Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	2,088	5	9.4927	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92075	The Cyprianick-Bishop examined, and found not to be a diocesan, nor to have superior power to a parish minister, or Presbyterian moderator being an answer to J.S. his Principles of the Cyprianick-age, with regard to episcopal power & jurisdiction : together with an appendix, in answer to a railing preface to a book, entituled, The fundamental charter of presbytery / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1696 (1696)	Wing R2218; ESTC R42297	93,522	126

and I think that it will not be denyed that Presbyters are Praepositi and are set over the Church he saith no more then but the Church is founded on the Bishop that is his sound Doctrine as was before explained and her Affairs are ruled by the same Praepositi that is the Bishops and others having Ecclesiastical Authority with them For Presbyters are the same with Bishops in this and that Cyprian meaneth so may be gathered from his varying the word Episcopus into Praepositus Again granting that all the Acts of the Church are ruled by the Bishop this will not prove that they are ruled by him alone His other Testimony out of what he calleth Epistle 43 is far less to his purpose Felicismus with his Faction who formerly had opposed Cyprian's Election to be Bishop in his retirement not only without him but without the Concurrence of the Presbytery or Congregational Eldership I shall not determine which of these the Church of Carthage was then governed by received some of the lapsed which I as well as my Antagonist do reckon a very disorderly Action this Cyprian doth justly blame And that on this Ground that they set up another Altar in that Church that is they threw off the Church Authority that was regularly placed in Carthage and set up another beside we also would blame them who would cast off the Authority of the Presbytery or Kirk-Session and set up another What is Cyprian's meaning is yet clearer from what our Author unwarily citeth out of his Book de unittae Ecclesiae An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversus Christi Sacerdotes facit Qui se à cleri ejus Plebis societate secernit Where he describeth Schisme to be when some depart from the Rulers and Members of the Church not from the Bishop alone and that is to be understood while they keep God's way § 30. His third Preposition is that Cyprian maketh the contempt of one Bishop or undutifulness to him the original of Schisme I am so far from opposing him in this that I think when people begin to quarrel with the meanest of Christs Ministers unless his Life or Doctrine or Government give just cause that they sin against God contemn his Ordinance and are on the brink of Schisme if not Haeresie also And I am sure all that he citeth out out of Cyprian on this head amounteth to no more except a word or two which I shall a little consider When he speaketh of one Bishop I understand him of one Praeses whether in a Congregational or Classical Presbytrey and that in conjunction with them who opposeth such Authority opposeth Christ's Institution He mentioneth p. 23. as also p. 32. The Bishops Monarchical power in the Church and maketh Cyprian prove it by the Bees who have a King the Beasts who have a Captain and Robbers who have a Chiftain It is evident to any who consider Cyprian's other Writings that he never arrogated to himself a Monarchical Power over the Church for he plainly disowneth it as we shall after have occasion to shew But he is here dealing with one Pupianus who had reproached Cyprian as proud and arrogant here Cyprian defendeth himself and retorteth the same Charge of Arrogance on Pupianus in that he took on him to arraign the Bishops and Rulers of the Church and had denyed his power in the Church and he sheweth what Inconveniency it were to the Church if all this time the Church of Carthage had been governed by a Man who had no Authority and in this he bringeth the similitude of the Bees c. Will any think that Cyprian was so weak as to take this for a sufficient Argument to prove Monarchical Power in the Church he only bringeth it as a similitude to illustrate this Truth that there must be a Government in the Church and it had been ill with the Church of Carthage if so long a time they had One over them who was no lawful Ruler which is no Determination of the Extent of Cyprian's power Neither was that the Question between him and Pupianus § 31. I proceed to his fourth Proposition p. 24. The Bishop was so much the principle of Vnity the people had such Dependence on him and was so virtually in him that what he did as Bishop was reputed the Deed of the whole Church which he ruled And to confirm this he bringeth Instances that Churches were blamed for communicating with criminal Bishops and that they did not separat from them and are commended for the Bishops owning the Truth Had our Author thought fit to peruse and consider his Papers before he printed them it is like we should not have been troubled with such crude Notions For 1. How can this be reconciled to what he had a little before-pleaded concerning