Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	minister_n	2,916	5	6.7721	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34675	A defence of Mr. John Cotton from the imputation of selfe contradiction, charged on him by Mr. Dan. Cavvdrey written by himselfe not long before his death ; whereunto is prefixed, an answer to a late treatise of the said Mr. Cavvdrey about the nature of schisme, by John Owen ...	Cotton, John, 1584-1652.; Owen, John, 1616-1683. Of schisme.	1658 (1658)	Wing C6427; ESTC R2830	62,631	184

way which I delivered more laxly I expresse more distinctly in the Treatise of the Keyes which followed after and some things more fully and clearely in the way cleared then in either of the former Answer 3. When I say No Act of the Peoples part doeth properly binde unlesse the Authority of the Elder joyne with it Keyes pag. 36. I would be understood to speak it as I meant it of the Elders walking without offence in the Right Administration of their office and Conversation of their lives Answer 4. When Mr Hooker saith Excommunication is not an Act of Office Power nor of Rule but of supreame Judgment seated in the Fraternity I easily grant that the Excommunication dispensed by the Fraternity is not an Act of Office-Power But it may Justly be Inquired whether Excommunication being Dispensed by the Elders with the consent of the Church be not an Act as of the Churches honourable Judiciall Power so of the Elders Office-Power and Rule in the Church For as the Pastorall Preaching of the Elders is Officiall and so Authoritative though the Preaching of other Brethren as of the Sonnes of the Prophets be not so so why may there not be the like Difference observed here To deliver unto Satan seemeth to be an Act of Judiciall Office-Power as when in another case it is said The Judge delivereth a man to the Officer and the officer casteth him into Prison Matth. 5. 25. He that casteth into Prison is an Inferiour officer The Judge must therefore be a Superiour officer that delivereth an offendour to the officer to be cast into Prison In the Excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian where both the Elders and Brethren concurred the sentence might well be delivered in Termes that expresse an Act of highest Authority To deliver unto Satan But where the Church is called to Act against their Elders who corrupt them with false Doctrine there the Apostle Requireth the Church to mark them and Avoyd them Rom. 16. 17 18. which may expresse an Act of liberty and Judiciall Power but not of Authority CHAP. 4. Touching the seaventh Contradiction and eighth The seaventh Contradiction is thus gathered 7. It was a Sacrilegious Breach of Order That Commissaries and Chancellours wanting the Key of Order no Ministers have been invested with Jurisdiction Yea and more then Ministeriall Authority above those Elders who labour in word and Doctrine The Keyes pag. 16. 7. There is a Key of Power given to the Church with the Elders as to open a doore of entrance to the Ministers calling so to shut the doore of entrance against them in some cases c. The Keyes p. 9. Yea to Censure all their Elders without Elders The Way p. 45. as before Ans. The power given to the Commissaries Chancellors I justly called a Sacrlegious Breach of Order in more Respects than one 1. In that being no Ministers they exercised more than Ministeriall Authority over the Elders For Ministers doe not exercise Authority over Elders no nor over any Brother but with consent of the Church But these doe it without and against the Consent of the Church 2. In that they exercise this Authority even in Churches wherein they have not Received the key of Order and so stand not so much as in the Order of Members amngst them 3. In that they proceed against them not for crimes committed against the word of God but for Neglect of Popish-Canons or Humane Traditions But now no Authority allowed to Brethren either in the Keyes or in the Way cometh neere to this Breach of Order For 1. In Joyning with the Elders to open a doore of entrance to Minister's calling They put forth no Act of Authority properly so called at all but only exercise a liberty and Power orderly which they have Received from the Lord Jesus to elect their own officers As the Peoples election of Deacons Act. 6. 2. to 5th And their lifting up of hands in the choice of Elders Act. 14. 23. doth declare And when they doe shut them forth it is not without their Elders where their Elders are not wanting or not wanting to their Duty And even then they put forth no Act of Office Rule or Authority properly so called as the Commissaries doe but only an Act of Judiciall Power common to the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. 2. The People do exercise this Power only in their own Church where themselves are members and have Received a key of Order 3. They proceed not against any much lesse against their Elders but for notorious offences committed against the word of God in Doctrine or life so that this Contradiction speaketh as little ad idem as any of the former Touching the 8th Contradiction The 8th Contradiction is represented thus 8. We are so farre from Allowing that Sacrilegious usurpation of the Ministers office That private Christians ordinarily take upon them to Preach the Gospell Publickly The Keyes pag 6. 