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	peter_n	5,721	5	7.6949	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59963	A hind let loose, or, An historical representation of the testimonies of the Church of Scotland for the interest of Christ with the true state thereof in all its periods : together with a vindication of the present testimonie, against the Popish, prelatical, & malignant enemies of that church ... : wherein several controversies of greatest consequence are enquired into, and in some measure cleared, concerning hearing of the curats, owning of the present tyrannie, taking of ensnaring oaths & bonds, frequenting of field meetings, defensive resistence of tyrannical violence ... / by a lover of true liberty.	Shields, Alexander, 1660?-1700.	1687 (1687)	Wing S3431; ESTC R24531	567,672	774

defection to the Enemy and taken on with him Let the Indulged and Addressing Ministers advert to this And consider whether or not the truly tender have reason to discountenance them while they continue in their palpable defection But undenyably this refells that Objection of the Curats Ordination before they were Curats For they that change their holding of a right and take a new right which is null they forego forefeit their old right all right But the Prelatick Curats have changed their holding of their right and taken a new one which is null Therefore they have foregone forefeited their old one The minor I prove thus They who had aright from Christ by Conveyance of His officers and take a new grant for the exercise of it not from Christ but by conveyance of such as are none of His officers they change their hold●ng and take a new one which is null But the Prelatick Curats who had a right by conveyance of His officers have taken a new grant for the exercise of it not from Christ but by conveyance of the Prelat which is none of His officers Ergo The stress of all will ly in the Probation of this that the Prelat is none of Christs officers and therefore the conveyance of a power from him is not from Christ. Which I prove 1. Because His office is cross to the very nature of Gospel Church-Government and therefore he cannot be a Gospel Church Ruler Christ discharged His officers to exercise Dominion or Lordship Luk. 22. 25. or Authority as the Gentils did but that the Chiefest should be only a Minister Math. 22. 25 26. The Apostle Paul disclaims Dominion over the Church 2 Cor. 1. ult Peter exhorts the Elders not to be Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. 3. The Authority of Church officers then is not a Desp●tick power but a Ministerial Stewardship But the Diocesan Bishop is both a Lordly Title Power having all Authority in the Diocess derived from him as being as it were the Universal Pastor and so taking upon him a power which is neither commanded nor can be discharged Hence he that subjects his His Ministrie to the Domination of a strange Lord inverting the Nature of Gospel Church-Government cannot be ouned in His Ministrie But all Curats subject their Ministry c. Ergo 2. Because he is an officer Distinct from superior to a Presbyter or Pastor whereas the Scripture makes a Bishop and Presbyter all one The Elders of the Church of Ephesus are called Episcopi or Overseers Act. 20. 17. 28. An ordainded Elder must be a blameless Bishop as the steward of God Tit. 1. 5 7. Again it cannot be shown where the Scripture mentions either Name qualification work Duty or ordination of an ordinary Church officer Superior to Presbyters and which are not likewise appropriat to them who are called Rulers Governours Bishops In all the Holy Ghost His purposed recitalls of ordinary Church Officers there is not the least hint of a Diocesan Bishop and yet a Deacon is described the meanest officer in His work qualifications Hence then if this Diocesan Prelate be such an uncouth beast that neither in name nor Nature is found in the word of God all the power derived from him is null But the first is true Ergo 3. Because every Officer in the Scripture relates to the flock except the extraordinary Officers who were further extended now ceased Bishops of Ephesus were overseers over the flock Act. 20. the Elders that Peter writes to were over the flock But this Diocesan Antiscriptural Monster pretends to be over the Shepherds And invents new Degrees orders of Superiority inferiority of officers of the same kind beside against the Scripture which makes all Apostles alike all Evangelists so all Teachers though there be a Distinction Superiority in diverse Kinds yet not in the same God hath set some in the Church first Apostles Secondarly Prophets thirdly Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 28. but not among Teachers some above others in a power of order Jurisdiction Hence an Officer over officers of the same kind is not an Officer of Christs institution And consequently any power conveyed from his is null But a Prelat pretends to be an officer over Officers of the same kind Ergo 4. Because every officer in the Church hath equally and in perfect parity equall power Authority allowed them of God in the exercise of both the keyes both of order Jurisdiction All ruling Elders may rule alike and deserve equal honour And all Preaching Elders have the like Authority and the like honour conferred upon them 1 Tim. 6. 17. The scripture attributes both power of Order Jurisdiction to all Preaching Presbyters equally They must oversee the flock or as the word is do the part of a Bishop over them Act. 20. 