Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	lord_n	part_n	time_n	1,762	5	3.0923	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84425	An end to the controversie between the Church of England, and dissenters In which all their pleas for separation from the Church of England are proved to be insufficient, from the writings of the most eminent among the dissenters themselves. And their separation condemn'd by the reformed churches.		1697 (1697)	Wing E725B; ESTC R224499	64,815	158

laying on of my hands And the Apostles might then have been likely enough call'd Presbyters for that during the Apostles time Bishops and Presbyters were the same and sometimes us'd the one for the other as appears plainly by comparing 1 Tim. 4. 14. with 2 Tim. 1. 6. In the former Verse St. Paul bids Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in him by laying on the hands of the Presbyters And in the latter he bids him Stir up the gift of God which is in you by the laying on of my hands For while the Apostles liv'd they manag'd the Affairs of Government in the Church themselves and therefore there were few or no Bishops in their days but as they withdrew they committed the Care and Government of Churches to such Persons as they appointed thereto of which we have an uncontroulable Evidence in Timothy and Titus So that although the Apostles left no Successors in Eodem gradu as to those things that were extraordinary in them as the Infallibility of their Doctrine and the writing New Gospels the Extent of their Power c. yet to other parts of their Apostolick Office they had Successors as in Teaching and Governing and such like things that were not extraordinary Which Power of Governing Ordaining c. being given to such particular Presbyters as the Apostles thought fit for it was properly the Episcopal Power And thus these who were but Presbyters in the Apostles days by the accession of this governing and ordaining Power became Bishops after their Decease or Departure And thus will all those seeming Differences between the words Presbyter and Bishop spoken of in Antiquity be reconcil'd And herewith agrees the Opinion of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 270. and many others See King Charles I. his Debates about Episcopacy more fully concerning this Matter But 't is plain that since the Apostles days Presbyters were not Bishops but a distinct Order from them And this is agreed by most Ancient and Modern Writers See among others Ignatius his Epistle ad Trall where he says That without Bishops Priests and Deacons it cannot be call'd a Church And Aerius who declar'd that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter was represented by Epiphanius as a Prodigy and his opinion Madness See Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3. So Ischyrus pretended to be a Presbyter because Coluthus had ordain'd him but Athanasius represents it as a Monster that one shou'd esteem himself a Presbyter who was ordain'd by one who died himself a Presbyter See Dr. Maur. Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 451. And in the Primitive Church if a Bishop himself did Ordain any one against the Canons and Establish'd Discipline of the Church they did not stick at declaring such Ordination void and in some Cases to re-ordain See Can. Nicen. 9 10. 16. 19. and Can. Antioch 73. 10 c. What Sentence shall we think then they wou'd have pronounc'd against our Presbyterian Ordination as practis'd here in England contrary both to the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land too But besides all this the Plea which our Dissenters make for Separation upon this account that the Presbyters are totally depriv'd of their Power of Ordaining is false For by the Canons of the Church of England Four Presbyters are to assist the Bishop in giving Orders and after Examination to joyn in laying on of hands on the Person ordain'd See Can. 31. and 35. But another Objection which they make to the Church of England for want of Discipline is for that the Power of Excommunicating Notorious Offenders is taken away from the Parochial Minister and lodg'd only in the Bishop But sure they who make this Objection never read the 26th Canon which is one of them acknowledg'd to be the Authentick Church Canons For that Canon says expresly That no Minister shall admit any of his Flock to the Lord's Supper who is known to be guilty of any Scandalous Sin until he hath openly declar'd that he has truly repented And in case the Offender continue obstinate he must give an account to the Ordnary within 14 Days who is then to proceed to greater Excommunication for the other is call'd a Penitential Excommunication So then it seems the Pastors are not totally depriv'd of the Power of censuring for Scandalous offences nay they have a greater and more absolute Power than is allow'd them in many other Reform'd Churches for indeed the exercise of Discipline is a Work of so much Prudence and Difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought fit to trust it in the Hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin himself says to do so is contrary to the Apostolick Practice See Calv. Ep. 136. And Beza speaking of the Discipline of Geneva in his Ep. 20. says The Parochial Ministers proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certifie the Presbytery of the City who sit at certain times to hear all Censures relating to Discipline But allowing a Church wants true Discipline does it therefore lose its Being or justify Separation No sure if so there were few Presbyterian Churches to be found in the late times many of them having no Discipline at all among them for many years nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred in some parts of this Kingdom for ten or a dozen years together But now we come to the 4th Objection against the Constitution of our Church which is That the People are depriv'd of their right of choosing their own Ministers Pray let me ask them how this Original and inherent Right as Mr. Baxter calls it of choosing their own Ministers came to be lodg'd in the People Was there not a Church to be form'd in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Authority for that end Where was the Church Power then lodg'd Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And were not then the Pastors invested with a Power superior to that of the People How came they then to lose it or how came the People to pretend an original Right thereto Besides How cou'd the People make choice of Men for their fitness and abilities when at that time their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands for then the Holy Ghost was given to them It seems then that this original and inherent Right was not in the People in the Apostles days nor in the first Ages of the Church for if it had St. Clement St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom c. could not have been ignorant of it St. Clement says in his Ep. 54 55 56 57. the Apostles thought fit to reserve this Power of appointing Officers in the Church to themselves to prevent the Contentions that might happen about it And that all the People had to do was to give

