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	rome_n	3,116	5	6.8909	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48308	Defensive doubts, hopes, and reasons, for refusall of the oath, imposed by the sixth canon of the late synod with important considerations, both for the penning and publishing of them at this time / by John Ley ... ; hereunto is added by the same author, a letter against the erection of an altar, written above five yeares agoe, and a case of conscience, touching the receiving of the sacrament, resolved.	Ley, John, 1583-1662.	1641 (1641)	Wing L1874; ESTC R21343	93,675	154

expunge his name out of the Catalogue of u One onely branded Hereticke i. Aerius in so many hundred yeares opposed Episcopall government Bishop Hall of Episcopacy part 1. p. 66. Heretickes but to enroll it in the Register of Orthodox Doctors And for the Tridentine Decree it is the lesse to be regarded because wee may say as Bishop Jewel doth of x As for the words of Leo his own authority in his own cause cannot be great Bish Jewel defence Apol. part 2. c. 3. pag. 101. Leo The words of the Bishops of that Councell are of no great weight because they make a Decree in their owne cause But Chrysostome and Augustine were Bishops though Hierome was none and yet they spake of Bishops and Presbyters so equally as hath beene said and if untruly indiscreetly also because both against the truth and themselves We may say the same of Bishop Jewel whose judgement is plaine against the opinion of Divine Right by his exposition of Saint Augustine fore-alledged Besides y Panormitanus in quaestionibus suis ex mala interpretatione Hier. negat hanc Divino Jure inter Episcopos Presbyteros distinctionem Franc. à Sancta Clara Apol. Episc pag. 64. Panormitan and z Fulv. Pacian de probationib l. 2. c. 28. fol 96. Pacianus very famous men in their faculties the one for a Canonist the other for a Civilian and divers more to say nothing of the a Chamier tom 2. l. 10. c. 6. pag. 350. learned men of the Reformed Churches in forraine parts will not admit of any preheminence of a Bishop above a Presbyter by Divine Right All which wee alledge not to contest with the reverend Prelates in point of Authority but to shew that if an acknowledgement of Episcopall preheminence as of Divine Right bee required in this Canon and by that wee have shewed wee have cause to suppose it it is too problematicall an opinion for such confidence as should accompany an Oath Of Archbishops Of Archbishops though their Authority be greater yet as touching the Tenure by Divine Right our beliefe is lesser for they that hold Bishops to bee superiours to Presbyters by Divine Right as the Apostles were superiours to the 72. Disciples doe not for the most part unlesse they be Papists allow of Archbishops in that sacred Episcopacy and even he who was an Archbishop himselfe and highly advanced in print the Episcopall degree hath out of Ignatius observed and thereby affronted the Papall usurpation that the twelve were all b Abundè probavi Christum suam Ecclesiam Apostolis omnibus aequè commendâsse eosque ad hoc necessariâ potestare aequè omnes adornâsse confentit Ignat. episi ad Philadelph dum ad Apostolos veluti ad Presbyterium Ecclesiae Collegium recurri postulat Collegium verò Aristocraticum nemo ignorat Spalat de Repub Eccles lib. 1. c. 12. pag. 137. The Archbish that now is saith the like of the Aristocraticall Government and equality of the Apostles and quoteth Bellarm. de Ro. Po. l. 1. c. 9. to the same purpose making account his words are a confession of the truth against his owne side So in relat of his conference pag. 168 200 202 380. See Bishop Hall of Episcopacy part 2. pag. 13. equall as an Aristocraticall Colledge no Prince or Monarch ruling over the rest as the Romanists pretend and assume in the name of St. Peter wherein Saint c Jam illud considera quàm Petrus agit omnia ex communi Discipulorum sententia nihil authoritate suâ nihil cum Imperio Chrysost bom 3. in Act. Apost cap. 1. tom 3. col 459. Chrysostome is directly opposite unto them observing how Saint Peter in an assembly of the Disciples doth all by their common consent nothing by his owne authority nothing in a lofty or a Lordly manner For that Authority which they take up as Saint Peters right his Master and ours thought too much for him or any one man else fore-seeing as the Archbish of Spalato noted d Spalat de Repub. Eccles l. 1. c. 12. p. 138. That a Monarchy in a Church-man would bee apt to breake out into a tyrannie over the Church And for the tenure of Archiepiscopall authority wee may beleeve Bishop e Bish Jewels defence of his Apolog part 2. c. 3. divis 5. pag. 110. Jewel where hee saith in answer to Master Harding that though Primates or Archbishops had authority over the inferiour Bishops yet they had it but by agreement and custome neither by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods Word Object If it be objected as by some it hath been that though the Apostles had no Archbishops among themselves who had a priority of Order and a majority of Rule above the rest of that fundamentall