8. This is ordinarily Practised in England and Allowed by the Independant Brethren Yea they being but in the Notion of Gifted Brethren no Ministers to other Congregations doe it ordinarily themselves Ans. 1. This Contradiction is not of me to my selfe but of some others who whether they be Independants truly so called I doe not know sure I am that Presbyterians and Independants are not membra Dividentia though I see that all that are not for Popery or Episcopacy or Presbytery doe commonly lurke under the style of Independancy I hope the Replyer would be loth to Renounce the Protestant Religion because there are found some contradictions and greater than these in one of them to another Ans. 2. When I call it a Sacrilegious usurpation for Private Christians Ordinarily to take upon them to Preach the Gospell Publickly to Administer the Sacraments yet this latter of Administring the Sacraments the Replyer leaveth out and so the Contradictiction is not ad idem which is a Common failing in this and the rest For I would not say that it is a Sacrilegious usurpation for well gifted Brethren where ordained Ministers cannot be had there to Preach ordinarily and Publickly especially if they be Approved by those that have Power and requested thereto by the People wherein I goe further in giving way to the Prophecying of Private Brethren than my Reverend Brethren the Prefacers to the Keyes doe who only Allow them to Preach occasionally and not ordinarily which I speak only to this end That the Replyer and others may know there is more consent and Agreement in our Judgments then they take notice of or sometimes our selves either But if Private Brethren doe Administer the Sacraments at all whether ordinarily or Occasionally It seemeth to me like the Fact of Uzziah in offering Incense CHAP. 5. Touching the 9th Contradiction The 9th Contradiction is layd out thus 9. A Particular Church of Saints Professing the Faith that is members without offices is the first subject of all the Church Offices with all their Spirituall Gifts

God be called out unto And therefore being prepared in some measure to go through good report and bad report I shall give him assurance that I am very litle concerned in such attempts from what ever intention they do proceed Only I must needs tell him that he consulted not his owne reputation with peaceable godly men what ever else he omitted in the ensuing Comparing of me to the seducers in Jude called wandring Planets for their inconstancy and inconsistency with themselves according to the exposition that was needfull for the present turne But seeing the Scheme at the close must beare the weight of this charge let us briefly see what it amounts unto and whether it be a sufficient basis of the sustruction that is raised upon it Hence it is that my inconsistency with my selfe must be remarked in the title page of his first Treatise from hence must my Authority which what it is I know not be impaired and my selfe be Compared to cursed Apostates and Seducers and great triumph be made and upon my selfe inconsistency The Contradictions pretended are taken out of two bookes the one written in the yeare 1643. The other in 1656. and are as followes He spake of Rome as a Collapsed Corrupted Church-State p. 40. He saies Rome we account no Church at all pag. 156. Crimen in auditum C. Caesar is it meet that any one should be tolerated that is thus wofully inconsistent with himselfe what speak of Rome as a Collapsed Church in Italy and within thirteene or fourteene yeares after to say it is no Church at all well though I may say there is indeed no Contradiction between these Assertions seeing in the latter place I speak of Rome as that Church is stated by themselves when yet I acknowledge there may be corrupted Churches both in Rome and Italy in the same Treatise Yea I do not find that in the place directed unto I have in termes or in just consequence at all granted the Church of Rome to be a Collapsed Church nay the Church of Rome is not once mentioned in the whole page nor as such is spoken of and what shall we think of this proceeding But yet I will not so farre offend against my sense of my owne weaknes ignorance and frailty as to use any defensative against this Charge let it passe at any rate that any sober man freed from pride passion selfefulnesse and prejudice shall be pleased to put upon it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} But the second instance will make amends and take more of the weight of this Charge upon its shoulders Take it then as it lies in its triple Columne Guifts in the Person and consent of people is warrant enough to make a man a preacher in an extraordinary Case only pag. 15. and pag. 40. Denying our ordination to be sufficient he sayes he may have that which indeed Constitutes him a minister viz Guifts and submission by the People p. 198. I am punctually of the same mind still p. 40. Yet had said in his first book p. 46. as to formall teaching is required 1 Guifts 2 Authority