the horrid sinfulness of separating from their Bishop and this without any distinction or Limitation 2. He is so unwise as to add one word that spoileth all his Design viz. As Bishop for what a Bishop acteth as Bishop he acteth in the Consistory or the Presbytery and by the plurality of their Votes and that is indeed the Fact of the Church Representative and of the Church diffusive too if they shew no dislike of it But this is no Semblance of Proof of the Power of Bishops that he pleadeth for Cyprian's Rhetorical flourish in saying that when Cornelius confessed the Faith before the Persecutors the whole Roman Church confessed Is no more but that Cornelius gave a faithful Testimony to that Doctrine that he had preached among that People and that they received and did still owne is this an Argument that Cornelius had the sole Power of Church-Government in Rome Yea all this might have been said of any Member of that Church who had so confessed and the Church did not reclaim but professed the same Truth It is far less probative that Cyprian desired to suffer at Carthage rather than else where that he might in Confession be the Mouth of them all And least of all is it an Argument that he calleth them his Bowels his Body their Grief was his Grief c. We must abandon all Sense and Reason if these pass for concludent Arguments Of the same weight is what he bringeth out of Pontius of the Blessedness of the people of Carthage who suffered together with such a Bishop I beg the Readers pardon for troubling him with such silly Arguments which need no Answer § 32. His fifth Proposition that the Bishops being the principle of Vnion to his Church was held before the Cyprianick Age This I say needeth no further Animadversion for it bringeth no new thing Neither is it to be imagined that Ignatius whom he citeth meant that the sole Authority of the Bishop rather than the Doctrine that he taught from the infallible Word of God was the Principle of Vnity to the Church Or that they who belong to Christ are with the Bishop whether he teacheth Truth or

Treatment If I have called any thing Lies Railing Sauciness Impudence which was not so I am content to underly the just Sentence of unbyassed men but this Author and his Complices take a Boundless Liberty to Reproach and if they be told of it they are Clamorous beyond Measure It is not inconsistent with all that Civility that is due to men to give things their true Names especially where the Rank and Behaviour of the Persons we deal with plead no extraordinary Respect He mistaketh when he saith that I knew that the Author of the Memorial was dead before I answered his Book I do not to this day know who was the Author of it What was said about giving up King Charles the first to England should have been refuted by Reason not by Quibling I have no Answer for such Arguments neither have I time to examine how fairly all the words are cited which he adduceth nor to shew on what occasion or on what necessity they were written what he representeth as spoken of the Prelatists is injuriously blamed it was spoken of a Party of them who are but few who reproached the Presbyterians in general and in the most universal Terms which never was my way against them § 13. If any thing hath dropt from my Pen which may be judged Uncivil or short of due Respect toward the Learned and Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet I am ready to crave him pardon for I designed the contrary what this Author chargeth me with that way is partly false as what he citeth out of the Preface to Animadv on Irenic for both the Prefaces I have seen one at some Copies and another at other Copies were written by another hand without the knowledge of the Author partly they are fouly misrepresented to give an Instance this Author faith that I said of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 18. that for the most part he doth nothing but magno conatu nihil agere This is misrepresented I said that he insisteth most on things not controverted and thence inferred the blame mentioned It is one thing to charge one directly with an Opinion or Practice and another to make an Inference from it seing many do or say that the ill Consequence of which they do not observe but will disowne His other Citations are but a just Censure one some Passages of that Learned Author's Writings which I was examining which cannot be shunned in Polemick Writings to call that a Contradiction that I make appear to be such is no Injury nor Breach of that Civility that is due to a Stated Adversary many things are fair enough in open War which were not so in a State of Peace This Author is yet more injurious in expounding all that I have said of a few men of imbittered Spirits among the Prelatists who have in their Writings reproacht the Presbyterians and imputed to them things that they are innocent of or abhor applying all this I say to all them who are of the Episcopal Perswasion or to the Party in general as that they are Esaus Serpents Spiteful c. I challenge him to prove what he saith I deny it if I have said any thing of Immorality among the Clergy it is too evident tho' I know