28. and they must also feed the flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. Subjection obedience is one to them all alike All that are over us and admonish us we must esteem highly for their works sake 1 Thess. 5. 12. and obey submit our selves to them that watch for our souls Heb. 13. 17. we find also excommunication belongs to all alike 2 Cor. 2. 6. and ordination 1 Tim. 4. 14. But the Diocesan Prelat takes from Presbyters to himself power of ordination assuming only his Curats for fashions sake and the sole decisive power in Church Judicatories wherein he hath a Negative voice like a Diotrephes the first Prelat who loved to have the preeminence 3 Iohn 9. the only precedent for Prelacy in the Scripture Hence he that would take all power to himself which is undivided equall to all officers by Christs appointment hath none by Christs allowance but is to be reckoned an usurping Diotrephes But the Diocesan Prelat would take all the power to himself which is undivided equall to all By all which it appears the prelate being no Authorized Church Officer of Christs no Authority can be derived from him And so that such as betake themselves to this pretended power for warranting them in the function can warrantably claim no deference thereupon nor can be ouned as Ministers whatever they were before For this were an acknowledging of the power Authority of Prelats especially when the Law commands our hearing as a submitting to them The reason is because these men came forth from the Prelat having no other call or warrant but what the Prelat giveth And so a receiving of them will be a receiving of the Prelate as a refusing of them will be accounted a slighting of the Prelat his power Apol. Relat. 15. pag. 272. III. It is necessare also that all with whom we oune Communion as Ministers should be Christs Ambassadours having then when we hear them and holding still their Commission from Christ as King and only Head of His Church conveyed not only from Church officers in a way that He hath revealed as the Prophet of His

but our Ministers that ventured their lives in preaching in the fields have had a certain seal to their Ministry is sealed sensibly in the conviction of many confession of moe That Christs Ministers Witnesses employed about the Great Gospel Message cloathed with His Authority under the obligation of His Commands lying upon them must preach the people must hear them not withstanding of all Laws to the contrary Divines grant that the Magistrate can no more suspend from the exercise than he can depose from the Office of the Ministry for the one is a degree unto the other See Apollon de jure Majest circa Sacra Part. 1. Pag. 334. c. Rutherf Due right of Presb. Pag. 430. c. For whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men more than unto God the Consciences of the greatest enemies may be appealed unto Act. 4. 19. They must not cease wherever they have a Call Occasion to Teach Preach Iesus Christ Act. 5. ult Necessity is laid upon them yea wo unto them if they Preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 16. In all things they must approve themselves as the Ministers of God in much patience in afflictions in necessities c. by honour dishonour by evil report good report as deceivers and yet true as unknown yet well known 2 Cor. 6. 4 8 9. They must preach the Word be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 2. Dare any say then that a Magistrats or Tyrants Laws can exauctorate a Minister or silence him by his oun proper elicite acts as King or Tyrant or formally immediately Will Mischiefs framed into a Law warrant such iniquity or an act of a King of Clay rescind the Mandats of the King of Kings or exempt people from obedience due thereunto Or will the Bishops Canons who have no power from Christ or the Censures of them that stand condemned themselves by the Constitutions of the Church Acts of the General Assemblies have any weight in the case And yet these are all that can be alledged except odious invidious Calumnies the ordinary Lot of the most faithful against the present preachers in the fields which are sufficiently confuted in their late Informatory Vindication and need not here be touched Seeing therefore they have given up themselves unto Christ as His servants they must resolve to be employed for Him to the outmost of their power and must not think of laying up their Talent in a Napkin especially now when there is so great necessity when Defection is yet growing covered countenanced more more Division nothing abated but new oyl cast daylie into the flames of devouring Contentions the people generally drouned in the deluge of the times snares sins and like to be over whelmed in the inundation of black Poperie now coming in at the opened sluce of this wicked Toleration with the Congratulations of Addressing Ministers when now the Harvest is great and the Labourers are few Great then is the necessity and double must the woe be that abideth such Ministers as are silent at such a time And great inexcusable is the sin of the people if they do not come out and countenance faithful Ministers the Messengers of the Lord of hosts from whom they should seek the Law Mal. 2. 