therefore they who differ in these Circumstances do not differ in the act of Worship but in the manner See the Harmony of Confessions where you will find what the Opinions of other Reformed Churches are concerning the Lawfulness and Usefulness of Ceremonies The latter Helvetian Confession saith That there are different Rites and Ceremonies found in the Churches let no Man judge hereby that the Churches dissent And the Confession of Bohemia hath Wherefore those Rites and those good Ceremonies ought only to be kept which among the People of Christ do Edifie therefore whether they be extent or brought in by the Bishops or by the Councils Ecclesiastical or by other Authors whatsoever the simpler sort are not to trouble themselves about that but must use them to that which is good And a little after Although our Men do not equally observe all Ceremonies with other Churches which is not a thing necessary to be done yet are they not so minded as to move any Dissentions for the cause of Ceremonies although they be not judged to be altogether necessary so that they be not found contrary to God's Word And the Augustine Confession has Some Men then may ask whether we would have this life of Man to be without Order without Ceremonies In no wise But we teach That the true Pastors in their Churches may Ordain Publick Rites or Ceremonies And Beza in his 24th Epist agrees herein as has been said before And Calvin in his Book of the True way of Reformation Ch. 16. says He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for decency but those which are Symbolical Let all things be done decently and in order says the Scripture And St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 14. 33. God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the Churches of the Saints But to come home to our Dissenters Mr. Baxter in his Poor Man's Family Book p. 337. speaking of our publick Worship in our Parish Churches says In all the lawful Orders Gestures and Manners of behaviour in God's Worship affect not to differ from the rest but conform your self to the use of the Church for in the Church singularity is a Discord c. See Vines on the Sacrament to the same purpose p. 39. and many more Instances of this kind might be given but what has been said is sufficient to shew that such Ceremonies as serve for Order or Edification and are not directly contrary to God's Law are to be used according to the Opinion of all the Reformed Churches and most Eminent Men both at home and abroad Now How shall we know what Ceremonies are lawful and what not It is to be noted That the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with it and may be lawful and not lawful as that is If a Ceremony be made a substantial part of God's Worship and unalterable or be suppos'd so necessary as that the doing of it would be a thing meritorious or pleasing to God and the not doing of it sinful tho' there were no human Law which requir'd the doing of it Then it becomes sinful because it makes the Scriptures insufficient And this it was that made the Jewish Ceremony of washing before Meat sinful And so it is in many of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome But when Ceremonies are injoin'd for the sake of Order and Uniformity in God's Worship according to the general Rules of the Scripture and to prevent the great Mischiefs which we should inevitably fall into if every Pastor and People were suffered to follow their several different judgments in the manner of God's Worship then they are lawful and good But say they If these Ceremonies do not bind the Consciences of Men Why does the Discipline and Censures of the Church force Men to use them I answer The Church does not oblige Men to the observance of these Ceremonies as things that bind the Conscience or which are necessary to be done or not done in themselves but the Reason why Men are forced to observe them and punish'd if they refuse is because they are appointed by the Church and disobedience to the Laws of Church or State made not contrary to the Law of God is sinful Rom. 13. 5. and 2. And for this they are punish'd and also for disturbing the publick Peace And thus we justify our bowing at the name of Jesus at seasonable times and all our Ceremonies since the Church has appointed them we ought to obey unless we can prove them to be sinful which no Man can do so long as the Worship is directed to a true Object to wit the Person of Christ As for the Ceremony of Bowing towards the Altar Note the Canon that appointed it did not oblige any to the observance of it but left them to their liberty As to the posture appointed by the Church of England for receiving the Lord's Supper to wit Kneeling 'T is a Circumstance which may be varied according to the Discretion of the Church In the Primitive Church it was always taken in the posture of Adoration which posture varied according to the Customs of Countries Now Kneeling being the posture of Adoration in these Kingdoms the Church of England has therefore appointed that it be taken kneeling And indeed 't is but very reasonable that so Sacred an Ordinance and so great a Benefit should be received in the most thankful and humble posture that may be and that surely is on our Knees which is also the fittest posture for those high strains of Devotion with which so Sacred a Work ought to be attended at the very instant of taking it The only Objection that I know is made against this posture of Kneeling at the Sacrament is because it is Idolatrous and contrary to Christ's own Practice 'T is strange that they will make us and the greatest part of the Reform'd Churches all Idolaters whether we will or no Does not our Book of Common Prayer at the end of the Communion Service tell them as plain as words can express it That we pay no Adoration to any thing in the Sacrament but Christ himself which is in Heaven and yet will they make us Idolaters for all this Has any of them ever writ so strong against Idolizing the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as our Divines of the Church of England have done And yet will they perswade us we are Idolaters They may as well believe that we Worship the Stones in the Church-Walls when we kneel down to Pray in them And truly I fear many of them do so which makes them use that posture so seldom in their publick Meetings For you shall seldom see in any of their Meetings scarce one of the whole Congregation on their Knees not even at repeating the Lord's Prayer if it happen to be said which is not often Their usual postures of Praying in their publick Congregations are either