Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	church_n	receive_v	time_n	2,475	5	3.7384	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40795	A discourse of infallibility with Mr. Thomas White's answer to it, and a reply to him / by Sir Lucius Cary late Lord Viscount of Falkland ; also Mr. Walter Mountague (Abbot of Nanteul) his letter against Protestantism and his Lordship's answer thereunto, with Mr. John Pearson's preface.	Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.; Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.; Montagu, Walter, 1603?-1677.; Triplett, Thomas, 1602 or 3-1670.; White, Thomas, 1593-1676. Answer to the Lord Faulklands discourse of infallibility.	1660 (1660)	Wing F318; ESTC R7179	188,589	363

it was a wise fear of the Foxe's lest he might call a knubb a horn And sure Sir they will in this case be Judges not onely of that which is Spiritual but of what it is that is so and the people receiving instruction from no other will take the most Temporal matter to be Spiritual if they tell them it is so The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated by Mr. William Chillingworth SECT 1. IF we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals and consider onely what is essential and necessary to it we shall find in it no more but this An appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocesse and furnishing him with authority not absolute or arbitrary but regulated and bounded by Laws and moderated by joyning to him a convenient number of assistants to the intent that all the Churches under him may be provided of good and able Pastors and that both of Pastours and people conformity to Laws and performance of their duties may be required under penalties not left to discretion but by Law appointed SECT 2. To this kind of Government I am not by any particular interest so devoted as to think it ought to be maintained either in opposition to Apostolick Institution or to the much desired reformation of mens lives and restauration of Primitive discipline or to any Law or Precept of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end for obedience to our Saviour is the end for which Church-Government is appointed But if it may be demonstrated or made much more probable than the contrary as I verily think it may I. That it is not repugnant to the government setled in and for the Church by the Apostles II. That it is as complyable with the reformation of any evill which we desire to reform either in Church or State or the introduction of any good which we desire to introduce as any other kind of Government And III. That there is no Law no Record of our Saviour against it then I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable motion if we humbly desire those that are in authority especially the High Court of Parliament that in may not be sacrificed to clamour or over-borne by violence and though which God forbid the greater part of the multitude should cry Crucifie Crucifie yet our Governours would be so full of Justice and courage as not to give it up untill they perfectly understand concerning Episcopacy it self Quid mali fecit SECT 3. I shall speak at this time onely of the first of these three points That Episcopacy is not repugnant to the government setled in the Church for perpetuity by the Apostles Whereof I conceive this which follows is as clear a demonstration as any thing of this nature is capable of That this Government was received universally in the Church either in the Apostles time or presently after is so evident and unquestionable that the most learned adversaries of this Government do themselves confesse it SECT 4. Petrus Molinaeus in his Book De munere pastorali purposely written in defence of the Presbyterial-government acknowledgeth That presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained That in every City one of the presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have per-eminence over his Colleagues to avoid confusion which oft times ariseth out of equality And truely this form of Government all Chuches every where received SECT 5. Theodorus Beza in his Tract De triplici Episcopatus genere confesseth in effect the same thing For having distinguished Episcopacy into three kinds Divine Humane and Satanical and attributing to the second which he calls Humane but we maintain and conceive to be Apostolical not onely a priority of order but a superiority of power and authority over other Presbyters bounded yet by Laws and Canons provided against Tyranny he clearely professeth that of this kind of Episcopacy is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of Bishops or Presidents as Justin Martyr callsthem in Ignatius and other more ancient Writers SECT 6. Certainly from these two great defenders of the Presbytery we should never have had this free acknowledgement so prejudicial to their own pretence and so advantagious to their adversaries purpose had not the evidence of clear and undeniable truth enforced them to it It will not therefore be necessary to spend any time in confuting that uningenuous assertion of the anonymous Author of the Catalogue of Testimonies for the equality of Bishops and Presbyters who affirms That their disparity began long after the Apostles times But we may safely take for granted that which these two learned Adversaries have confessed and see whether upon this foundation layd by them we may not by unanswerable reason raise this superstructure That seeing Episcopal Government is confessedly so Ancient and so Catholique it cannot with reason be denyed to be Apostolique SECT 7. For so great a change as between Presbyterial Government and Episcopal could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time Had Episcopal Government been an aberration from or a corruption of the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles it had been very strange that it should have been received in any one Church so suddainly or that it should have prevailed in all for many Ages after Variâsse debuer at error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud omnes unum est non est erratum sed traditum Had the Churches err'd they would have varied What therefore is one and the same amongst all came not sure by error but tradition Thus Tertullian argues very probably from the consent of the Churches of his time not long after the Apostles and that in matter of opinion much more subject to unobserv'd alteration But that in the frame and substance of the necessary Government of the Church a thing alwayes in use and practice there should be so suddain a change as presently after the Apostles times and so universal as received in all the Churches this is clearly impossible SECT 8. For what universal cause can be assigned or faigned of this universal Apostasie you will not imagine that the Apostles all or any of them made any decree for this change when they were living or left order for it in any Will or Testament when they were dying This were to grant the question To wit that the Apostles being to leave the Government of the Churches themselves and either seeing by experience or fore-seeing by the Spirit of God the distractions and disorders which would arise from a multitude of equals substituted Episcopal Government instead of their own General Councells to make a Law for a generall change for many ages there was none There was no Christian Emperour no coercive power over the Church to enforce it Or if there had

