is in the Negative in Parliament So that without him no Law can be enacted there since t is only the power-royall that can make a Law to be a Law so that if the King should passe a Statute to take away the Church-lands he protects it not to his power since t is plaine that so long as a man lives and speakes he hath still power to say No For it cannot be said that the Church in this case may be as it were ravished from the King and that then he may be no more guilty of that sinne then Lucrece was in her rape for though a chaste body may suffer ravishment yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach unto a mans will or his assent Now in all promissory Oathes made for the benefit of that Party to whom we sweare t is a rule with Divines that they of all others do more strictly bind except then alone when remission is made Consensu illius cui facta est promissio So although the King sweare unto the People of England that he will keepe and confirme their Lawes yet if you their Commons desire these said Lawes be either abrogated or altered t is cleare that Oath binds no further because remission is made by their own consent who desired that promise from him and upon this very ground t is true that the King sweares to observe the lawes only in sensu composito so long as they are Lawes But should the desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or Priviledges proceed from any other but from them alone to whose benefit he was sworne t is cleerely plaine by the rules of all justice that by such an act or desire his Oath receives no remission For the foundation of this promissory Oath is their interest he was sworn to