Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	king_n	know_v	power_n	6,767	5	5.0443	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92075	The Cyprianick-Bishop examined, and found not to be a diocesan, nor to have superior power to a parish minister, or Presbyterian moderator being an answer to J.S. his Principles of the Cyprianick-age, with regard to episcopal power & jurisdiction : together with an appendix, in answer to a railing preface to a book, entituled, The fundamental charter of presbytery / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1696 (1696)	Wing R2218; ESTC R42297	93,522	126

expresly referred that Objection to be Answered by some seen in State-Affairs it being Political rather than Theological 2ly That I pleaded an Inter-regnum in the time of the Rabbling and would not allow it in the Dr's Case is no inconsistency for in the first case the Exercise of Government was impossible in the other there was actual Exercise of it 3ly When it was said the Representative of the Nation had owned William as their King it was not meant as he hath a mind to understand it as complexly such but as Exercising the Supreme Regal Power and designed to be compleatly King I could give Scripture-Instances of such manner of speaking of Kings if it were fit to enlarge as much on this Head as he doth 4ly If it was not a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation to disobey the Command of it's highest Power for the time even tho' one should attempt to give Reasons unless these Reasons were also sufficient of which none of us are Judge let any give Sentence 5ly He subtilizeth the Distinction too much between being King and exercising the Regal Power but to help out his fine Notion he behoved to alter the Phrase putting Right to Exercise for Exercising it self I hope these two may be distinguished and that there may be not only a Physical but a Moral impediment for a time of a Moral Right His Notion of Exercising the Regal Power before taking the Oath and that there is no Obligation to take the Oath before the Coronation I cannot yield to but leave to Statesmen and Lawers to Debate it with him I say the same of his Discourse of Hereditary and Elective Kings § 18. That I called K. J. our lawful Soveraign he saith was a striking at the Root of the present Settlement Answer if I had so called him with respect to the time of the present Government what he saith were true But to say that he was so before this Government had it's being and before the Nation in its Representative had found and declared the contrary is far from that blame Next he unfairly representeth what I had said that Episcopacy cannot be restored I hope it never shall and I am sure it never can without crossing the Institution of Christ But whether the restoring of it be consistent with the Civil Rights and Priviledges of the Nation as things are now stated I leave it to States-men and Lawers to discuss His Commendation of the Cameronians and blaming me for speaking to their Disadvantage is not out of kindness to them but in odium tertii that he might make the sober Presbyterians for I cannot be bantered out of that Distinction more hateful as being worse than they I should think it lost time to examine his quibbles about the Presbyterian Ministers not preaching so much as he and his Complices thought was meet against the Rabling these things were sufficiently declared against by some and that where such Disorders were most rampant and regnant but Preaching could not Stem that Tide many of these men would hear non of us nor will they to this day tho' through mercy not a few of them are reclaimed and some who listned to other Doctrine would not hear that He hath a wise inference I had said these courses were preached against both before they were acted for preventing them and after for reproving them Ergo saith he it was a consulted and deliberat Politick and the Ministers were privy to it and yet did not warn the poor men that they might have escaped being rabled I shall not give this its due Name as he frequently giveth ill and undue Names to my Words Ministers knew an inclination to Disorders in some that they went beyond their Stations by an ill guided Zeal and this they warned against yea and some Presbyterian Ministers did protest against all these exasperated men when they beheld it But that they knew Designs for these Disorders in particular is false and doth not follow from what was said He saith he can name more than one or two of the first Rank of sober Presbyterian Ministers such a Blunder and Repugnancy in me would have been called Ignorance Non-sense Impudence and what not who advised to these Courses I solemnly declare I know not any of them and if I did I should blame them § 19. He cometh next to Contradictions some of which are fancied others are real but of his own making by mis-citing words One is I have said where there are Bishops the Presbyters have no Power in another Book we do not say that Bishops take all Power from Presbyters Any who will be at the pains to consult the places that he citeth will find that the first speaketh of Governing Power the other speaketh of Power in General which comprehendeth preaching Power but it is there expresly said that they take away all Governing Power Where is then the Contradiction Next it is said he knoweth not where it seems nor do I that King James's Indulgence was against Law And yet 2d Vendic p. 43. the Parliament had given the King such Power The first Assertion I find not another Assertion that to him will infer it is the Law was for publick Meetings Ergo privat Meetings were against Law It is a pitiful Consequence Where Liberty is allowed as now in England the Law is for both ways Wherefore the second Assertion maketh no Contradiction But if both had been said there are just Laws and unjust which may without a Contradiction in the Assertion be said to contradict one another This Distinction removeth also the next pretended Contradiction between a Forefeiture being unjust that the Authority of the Nation laid on and Ministers having no legal Right to their Stipends when the Authority of the Nation have determined otherwise Parliaments may both do right and do wrong Another Contradiction he fancieth Animadv on Stillingf Jrenic It is asserted that all Ministers having got equal Power from Christ they cannot so devolve their Power on one of themselves as to deprive themselves of it their Power being not a License only but a Trust This he thinketh is contradicted indirectly by delegating Members to the General Assembly To this I answer Delegation to the General Assembly is a Temporary transient thing for the exercise of one or a few Acts and necessity doth warrant it seing the Ministers of a whole Nation cannot meet without leaving almost the whole Nation destitute of Preaching and other Ordinances for a considerable time This is not to be compared with devolving of the Power of the Ministers of a whole Province on one Bishop who is perpetually ad vitam aut culpam to exercise the whole power of the Church in all the Acts of it so as all the rest are deprived of it and cannot exercise it nor give account to God for the Management of it The one is very consistent with that Parity that Christ made in communicating Church Power to his Servants the other is not