ages had erred in it we must of necessitie following your advice have followed their error too or with the saying of so many of your side that if I should reckon them up I should make a Catalogue of Authors equall to those of Photius or Gesner or Possevine who all joyne that Truth was most likelie to be most certainlie known that time which was in Campians words Christo propior ab hac lite remotior neerer to Christ and consequentlie to Tradition and to which for that cause all thinke fit to appeale against us or with that custome of your Church which suffers none to take Orders before they have vowed to interpret Scriptures according to the Fathers which if men now adaies be more likelie to find the Truth then at that time they were as they must be if truth in this age be more easie to be found whether through greater abundance of Compilers or what else soever then this Vow is as much as if they had vowed to leave the best way of Interpretation and teaching to follow the worst As for the two points he saith avert him from Catholique doctrine I am mistaken if he be not mistaken in both The first is that the Catholiques doe damne all who are not in the Union of their Church He thinkes the sentence hard yet I thinke he will not deny me this that if any Church does not say so it cannot be the true Church For call the Church what you will the Congregation of the Elect the Congregation of the Faithfull the Congregation of Saints or Just call it I say or define it what you will doth it not clearly follow that whosoever is out of the Church cannot be saved for he shall not be the Elect Just Faithfull c. without which there is no salvation How then can any Church maintain these two Propositious I am the true Church and yet one may be saved without being in me This is by your favour a meere Paralogisme for though those who define the Church by qualities which both Parts agree to be the conditionall Keyes to the Kingdome of Heaven must needs affirme that none out of the Church can be saved yet what is this to them who meane by the Church the Companie of the Orthodox in all points and by them your selves out of which allowing that there be such a one which I doubt of and that to be yours I shall beleeve that some may be saved till I see some more cause to thinke all error in Religion alwaies damnable which it is plaine by what after you say that you thinke not your selfe and the Church taken in this sence which is your sence may maintaine both Propositions or to shew you how much what you say would make against your selfe thus I argue The true Church must hold that none can be saved out of her but your Church denies not but that some out of her may be saved therefore yours is not the Church My Major is included in your own saying that those two Propositions are not maintainable together My Minor though false yet is also your confession where you say that the Churches Proposition is not so cruell as it seemes though the words be rough and therefore so ought you to make my conclusion too Besides those who exclude all from Salvation who are out of the Church in the other sence meaning by it the Elect as they are not like them in the wrong so they are not occasion of much harme like them who stiling the Church a companie of men of such a beleife and under such a government affirme an impossibilitie of being saved out of it for they giving no visible signe of who is in the Church for who can know the Elect but the Electer cause no want of Charitie nor frequencie of Warre and persecutions by it as the others doe who having made first a visible partition least those who are out of it may draw others out too they send them out of the world by way of prevention But per adventure he is scandalized that the Catholick Church requireth actuall Communion externall with her which he thinketh may in some case be wanting without detriment of Salvation But how would he have the Church speake which speak eth in common but abstracting from such particular eases as may change wholly the Nature of the Question I am scandalized not because you require to Salvation joining with you in Communion but because also you require joyning with you in opinions and if it were onely this yet am not I any whit satisfied with what you say for it for with the true Church that is the Commpany of true believers in points any way materiall or rather the truest I conceive it not damnation sometimes not to communicate For if they have any never so slight errors and which appeares so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to if I Communicate with them my assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some truths which yet after my reall indeavours in inquiry appear errors to me I doubt not but my refusall is no way damnable Neither can I absolve your Church concerning this her saying for your reason because she speakes in generall wholly abstracting from particulars which change the nature of the Question for why doth she so why doth she not expresse her exceptions or at least tell us that the rule is not so generall but that it will beare some and not make men who know not that she intends to restraine at all what she so absolutely pronounceth and who will find no cause to take your bare word for her intentions many times at least to hate them as Gods enemies whom he loves as his friends and beleeve them to fry in Hell who shine in Heaven Howsoever if she use to expresse herself in rougher words then her meaning is how apt may she be to be mistaken in severall of her resolutions and consequently how easie is it for some age to have misunderstood the past and deceive the following Neither do I like your example because that is not to differ from the Church but to mistake her meaning though even he who should denie that there were three Gods if he thought that by the Trinitie your Church so meant must consequently think her not infallible and so by your grounds be consequently a Heretick The current of Catholick Doctors that no man shall be damned for infidelity but he who doth wilfully misbeleeve and that to do so it is required that Faith be sufficiently proposed unto him and what is to be sufficiently proposed is not determined amongst them There wanteth not Divines who teach that even ignorantia affectata doth excuse from Heresie On the other side it is most certaine that no man is damned for not professing what he is not damned for not believing Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church