Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	book_n	new_a	testament_n	2,832	5	8.5204	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51420	Episkopos apostolikos, or, The episcopacy of the Church of England justified to be apostolical from the authority of the antient primitive church, and from the confessions of the most famous divines of the reformed churches beyond the seas : being a full satisfaction in this cause, as well for the necessity, as for the just right thereof, as consonant to the word of God / by ... Thomas Morton ... ; before which is prefixed a preface to the reader concerning this subject, by Sir Henry Yelverton, Baronet.	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1670 (1670)	Wing M2838; ESTC R16296	103,691	240

yet the Apostles who were guided by an Infallible Spirit setled Episcopacy in them all There was not in a Monarchy Episcopacy and in a Republick Presbytery but one and the same in both And this is matter of Fact and hath greater Authority to attest it than any humane story of that Antiquity which all mankind admits for Truth And for to affirm that though this be true this Government is alterable if the Magistrate judg it not so conducing to Piety as another he sets up What is it but to say that God did not foresee what contingencies would fall out in succeeding Ages and that the Apostles did not know what would advance true Religion and Piety in succeeding Ages so well as Magistrates that follow who are easily blinded and deceived when it conduceth to their Temporal Interest But if we must fansy nothing to have a lasting Reason but what we judg to have so I doubt this Atheistical Age will quickly lay aside all Institutions of Christ by judging them as some openly do of all Religion not to be of a lasting necessity Besides he that shall affirm that nothing can be a Medium to bind the Consciences of men as of Divine right unalterably but what is founded on Divine Testimony in some sense speaks true but if this be included in the assertion that this must be obvious to every capacity that is obliged to obey this divine Right 't is false For upon that account the Scripture it self should not bind those who have not understanding enough to know how they are admitted as such For to say the Scripture is the word of God because my Conscience which in plain English is nothing but my Opinion tells me so is no better an Argument than every Turc hath for his Alcoran But if there is a necessity to prove the Scripture to be Divine viz. the Reception of these books by the Catholick Church then he who hath not sense nor Learning enough to find out the truth of this must either admit the Scripture of divine Authority when the reason why it is so is not obvious to his understanding or else all illiterate people are not obliged to believe the truth of its Doctrine and obey it Now let us apply this to Church-Government If the same Authority which tells us these books are Canonical Scripture tells us withall that the very Apostles the Penmen of the New Testament did settle such a Government and if we find the following Age practiced it allow it to be dubious in Scripture which certainly it is not yet is not there as sufficient assurance that that Government was settled by the Apostles and so in some sense of Divine Right and so unalterable as we have to admit for Scripture the Revelation or any other book that ever was questioned Now for to affirm that Antiquity is not a sufficient ground for our assent unless we have a full assurance that the succeeding Ages did not vary from what the Apostles delivered or that they could not mistake in the delivery What is it but to say we must have greater Authority for matter of Fact than what a fact can have and doth not this Opinion destroy the Authority of Scripture totally For if the Churches delivery of such books as the writings of the Apostles be not sufficient for a rational man to ground his assent that these books were their writings and so Divine unless we have assurance that she could not mistake in the delivery of those books we must either believe the Church incapable of Errour in the delivery of Scripture or else we have no assurance to ground our Assent Now to believe a Church incapable of Errour savours little of Reason and to believe her only incapable in the delivery of Scripture savours much of Partiality But if we must understand the Church for by Church here I mean the Governours of it to be a wise sober body of pious and rational men and so by consequence that they would receive no books as the writings of inspired men but such of whose Authentickness they had rational Grounds as perhaps the very authentique Letters under the Apostles own hands which Tertullian mentions or some other good Authority And if this be sufficient reason to gain our assent Why is not the same Reason as sufficient for the Apostolical Government as for the Apostolical writings I confess 't is beyond my reach But if the Apostolical practice be sufficiently attested then to affirm 't is not enough to bind continually unless it be known to be God's mind it should do so is either to say the Apostles knew not the mind of God or else would not reveal it For certainly we have much more reason to say their practice binds unalterably than any one can have to say it doth not For we have much more reason to demand of these men some mind of God why we should change Apostolical Practice than they have of us why we constantly practice what the inspired Apostles did Neither do I understand how an Argument from Apostolical practice must suppose a different State of things than what they were when the Apostles established Governours over Churches For why should not we imagine the Apostles did constitute what they practiced And certainly he must be as infallible as the Pope pretends too that is sure any Exposition of Scripture that contradicts or concurs not with Apostolical practice is true if there can be any rational Exposition of those Scriptures which concurs with that practice And he who shall not believe there are such Expositions and though not infallible yet sober and I dare say much surer than any to the contrary must condemn all the Antient Fathers of the Church as ignorant and irrational men and believe some new fancies of men of Yesterday and the dotings of some idle Haereticks of greater Authority than those great lights of the Catholick Church And now to argue from some few practices in the Apostles times which were laid aside such as the Holy kiss c. that therefore any Constitution may is just such an Argument that if a circumstance a Ceremony may be changed the whole Substance may too unless a man will affirm there is no more need of a standing succession of Church-Governours than there is of the most minute practice in those daies But here I expect it should be said What necessity is there of a Succession of Ministers A ministry is necessary but to think that every Minister must as some in derision say draw his Pedegree from the Apostles that is a narrow principle and fit only for Bigots to believe and such as are easily deceived with the Great names of Antiquity and Catholique Tradition I confess I was sorry when I considered this Opinion to find that the French Ministers when they maintained their vocation to be lawful unto which Cardinal Perron made his Reply lay this down for their first Argument That if there was no other