7. especially when there are so many that have palpably betrayed their Trust and so few that are faithful in the necessary Testimony of the day Seeing then faithful Ministers must preach people must hear where can they meet with conveniency safety freedom except either under the shelter of this wicked Toleration which they dare not do or else go to the fields 5. It must be obtained also that the Ministers have a right to Preach in this unfixed manner whereever they have a Call their relation now in this disturbed state of the Church being to be considered more extensively than in its settled condition For understanding which we must distinguish a three or four-fold relation that a Minister of the Gospel stands into First He is a Minister of Christ and Steward of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. having his Commission from Christ as his Master And this relation he hath universally wherever he is Secondly he is a Minister of the Catholick Church though not a Catholick Minister of it which is his primary relation for that is the Church in which Ministers are set 1 Cor. 12. 28. and to which they are given Eph. 4. 11 12. Thirdly He is a Minister of the particular Church whereof he is a Member and so in Scotland a Minister is a Minister of the Church of Scotland and is obliged to lay out himself for the good of that Church Fourthly he is a Minister of the particular Congregation whereunto he hath a fixed relation in a constitute case of the Church This last is not essential to a Minister of Christ but is subservient to the former relations but when separated from such a relation or when it is impossible to be held he is still a Minister of Christ and His Call to preach the Gospel stands binds See M r Durhams Degression on this particular on Revel chap. 2. pag. 89. c. in quarto For thô he be not a Catholick Officer having an equal relation to all Churches as the Apostles were Nevertheless he may exerce Ministerial Acts Authoritatively upon occasions warrantably calling for the same in other Churches as Heraulds of one King having Authority to charge in His Name wherever it be especially in a broken state of the Church when all the restriction his Ministerial relation is capable of is only a tye call to officiate in the service of that Church whereof he is a Member and so he hath right to preach every where as he is called for the edification of that Church The reasons are 1. He hath power from Christ the Master of the whole Church and therefore wherever the Masters Authority is acknowledged the Servants Ministerial Authority cannot be denied at least in relation to that Church whereof he is a Member as well as a Minister 2. He hath Commission from Christ principally for the edification of Christs body as far as his Ministrie can reach according to the Second relation 3. His relation to the whole Church is principal that which is fixed to a part is only subordinate because it is a part of the whole 4. His Commission is indefinite to preach the Gospel which will s●it as well in one place as in another 5. The same great ends of the Churches greater good edification which warrands fixing of a Minister to a particular charge in the Churches peaceable state will warrand his officiating more largely in her disturbed state 6. Else it would follow that a faithful Minister standing in that relation to a disturbed destroyed Church and all his

the Lord. So that we sin against the fifth Command when we honour them that we are obliged to contemn by another Command Hence I argue If ouning or honouring of Tyrants be a breach of the fifth Command then we cannot oune their Authority But the former is true Ergo the latter I prove the Assumption A honouring the vile to whom no honour is due and who stand under no relation of Fathers as Fathers is a breach of the fifth Command But the ouning of Tyrants Authority is a honouring the vile to whom no honour is due and who stand under no relation of Fathers and is yet a honouring them as Fathers Ergo the ouning of Tyrants Authority is a breach of the fifth Command The Major is clear for if the honouring of these to whom no honour is due were not a breach of the fifth Command that precept conld neither be kept at all nor broken at all It could not be kept at all for either it must oblige us to honour all indefinitely as Fathers and other relations which cannot be or else it must leave us still in suspence ignorance who shall be the object of our honour and then it can never be kept or finally it must astrict our honouring to such definite relations to whom it is due then our transgression of that restriction shall be a breach of it Next if it were not so it could not be broken at all for if prostituting abusing honour be not a sin we cannot sin in the matter of honour at all for if the abuse of honour be not a sin then dishonour also is not a sin for that is but an abuse of the duty which is a sin as well as the omission of it And what should make the taking away of honour from the proper object to be sin and the giving it to a wrong object to be no sin Moreover if this Command do not restrict honour to the proper object we shall never know who is the object how shall we know who is our Father or what we owe to him if we may give another his due The Minor also is manifest for if Tyrants be vile then no honour is due to them according to that Psal. 15. 