some of them are innocent and lament it What he citeth as spoken against the Church of England and her Clergy is either what is in Controversie between us and them I have been so bold as to call their Liturgy and Ceremonies Superstition and to mention what is the Native Concomitant of Superstition that men will be wiser than Christ or his Apostles This is no more a Crime than it is a Fault to be opposite to their way What is said of Immoralities and Insufficiency for the Ministery and other Corruptions that are among them is not chargeable on me yea nor on Presbyterians alone but it is the Complaint of the best among themselves see the five Groans of the Church and Mr. Bold ' s Serm. These Authors were truly Sons of the Church of England thousands among them complain of these things who yet adhere to that Communion I might well disowne that Principle of Sentencing Executing Kings by their Subjects about which some of the Church of England had informed forreign Divines as the Principle and Doctrine of Presbyterians because the Generality of Presbyterians in Scotland very few excepted and these turned Independents after shewed their Abhorrence of that Fact committed on King Charles the first so they did in England and some of them suffered Death for owning his Son Is it Incivility to the Church of England that I thought at the time of the late Revolution it was fit for Parties to put in their Claim for what they thought the way of GOD that it might be judged of by them who had Authority if the Church of England think we ought not to mutter against the Corruptions of their way nor seek a Remedy in an orderly and legal way they may know that we pretend to no such Civility as is inconsistent with Faithfulness to the Truth and Ordinances of Christ We are for the Purity of the Church of England and for her Peace too so as not to meddle with her without our Sphere but if speaking or writing for the good way that we owne do disquiet her with respect to her Corruptions we must be excused It is a wise Assertion he exhorteth his Readers to purge the Church of England c. I exhorted none to this Attempt but in their Station such as many have not his Expression soundeth as if I had stirred all up that should read this Book to fall on the Church of England and pull her down § 14. Impudence is the next Epithet that he laboureth to fix on the man of his Wrath. Instances are It is abscribed to Cunning that their Books reproaching the Presbyterians were spread in England but hard to be found in Scotland which he imputeth to want of Liberty for Printing such Pieces in Scotland and hazard in importing them but it is sufficiently known that many Books of that strain have been imported and none seized that I hear of but one Parcel which was of another strain Next it is Impudence to assert the Loyalty of Presbyterians Answ It is more Impudence to ascribe to Presbyterians what was the Practices of some few with which the far greatest part neither did nor would concur What was said on this Head was also proved and it is Impudence to put such a Mark on any Assertion and yet not attempt to answer the Arguments brought for it Another Impudence is to speak of the Harmlesness of Presbyterians and that they are no Persecutors And that any one of many of them suffered more Hardships and Barbarous Cruelty than all the Espiscopalians have endured the Impudence of this he proveth very learnedly how could one man suffer the deprivation of five or six hundred Livelyhoods That there were so many Episcopal Ministers turned out I suppose these he

Error It is a vast mistake that he saith that Cyprian Ep. 33. pleadeth for the divine Right of Episcopacy in that Ep. which is mihi 27 he pleadeth for the Divine Authority of the Church and her Bishops that is Pastours not for a Divine Warrant for the Praelation of some of them above others nothing can be more evident than the concurrent Testimonies of Antiquity against this Fancy Scripture and the most Antient of the Fathers speak of Bishops and Presbyters indistinctly when the Distinction began to be taken notice of Jerome saith that it was brought in by the Presbyters themselves Ep. ad Evagr. as also on Tit. and Aug. Ep. 10. referreth to Ecclesiae usus Yea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. maketh the Distinction of Bishops as Metropolitans c. To be mos antiquus All that followeth § 37 37 36. doth also confute this Opinion But this I insist not on because our Author hath put off the proof of that Divine Institution of Episcopacy to his next Essay p. 94. His sixth and last Proposition is that the Principle of the Bishops being the Center of Vnity is most reasonable and accountable in it self We may now expect some Herculean Argument and the highest Effort of his Skill And I am willing that the whole Controversie be hanged on this Pin. All that he bringeth for Argument is every particular Church is an Organical political Body and there can be no Organical Body without a Principle of Vnity on which all the Members must hang and from which being separated they must cease to be Members and who so fit for being Principle of Vnity to a Church as