Function yet in respect of other Bishops constituted by them they were all Archbishops to those that were under them It may be answered Answ 1. That the right of Episcopacy hath not been so well cleared by Scripture that it should bee taken for an undoubted ground whereon to erect an Archiepiscopall power for there is so much difficulty and dispute about that as makes it to us uncapable of the assurance of an Oath Secondly our Protestant Divines when the Papists plead for Peters Episcopall or Archiepiscopall supremacy at Rome to maintaine the usurpations of the Pope upon all other Churches answered that as we conceive according to the truth that to bee a Bishop or Archbishop and an Apostle imports a repugnancy for both Bishops and Archbishops were confined to a certaine compasse for their Authority but the Apostles were of an unlimited liberty and power both for planting and governing Churches all over the world wherein they had every one of them such an equall and universall interest that f Non erat ea facta divisio scil inter Apostolos ut alter ab alterius abstineret Apostolatu Baron Annal. tom 1. an 51. 27. col 424. no Apostle had any part of the world to himselfe wherein the rest had not an Apostolicall and Pastorall right as well as he which is not nor can be so in Episcopall or Archiepiscopall callings Object If the opinion of g Estius comment in 1 Tim. 5.19 col 809. Estius be interposed viz. That Archiepiscopacy was founded when Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus the Metropolis of Asia wherein he had h Bish Hall reckons 36. Bishopricks under Ephes part 2. p. 24.43 See Will. Synops papis controv 5. in append ad quaest 3. p. 273. many Bishops under his Jurisdiction that to say nothing of what is said of the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus in a particular booke of that title being brought in without proofe will bee as readily k Didoclau Altare Damascen pag. 175. denied by some as it is easily affirmed by any and if we should say that untill Pope Zepherinus in the third Century named himselfe an l Cent. 3. c. 10.

col 275. Archbishop or untill the reigne of Constantine as a very learned m Archiepiscopi Patriarchae in usum abierunt quorum ante Constantini tempora altum silentium Dan. Chamier de oecumen pontif lib. 10. cap. 6. tom 2. pag. 353.20 Writer hath observed there is no mention of an Archbishop it will not bee easie perhaps for any by legitimate Testimony to bring in an instance to disprove the observation in the Easterne Church and for the Westerne it came later thither as the Sun-setting cometh after the Sun-rising And Filasacus a Divine of Paris saith n Filasac de sacr ep Anth. ch 19. sect 1. Concil Matisc 1. Can. 4. It is not used in these parts untill the first Matiscon Councell scil anno 587. Which may bee to us the more probable because we have had experience in our owne time of a o Doct. Saravia saith the Assemblies of the Presbyterians are no Synods but Conventicles because he readeth not of any Synod without an Archbishop Sarav de Triplic ep q. 3. p. 90. principall point of now-Archiepiscopall Government the Presidentship of a Provinciall Synod without an Archbishop So was it in the yeare 1603. when the Bishop of London was President of the Synod then assembled Archbish p Archb. Whitgifl in his reply to Master Cartwr p. 310 313 427 432. Whitgift against Master Cartwright endeavoureth to maintaine That the office of an Archbishop was in use in the Apostles time and by their q Can. 33. or 34. as some accompt p. 470. Archb. Whitgi appointment in an Apostolicall Canon and that r Ibid. pag. 400. Titus was an Archbishop over Crete and ſ Pag. 470. Dionysius Areopagita the Scholar of S. Paul Archbishop of Athens But his proofes as some of us upon examination have found them are too low and too flat for the height and compasse of the Arch of his Asseveration especially as applyed to the state and authority of Archbishops in the Church of England the prelation particularly opposed by Master Cartwright who conceiving both the authority and title of an Archbishop by Scripture to belong peculiarly to Christ and not finding the name t The title Archbishop is proper to Christ as appeareth by Saint Peter where he calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is an Archshepheard or Archbishop for Bishop and Shepheard are all one Ibid. p. 300. Archbishop there taketh up the title Archshepheard 1 Pet. 5.4 as equivalent to it The greatest Antiquity and best Authority that wee find for that title is that which u Archb. Whitgifts reply to Mast Cartwr pag. 323. ex Mr. Fox Martyrol tom 1. p. 146. Archbishop Whitgift citeth out of Master Fox viz. That in the time of Eleutherius an 180. there were in Britaine 28. head Priests which in the time of Paganisme they called Flamines and three Archpriests among them which were called Archiflamines as Judges over the rest these 28. Flamines upon the conversion of the Britains were turned to 28. Bishops and the three Archiflamines to three Archbishops which if it be true yet it is far below that which is alledged for the calling of Archbishops and yet more ancient then honourable for the conformity to Pagan preheminence Nor will it serve to say as Pope x Eugen. 