4. And yet it is a honouring them as Fathers if they be ouned as Magistrats for Magistrats are in a politick sense Fathers But certain it is that Tyrants are vile as the Epithets Characters they get in Scripture prove But because in contradiction to this it may be said though Fathers be never so wicked yet they are to be honoured because they are still Fathers And though Masters be never so vile and froward yet they are to be subjected unto 1 Pet. 2. 18-20 and so of other relations to whom honour is due by this Command therefore though Tyrants be never so vile they are to be ouned under these relations because they are the higher Powers in place of Eminency to whom the Apostle Paul commands to yeeld subjection Rom. 13. and Peter to give submission honour 1 Pet. 2. 13 17. Therefore it must be considered that as the relative duty of honouring the relations to whom it is due must not interfere with the moral duty of contemning the vile who are not under these relations So this general Moral of contemning the vile must not ca●sate the obligation of relative duties but must be understood with a Consistency therewith without any prejudice to the duty it self We must contemn all the vile that are not under a relation to be honoured and these also that are in that relation in so far as they are vile But now Tyrants do not come under these Relations at all that are to be honoured by this Command As for the higher Powers that Paul speaks of Rom. 13. they are not those which are higher in fo●ce but higher in Power not in potentia but in potestate not in a Celsitude of prevalency but in a precellency of dignity not in the pomp pride of their prosperity possession of the place but by the virtue value of their office being ordained of God not to be resisted the Ministers of God for good terrors to evil doers to whom honour is due those are not Tyrants but Magistrats Hence it is a word of the same root which is rendered Authority or an Authorized Power 1 Tim. 2. 2. And from the same word also comes that supreme to whom Peter commands subjection honour 1 Pet. 2. 13. Now these he speaks of have the Legal Constitution of the people being the ordinance of man to be subjected to for the Lords sake and who sends other inferior Magistrats for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well who are to be honoured as Kings or Lawful Magistrats this cannot be said of Tyrants But more particularly to evince that Tyrants Usurpers are not to be honoured according to this Command and that it is a breach of it so to do let us go through all these Relations of Superiority that come under the obligation of this Command and we shall find Tyrants Usurpers excluded out of all First they cannot come under the Parental relation We are indeed to esteem Kings as Fathers though not properly but by way of some Analogy because it is their office to care for the people and to be their Counsellers and to defend them as Fathers do for Children but Roaring Lyons Ranging Bears as wicked Rulers are Prov. 28. 15. cannot be Fathers But Kings cannot properly be ouned under this Relation far less Tyrants with whom the Analogy of Fathers cannot consist there being so many notable disparities betwixt Kings Fathers 1. A Father may be a Father to one Child but a King cannot be a King or Politick Father to one only but his Correlate must be a Community a Tyrant can be a Father to none at all in a Politick sense 2. A Father is a Father by Generation to all coming out of his loyns a King not so he doth not beget them nor doth their relation flow from that a Tyrant is a destroyer not a Procreator of people 3. A Father is the cause of the Natural being of his Children A King only of the Politick well being of his subjects but Tyrants are he cause of the ill being of both 4. A Father once a Father as long as his Children live retains still the relation thô he turn mad and never so wicked A King turning mad may be served as Nebuchadnezzar was at least all will grant in some cases the subjects may shake off th● King and if in any case it is when he turns Tyrant 5. A Fathers relation never ceases whither soeuer his Children go but subjects may change their relation to a King by coming under another King in another Kingdom a Tyrant will force all lovers of freedom to leave the Kingdom where he Domineers 6. A Fathers relation never changes he can neither

succession by a scandalous Assassination But it is clear then David was Resisting him and that is enough for us and he supposes he might descend into battel perish 1 Sam. 26. 10. not excluding but that he might perish in battel against himself resisting him We are commanded indeed not to resist evil but whosoever shall smite us on the one check to turn to him the other also Math. 5. 39. and to recompense to no man evil for evil Rom. 12. 17. But this doth not condemn self defence or Resisting Tyrants violently endangering our Lives Laws Religion Liberties but only resistence by way of private revenge retaliation and enjoins patience when the clear call dispensation do inevitably call into suffering but not to give way to all violence Sacriledge to the subverting of Religion Righteousness These Texts do no more condemn private persons retaliating the Magistrate than Magistrats retaliating private persons unless Magistrats be exempted from this precept and consequently be not among Christs followers Yea they do no more forbid private persons to resist the unjust violence of Magistrats than to resist the unjust violence of private persons That Objection from our Lords reproving Peter Math. 26. 