he who is Pastour Ruler Governour Captain Head Judge Christs Vicar c. Not his Conclusion only but an Assumption is understood viz. the Bishop is all this ergo he is the Center of Vnity and his quod erat demonstrandum followeth a little after it is scarce possible to prove any thing of this nature more demonstratively One might make sport with this Argument which is introduced and backed with such Parade But I am in earnest in this Debate There are here no less than three Premisses expressed and a fourth necessarily understood before we can reach the Conclusion which every Logician will condemn and when we are at last through all these Stages arived at the Conclusion it is above distinguished and his Argument can reach no more than is by us confessed Besides this it is hard to shew how these his Premisses hang together or what Connection they have Further that the principle of Vnity in a political Body is one person and cannot be a Society the Consistory or the Presbytery in the Church will hardly be proved by this Argument there can be no Unity in a Common-wealth but only in Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy in a Nation are here not only made unlawful but impossible that the Bishop is fittest to be the Principle of Unity in the Church is gratis dictum Yea it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding of the metaphorical Appellations that our Author giveth him from some of the Antients Yea if a Society cannot be the Center of Unity in a particular Church who shall be the Center of Unity among Bishops we must surely have the Pope for this use which is indeed the native conclusion of our Author's Argument that he braggeth so much of But this will afterward occurre § 33. He cometh now p. 27. to another Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's age was supreme in his Church immediatly subject to Christ had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth the Church was one but divided into many Precincts each had its Bishop who was their Supreme I am no further concerned in what he saith on this head but what he bringeth for the Bishops Supremacy Wherefore I insist not on his first Proposition concerning the Equality of Bishops I only observe that he is for Parity in the Church and if it be found among Bishops I know no Scripture nor Reason that condemneth it among Presbyters To the same purpose is his second Preposition and his Third all which are levelled against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whose cause I do not intend to plead Wherefore I come to examine his 4th Proposition p. 31. by the Principles of these times every Bishop was Christs Vicar within his own District So say I is every Minister of the Gospel understanding by Vicar one who deriveth his Power from Christ and to him must give account of it He saith further that a Bishop had a Primacy in his own Church If he mean that he was primus Presbyter I denyed it not if that he had the sole Power in his own person or that the Presbyters had not a coordinate power with him in the Government of the Church I deny it Neither is it proved by Cyprian's words which he citeth Cathedram sibi constituere primatum assumere which I cannot find by what Directions he giveth and therefore cannot tell what might be further said for vindicating them The next Expression admiteth of the same Answer viz. that he managed the Ballance of Government it is not said that he did this by himself Our Moderator manageth the Ballance of Government but with the Presbytery The sublime Sacerdotii fastigum signifieth no more than primus Presbyter The Antients use as big words for as low things neither do I know any higher Degree in those days If my Antagonist will prove it he must use other Topicks than words that may admit various significations the same I say of the Expressions that follow the vigor Episcopatus the sublimis divina potestas gubernandae Ecclesiae This last may agree to the meanest Member of a Presbytery Are not Presbyters called by Cyprian such as are divino sacerdotio honorati and gloriosi sacerdotes as himself citeth p. 7. To what purpose he citeth Jerome for the Parity of Bishops and saith that I will not reject his Testimony I understand not I shall neither oppose him nor Jerome in that Principle § 34. He bringeth another Argument p. 32. from the High Priest among the Jews and saith that a Bishop was the same to Christians that he was to the Jews I see the learned Author is very unhappy in stumbling upon popish Arguments and he can say litle for his Bishop but what they say for their Pope And it is evident that the Papists from this Medium argue with much more shew of Reason For the High Priest had universal supream Authority over the universal Church that then was The Papists infer the Pope's universal Head-ship tho' I am far from thinking this Argument concludent for them yet what shew of Confequence can it have for a Bishops Power in his Diocess Or with what Face can this Author say that a Bishop is the same to Presbyters and Deacons that he was to the Levites unless he say that a Bishop was the same to all the Presbyters and Deacons in the World