from the Church if he do not equivocate I must Confesse I am here at a stand to find out the pretended Contradiction especially laying aside the word only in the first Columne which is his and not mine By a Preacher in the first Place I intend a minister Guifts and Consent or submission of the People I affirme in both places to be sufficient to constitute a man a minister in extraordinary Cases That is when imposition of hands by a Presbytery may not be obtained in due order according to the appointment of Jesus Christ That the Consent and submission of the people which include Election have nothing of Authority in them I never said the superadded Act of the imposition of hands by a Presbytery when it may be regularly obtained is also necessary But that there is any Contradiction in my words although in truth they are not my words but an undue collection from them or in this Authors inference from them or any colour of Equivocation I professe I cannot discerne in this place Mr Cawdrey {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Passe we to the third He made the Union of Christ and believers to be mysticall pag. 21. He makes the Union to be Personall pag. 94. 95. I wish our Reverend Author for his owne sake had omitted this Instance because I am enforced in mine owne necessary defence to let him know that what he assignes to me in his second Columne is notoriously false denied and disproved by me in the very place and Treatise wherein I have handled the Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Spirit and whether he will heare or forbeare I cannot but tell him that this kind of dealing is unworthy his calling and profession His following Deductions and Inferences whereby he endeavours to give countenance to this false and calumnious charge arise from ignorance of the Doctrine that he seeks to blemish and oppose Though the same spirit dwell in Christ and us yet He may have him in fullnesse we in measure Fulnesse and measure relating to his Communication of Graces and Gifts which are arbitrary to him indwelling to his person that the Spirit animates the Catholick Church and is the Author of its spirituall life by a voluntary act of his power as the soule gives life to the body by a necessary act by virtue of its union for life is actus vivificant is in vivificatum per unionem utriusque is the Common Doctrine of Divines But yet the soule being united to the body as pars Essentialis suppositi and the spirit dwelling in the Person as a free inhabitant The union between Christ and the Person is not of the same kind with the union of soule and Body let our Author Consult Zanchy on the second of the Ephesians and it will not repent him of his labour or if he please an Author whom I find him often citing namely Bishop Hall about union with Christ And for my Concernment in this charge I shall subjoyne the words from whence it must be taken Pag. 133. of my book of Perseverance 1. The first signall Issue and effect which is ascribed to this Indwelling of the Spirit is Union not a Personall Union with himselfe which is impossible He doth not assume our natures and so prevent our Personality which would make us one person with him but dwells in our persons keeping his owne and leaving us our Personality infinitely distinct But it is a spirituall Union the great union mentioned so often in the Gospell that is the sole Fountaine of our Blessednesse our Union with the Lord Christ which we have thereby Many thoughts of heart there have been about this Union what it is wherein it doth consist the causes manner and Effects of it The Scripture expresses it to be very Eminent necre durable

particular Church it is no Church at all for the Catholicke Church it is not he replyes that though it be not such a particular Congregation as I intend yet it may be a particular Patriarchall Church but 1 then it seemes it is a particular Church which grants my inference 2. It was a particular Church of Christ's institution that I inquired after doth our Authour think that Christ hath appointed any Patriarchall Church a Patriarchall Church as such is such from it's Relation to a Patriarch and he can scarce be thought to judge Patriarches to be of Divine institution who hath cast off and abjured Episcopacy The Donatists are mentioned againe p. 113. And I am againe Charged with an attempt to vindicate them from schisme my thoughts of them I have before declared to the full have no reason to retract any thing from what was then spoken or to adde any thing thereunto if it may satisfie our Authour I here grant they were Schismatickes with what aggravations he pleaseth wherein their schisme consisted I have also declared but he sayes I undertake to exempt some others from schisme I know whom that suffer with them in former and after ages under the same imputation I doe so indeed and I suppose our Authour may ghesse at whom I intend himselfe amongst others I hope he is not so taken up in his thoughts with charging schisme on others as to forget that many the greatest part and number of the true Churchs of Christ doe condemne him for a Schismatick a Donatisticall Schismatick I suppose he acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a true Church the Lutheran I am perswaded he will not deny nor perhaps the Grecian to be so The Episcopall Church of England he contends for and yet all these with one voice cry out upon him for a Schismaticke and as to the plea of the last how he can satisfie his conscience as to the rejection of his lawfull superiors upon his owne principles without pretending any such crime against them as the Donatists did against Caecilianus I professe I do not understand new mention is made of Episcopall ordination p. 120 And they are said to have had their successive ordination from Rome who ordained therein so indeed some say and some otherwise whether they had or no is nothing to me I lay no weight upon it they held I am sure that place in England that without their approbation no man could publickly preach the Gospell to say they were Presbyters and ordained as Presbyters I know not what satisfaction can arise unto Conscience thereby Party and argument may be countenanced by it they professe they ordained as Bishops that for their lives and soules they durst not ordaine but as such so they told those whom they ordained and affirme they have open injury done them by any ones deniall of it As it was the best is to be made of it this shift is not handsome nor is it ingenious for any one that hath looked into Antiquity to charge me with departing from their sense in the notion of schisme declared about the 3d 4th Ages at the same time to maintaine an equality between Bishops and Presbyters or to say that Bishops ordained as Presbyters not as Bishops nor doe I understand the excellency of that order which we see in some Churches where they have two sorts of Elders the one made so by ordination without Election and the other by Election without ordination those who are ordained casting off all power and Authority of them that ordained them and those who are elected immediately rejecting the greatest part of those that chose them Nor did I as is pretend plead for their Presbyterian way in the yeare 46 all the ministers almost in the county of Essex know the contrary one especially who being a man of great ability and moderation of spirit and for his knowledge in those things not behind any man I know in England of his way with whome in that yeare and the next following I had sundry conferences at publicke meetings of ministers as to the severall wayes of Reformation then under proposall But the frivolousnesse of these imputations hath been spoken of before as also the falsnesse of the Calumny which our Authour is pleased to repeat againe about my turning from wayes in Religion My description of a particular Church he once more blames as applicable to the Catholicke Church invisible and to the visible Catholick Church I suppose he meanes as such when a participation in the same ordinances numerically is assigned as its difference He askes whether it becomes my ingenuity to interpret the capability of a Churches reduction to it's primitive constitution by its owne fitnesse and capacity to be so reduced rather then by its externall hinderances or furtherances But with what ingenuity or modesty that question is asked I professe I understand not and pag. 134 he hath this passage only I take notice of his introduction to his answer with thankes for the civility of the inquiry in the manner of its expresion my words were these whether our Reverend Authour doe not in his conscience thinke there was no true Church in England 'till c which puts me into suspition that the Reverend Doctour was offended that I did not alwaies for oft I doe give him that title of the Reverend Authour or the Doctor which made him cry out he was never so dealt withall by any party as by me though upon review I doe not find that I gave him any uncivill language unbeseeming me to give or him to receive and I heare that somebody hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect which he took very ill Let this Reverend Authour make what use of it he please I cannot but againe tell him that these things become neither him nor any man professing the Religion of Jesus Christ or that hath any respect to truth or sobriety can any man thinke that in his conscience he gives any credit to the insinuation which here he makes that I should thanke him for calling me Reverend Authour or Reverend Doctor or be troubled for his not useing those expressions Can the mind of an honest man be thought to be conversant with such meane and low thoughts for the Title of Reverend I doe give him notice that I have very little valued it ever since I have considered the saying of Luther Nunquam periclitatur Religio nisi inter Reverendissimos So that he may as to me forbeare it for the future and call me as the Quakers doe and it shall suffice And for that of Doctor it was conferred on me by the University in my absence and against my consent as they have expressed it under their publicke seale nor doth any thing but gratitude and respect unto them make me once own it and freed from that obligation I should never use it more nor did I use it untill some were offended with me blamed me for my