4. Epist ad Episcop Cantuarien ait Cardinalium nomen non fuisse in principio nascentis Eccles expressum munus tamen officium à B. Petro ejus successoribus evidenter crat institutum Fran. Long. annot in 2. Concil Rom. pag. 201. Eugenius the fourth said of the name Cardinall that though it were not expresly mentioned in the beginning of the Christian Church yet the office was instituted by Saint Peter and his successours For not to insist upon the name Cardinall of which the saying of the Pope is an unprobable fiction superiority among Bishops is to be reduced rather to a secular then to a sacred Originall For our Archbishop of Canterbury that now is saith y Archb. Laud in his relat of his confer pag. 176. It was insinuated if not ordered that honours of the Church should follow honours of the State as appeareth by the Canons of the Councell of z Concil Chalced Can. 9. Act. 16. Chalcedon and Antioch It was thought fit therefore though as Saint a Cypr. de simplic Praelat Episcopatus unus est Cyprian speaks there bee one Episcopacy the calling of a Bishop bee one and the same that yet among Bishops there should be a certaine subor dination and subjection the Empire therefore being cast into severall divisions which they then called Diocesses every Diocesse contained severall Provinces every Province severall Bishops the chiefe of a Diocesse in that large sense was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes a Patriarch the chiefe of the Province a Metropolitan next the Bishops in their severall Diocesses as we now use the word Among these there was effectuall subjection grounded upon Canon and positive Law in their severall Quarters all the difference there was but Honorary not Authoritative So farre he where though he name the title Bishop Patriarch and Metropolitan hee doth not mention the title Archbishop And though hee grant that b Archb. Laud ubi supra pag. 168. the Church of Rome hath had and hath yet a more powerfull principality then any other Church yet he saith shee hath not that power from Christ The Romane Patriarch by Ecclesiasticall constitutions saith hee might perhaps have a primacy of order but for principality of power they were all equall as the Apostles were before them and hee might have said so much as well of Bishops as of Patriarchs for except for Ecclesiasticall Constitutions and positive Lawes they are not subordinate one to another neither the authority nor title then of Metropolitan or Archbishop is taken to bee so ancient or warrantable by the Word of God as that of the Bishops in the judgement of such as are the dearest friends to Prelaticall dignity Yet as wee deny not but that an inequality betwixt Bishops and Presbyters is as c Inaequalitatem inter Episcopum Presbyterum esse vetustissimam vicinam Apostolorum temporibus ultrò fatemur Fr. Chamier de oecumen pontif l. 10. c. 6. tom 2. p. 85.3 col 2. Chamier confesseth most ancient and very neere the Apostles times so wee yeeld it as probable that Archbishops are very ancient also and as certaine that there have been and are very many as worthy to be Archbishops as others to be Bishops and that there have been of that elevation men of as eminent desert for learning and devotion both in ancient and later times as any that have lived in the same Ages with them but in regard of more doubt of their Authenticke tenure then of that of Bishops though that also bee very much doubted of wee have the lesse heart to sweare to Archiepiscopall preheminence Object If it bee said that

sol 80. ad 90. See also the form of the sent of Excomm in certaine Canons of the Synod 1571. p. 29.30 Constitutions and Orders published by King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth and in the last Synod the case is much altered with Bishops in their Government for whereas formerly they were free to propound what Articles they thought good in their visitations o Can. 9. Now to prevent just aggrievances which may bee laid upon Church-wardens and other Sworn-men by impertinent inconvenient or illegall inquiries this last Synod hath caused a summary or collection of Visitatory Articles out of the Rubricke of the Service Booke and the Canons and warrantable Rules of the Church to be made which Bishops and other Ordinaries are to follow in their Visitations and none other And in divers particulars the Authority of Chancellours is p See the Confer at Hampt Court how their authority is altered by restraint pag. 77 78. particularly for Excommunication altered as may appeare by the 11 13 14 15 17. Canons of the late Synod And why another Synod may not if there bee cause make other alterations we know not and we beleeve they may and that there may be need they should doe so and therefore that we may not take an Oath that wee will not consent to alter that which is of an alterable nature Object If it be said that Government is here taken as distinguished from Discipline and that Discipline may bee altered while the Government is not wee say