52. Put up thy sword for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword hath no weight here for this condemns only making use of the sword either by way of private revenge or usurping the use of it without Authority and so condemns all Tyrants which private subjects do not want to defend themselves their Religion Liberty or using it without necessity which was not in Peters case tum quia valebat Christus se ipsum defendere tum quia volebat se ipsum tradere Pool Synops. Critic in Locum Christ could easily have defended himself but he would not and therefore there was no necessity for Peters rashness it condemns also a rash precipitating and preventing the Call of God to acts of Resistence But otherwise it is plain it was not Peters fault to defend his Master but a necessary duty The reason our Lord gives for that inhibition at that time was two fold one expressed Math. 26. 52. for they that take the sword c. Which do not belong to Peter as if Peter were hereby threatened but to those that were coming to take Christ they usurped the sword of Tyrannical violence and therefore are threatened with destruction by the sword of the Romans so is that commination to be understood of Antichrist and the Tyrants that serve him Rev. 13. 10. he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword which is a terrible word against persecuters The other reason is Iohn 18. 11. The Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink Which clearly resells that Objection of Christs non-resistence To which it is answered that suffering was the end of His voluntary suscepted humiliation and His errand to the World appointed by the Father and undertaken by Himself which is not the Rule of our practice Thô it be true that even in His Sufferings He left us an ensample that we should follow His steps 1 Pet. 2. 21. In many things as He was a Martyr His Sufferings were the purest Rule Example for us to follow both for the matter and frame of Spirit submission patience constancy meekness c. but not as He was our Sponsor and after the same manner for then it were unlawful for us to flee as well as to resist because He would not flee at that time 7. As we are not for Rising in Armes for triffles of our oun things or small injuries done to our selves but in a case of necessity for the preservation of our Lives Religion Laws Liberties when all that are dear to us as men and as Christians are in hazard So we are not for Rising up in Armes to force the Magistrate to be of our Religion but to defend our Religion against his force We do not think it the way that Christ hath appointed to propogate Religion by Armes Let Persecuters Limbs of Antichrist take that to them but we think it a Priviledge which Christ hath allowed us to defend preserve our Religion by Armes especially when it hath been established by the Laws of the Land and become a Land-right and the dearest and most precious Right Interest we have to contend for It is true Christ saith Iohn 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this world if my Kingdom were of this world then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes But this Objection will not conclude that Christs Kingdom is not to be defended preserved even by Resistence of all that would impiously sacrilegiously spoil us of it in this world because it is not of this world for then all were obliged to suffer it to be run doun by slaves of Hell and Satan and Antichrists vassals Papists Malignants Yea Magistrats were not to fight for it for they are among His Servants if they be Christians But the good Confession He Witnesses here before Pilat is that He hath a Kingdom which as it is not in opposition to any Cesarean Majestie So it must not be usurped upon by any King of Clay but is specifically distinct from all the Kingdoms of the world and subordinate to no earthly power being of a Spiritual Nature whereof this is a demonstration and sufficient security for earthly Kingdoms that His Servants as such that is as Christians and as Ministers were not appointed by Him to propogate it by Armes nor to deliver Him their King at that time because He would not suffer His Glorious design of Redemption to be any longer retarded but this doth not say but thô they are not to propogate it as Christians and as Ministers by carnal weapons yet they may preserve it with such weapons as men Hence that old saying may be vindicated preces lachrimae sunt arma Ecclesiae Prayers and tears are the Armes of the Church I grant they are so the only best prevailing Armes and without which all others would be ineffectual and that they together with Preaching Church Discipline c. are the only Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Armes of a Church as a Church but the Members thereof are also Men and as men they may use the same weapons that others do And ye my flock the flock of my Pasture are men saith the Lord Ezek. 33. 31. Yea from this I shall take an Argument It it be Lawful for private Subjects without the concurrence of Parliaments to resist a Tyrant by Prayers and tears Then it is Lawful also to resist him by violence But the former is true as our Adversaries grant by this Objection and I have proved it to be duty to pray against Tyrants Head 2. Ergo The Connexion is founded upon these reasons 1. This personal Resistence by violence is as consistent with that Command Rom. 13. 1 2. Let