against Felicissimus and Augendus which they executed against them and some others If this Discourse prove such a Power of Delegation it will also prove such a Power in one Bishop over another which our Author will not allow seing he asserteth p. 27 28 35. that every Bishop is supreme and hath no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth 2. Sending a Messenger to do for us what we are restrained from doing is not always an Act of Authority one Friend may send another if he yield to it as well as a Master may send his Servant 3. That which hath most Weight in our main Cause tho' it be impertinent to the present purpose is that these Persons were to Excommunicat Felicissimus c. To which I Answer that this Excommunication might be Determined by the Presbytery and it was Cyprian's part as Moderator to intimate it for which he substituteth the Persons named Here is no sole Power of Excommunication This is Countenanced by Cyprian's own words in that Ep. § 2. that Felicissimus had despised both him and the Presbytery Nec meo honore motus nec vestra authoritate fractus It seems he had been tried before them and Sentenced for Contumacy Further he was also suspected of Adultery which Cyprian would not judge by himself but referred it to their Meeting ibid. § 48. Having now examined our Author's first Principle I proceed to the second which he advanceth p. 50 c. It is that in every thing relating to the Government of the Church and her Discipline the Bishop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District he had the supreme Power of the Keyes He setteth about the proving of this Point with a high Degree of Confidence but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off He pretendeth to shew that Presbyters could not Baptize nor Administer the Lord's Supper nor Excommunicate nor Absolve nor Make nor Rescind Ecclesiastical Laws without the Bishop's Allowance For a foundation to our Answer to all his Discourse on this Head I shall re-mind the Reader of a Distinction of Presbyters above-mentioned They were in Cyprian's time of three sorts 1. The Ruling Elders who were no Preachers and who with the Bishop or Parish Minister and other Preaching Presbyters if there were any made up the Consistory by which the Affairs of the Congregation were managed These I confess could Administer no Sacrament neither without nor with the Bishop's Licence And for Acts of Ruling in the Church it is probable enough that they could do nothing without him who was Praeses in their Meetings except may be in some extraordinary Cases 2. There were in some Churches especially in great Cities some Presbyters who were Ordained to the Work of the Ministry but had no particular Charge and were as our Probationers or Students in Divinity Schools only with this Difference that ours are not Ordained these might not Baptize nor Administer the Eucharist yea nor Preach without the Allowance of the Bishop or Parish Minister And it is so also among us if some Ordained Ministers happen to live in a Parish whereof they are not Pastors as sometimes falleth out in great Cities it is disorderly for them to exercise their Ministery within another man's Charge without his Call or Allowance These Presbyters in Cyprian's time were in somethings like Evangelists whom the Bishops imployed when themselves could not overtake all their Work and if these be called the Bishop's Curats as our Author doth all Presbyters I shall not much reclaim These were as the Sons of the Prophets bred by the Bishop for the Ministery of this sort of Presbyters see P. Baynes Diocesan's Tryal p. 63. A third sort of Presbyters were the Ministers of the several Parishes among whom the Moderator of the Presbytery or other Church Judicatory was in a peculiar manner called the Bishop and they also often were called Bishops with respect to their own Parochial Charge Now if our Author mean that a Bishop in a City had such Power over the Presbyters or Ministers in the Villages or Places about that they might not Baptize c. without his Allowance I utterly deny it and maintain that every such Presbyter Minister or Parochial Bishop by what ever name ye design him had in Cyprian's time as full Power in his Parish as the great Bishop had in his tho' the one was more in esteem than the other § 49. I shall now consider his Proofs for what he affirmeth He beginneth with Baptism and pretendeth to prove that Presbyters could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave His first Citation is Cyprian saith Bishops give the first Baptism to Believers Which we deny not if ye understand it of Parish Ministers But if he mean Bishops in Cities who were the Praesidents in Presbyteries we deny that Cyprian asserteth that His next Testimony is out of Cyprian Ep. 73. and Firmil and Fortunatus Bishop of Thurobaris But it is evident and he confesseth it that the Question by them treated is whether Presbyters who by Heresie or Schism had departed from the Communion of the Church might Baptize and if they they did whether that Baptism was valid or the Person was to be again Baptized and that Baptism esteemed null And in this we do so far agree with these Fathers as to think that all the Administrations of such Hereticks or Schismaticks are irregular and to be condemned and that none ought so to separate from the Church while she keepeth the Way of Truth and requireth no unlawful Terms of Communion of her Ministers or other Members But none of these Fathers did ever Assert that in the Church a sound Presbyter could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave within the Limits of his own Charge That they mean no more than I say is evident for they plead that none can Baptize out of the Church nor Bind or Loose out of the Church and they say expresly that none can Baptize but they who are Founded in the Evangelical Law and I hope it will not be denyed that Ministers of Congregations are Founded on that Law as well as these of great Cities who were then called Bishops because of their Praecedency in Church Meetings That Bishops are named in these Reasonings as having the Power of Baptizing maketh nothing against us because all Parish Ministers were so called and none without their Allowance ought to intrude on their Charge in this or any other Administration and because the Authority for Baptizing and other Church Work was Communicated from the Presbytery by their Praesident the Bishop he indeed gave the Power but not by his own sole Authority but by that of the Presbytery The testimony of Tertullian cometh next who saith de Baptismo cap. 17. the High Priest who is the Bishop hath the Power of Baptizing and after him or in Subordination to him saith our Author Presbyters and Deacons A. 1. Tertullian doth not speak of Bishops as distinct from the