Answ 1. That we find no ground in the Oath for that distinction and wee have shewed before that in the former part they signifie as Synonyma the same things Secondly if wee take the Government for that of the Bishops preheminence over the Presbyters though Bishop Hall averre with a confidence belonging to the Creed q Bish Hall of Episcopacy part 2 sect 2. pag. 129. That the Government by Bishops is both universall and unalterable and so was r Ibid. p. 132 133. intended by the Apostles in their ordinance of them and therefore is Å¿ Ibid. p. 135. utterly indispensable and must so continue to the worlds end yet some who have been more exercised in the controversie of Episcopall Authority then hee if we may make our comparison by what is published in print and who thinke so well of that Prelation as to hold it as of Apostolicall Institution confesse t Bish Downh answ to the Preface of the Refuter of his Serm. p. 9. That the Government by Bishops is not generally perpetually and immutably necessary and it may be that which the Archbishop of Canterbury that now is hath said of Government in generall may have an application to this point in particular though hee meant it not so u Archb. Laud in his Epist De dic before his Starre-chamb Speech This saith hee I shall be bold to say and your Majesty may consider of it in your wisedome that one way of Government is not alwayes fit or safe when the humours of the people are in a continuall change Thirdly there is an alteration in Government when they that govern have lesse Authority then they have had as by the last Canons wee have observed both of Bishops and Chancellours Fourthly there may be yet a further alteration for the better without digression from the old way to Novelty or from the high way the right road way of such as are truly religious to Schisme which if the reverend Fathers will give us leave wee will undertake to shew by such evidence as in this case is of greatest weight Wee dare not then take an Oath against alteration lest therewith wee should forsweare a meet Reformation of the Church which any Church may need that hath lesse assistance of the Spirit then the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New and of all of them we must hold as the x The L. Archbish that now is in his Answ to A.C. pag. 91. Archbishop hath very well said in his answer to the Jesuit Such an assistance of Christ and the holy Spirit the Prophets under the Old Testament had and the Apostles under the New as neither the high Priest with his Clergie in the Old nor any company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had 5. Partic. That though there should be an alteration we should never give our consent unto it The words of the Oath Nor will I ever give my consent c. Of these words we have a double Doubt The one DOUBT is Why we should sweare against consent to alter the Government of the Church 18. Particular Doubt THE REASON BEcause so the Government seemeth to be preferred before the Doctrine for for the Doctrine we must sweare onely that wee will not bring in or bee the Inventers or Leaders in the promoting of Popish Doctrine but for the Government wee must sweare that we will not consent though but as followers for what others bring in Now as it is a lesse offence to be a Follower then a Captaine in whatsoever is evill so it seemeth to shew a greater care of preservation of the Government of the Church by Archbishops c. then of the Doctrine of Religion by requiring as strict an Oath not to bee second in the change of the one as not to be first in corrupting the other The other DOUBT is Whether if we should thus sweare 19. Particular Doubt we should not be entangled with contradiction to our Governours and to our selves THE REASON BEcause first for our Governours we are bound in duty to yeeld our consents to their lawfull Constitutions though with some alteration of Government which we can have no heart to doe if we have sworne to the contrary Hereto some except and say If they alter we may alter with them but this we conceive to be too much ficklenesse and levity and liker to the Gipsie play of fast and loose then to the grave and solid Asseveration which belongeth to an Oath which is neither lightly to be taken nor to bee slighted when it is taken for so it would give none assurance to those that tender it who meant as wee see in the Preface of the Oath to give security by Oath for constancy to the Doctrine and Discipline established against Innovation but there would be little assurance of that if their meaning were this That they that sweare should not change till their superiours had changed before them Besides the chiefest of them hold the Discipline and Government by Bishops immutable and therefore some of them have said they would rather dye then yeeld to an alteration of Episcopall Government but wee beleeve it would bee more easie for a Logician to convince them that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right but of an alterable nature then for a Rhetorician to perswade them to change life for death this world for the next rather then to consent to