Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	court_n	page_n	valid_a	59	3	16.1105	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88948	A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1647 (1647)	Wing M1275; Thomason E386_9; ESTC R201478	144,474	133

such Appeales because such Assemblies doe more seldome erre because many eyes doe see more and doe more seldome miscary in taking up the right object Then it will follow that the greatest Assemblies in as much as they have the most eyes doe of all others most seldome erre and so to them there must bee the most Appeales For the learned Author well knowes à quatenùs ad Omni● valet consequentia And so by this meanes the true cause and reason of Appeales lying according to Mr. Rutherford his apprehension in the rarenesse and seldomnesse of erring in such Assemblies to whom appeales are made and the cause of this seldomnesse of Erring lying in the multitude and great number of eyes in such Assemblies it must needs thereupon follow that Vniversall or generall Councils as having in them the most eyes are the Assemblies that doe most seldome erre and so un●o them there must be most Appeales Which if it be gran●ed the Classicall 〈◊〉 and Nationall Synods are all by this meanes deprived and stri●t of 〈◊〉 of ●●●●diction as well as the particular Congregations the Synods by 〈◊〉 to generall Councils as to those that doe ra●iùs c●rare aswell as the 〈…〉 appeales unto the Synods And so thera must be no entirenesse of 〈…〉 onely in the generall Councils but from all other Synods there must 〈◊〉 liberty of Appeales aswell as from the Congregation This Consequence for ought I see doth unavoidably follow upon that which Mr. Rutherford lay undowne as the cause of Appealing from a particular Congregation and so ou● Brethren by this meanes have spun a fine thred drawing forth a Conclusion which is every what as prejudiciall to their owne Cause as to ours If any aske why may not this Consequence be owned Why may wee not say there must bee liberty of Appeales from all Synods and Presbyteries except onely the generall Councill The Answer is th●t wee may not so say because then Causes would be too long depending a●ore they could come to issue yea perhaps would never come to issue as long as this world shall endure For by this Rule they may by Appeales upon appeales be protracted untill they be brought to a generall Councill to be determined there Now as there hath not beene any such Councill for many Ages by-past so it is very uncertaine when there will be one assembled whether ever or never whilst this world stands But wee thinke Christ Jesus hath provided better for his Church then so and hath not appointed such a necessitie of Appeales upon appeales but that Causes may bee determined afore any generall Councill can be assembled Besides if such Assemblies might be frequently attained yet it is not yet cleered that when they are assembled they have any power of Iurisdiction at all but onely a Doctrinall power to cleare up the Rule the power of Iurisdiction remaining in some other Assembly Sure it is Mr. Rutherford thus teacheth expresly for his words are these Verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to Censure scandals can be in a generall Councill there may bee some meerly Doctrinall power if such a Councill could be had and that is all Due Right c. pag. 482. and in the end of the same Page and beginning of the next speaking of those words Math. 18. Tell the Church hee saith thus Because ordinary Communion faileth when you goe higher then a Nationall Church and Christ's way supposeth an ordinary Communion therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church By which sayings it appeareth that he counts Christs remedy to Censure Scandals not needfull in a generall Councill yea and hee seriously professeth that hee cannot see that such a Councill if it could bee had hath any power of Iurisdiction at all to censure Scandals Which being so it must needs follow that Scandals must be censured and Causes ended somewhere else afore they can come 〈◊〉 such end to a generall Councill And if this bee so then how can that stand which here hee affirmeth that the true cause of Appealing to Synods in this because they doe rariùs errare more seldome Erre then the particuler Congregation and having many eyes doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right object For this Cause is most properly appliable to the generall Councill unto whom notwithstanding hee denies any power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals and if they h●ve no such Power there can bee no Appeales to them for such purpose and end And how these things can stand toget●er That the true cause of Appeales to such or such Assemlies doth he in this that they doe more seldome erre as having many eyes and yet that to generall Councils there should be no Appeales at all as having no power of Iurisdiction though of all others this Cause be most properly ●ound in them I for my part doe confesse I doe not understand If any shall say that as Mr. Ruthe●ford doth make that which I have mentioned the true cause of Appeales so hee doth also hold a Power of Iurisdiction even in generall Councils and shall therefore doubt whether I doe truly report him 〈◊〉 touch the contrary I would wish no more favour of such a one but to peruse the places which I have here above alledged and then I hope hee will ●nd the words to bee no otherwise but as I have set them downe I know indeed there are some places in him which doe looke another way as that where hee saith It is by accident and not through want of inuat● and intrinsecall power that the Court of a Catholick Councill can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise that Power which now we are speaking of Due Right page 308. And a little after hee saith He seeth nothing to prove that a generall Councill hath not power to Excommunicate a Nationall Church Yea and further that if there were a generall Councill at this d●y they might lawfully in a Iuridicall way so are his words doe that to the faction of Romish pretended Catholicks which hee saith is Excommunication in the essence and substance of th● Act. And in the Page next ensuing he saith This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a Catholick Councill These Places I confesse doe seeme to me not very well to agree with the either afore alledged For in the one he plainly affirmes there is in generall Councils power of Iurisdiction to censure Scanda●s and in the other hee doth as plainly deny the same But it is the former places and not these latter which I doe stand upon in which former as I conceive him to hold the truth so for ought I see that which hee saith in this place wee have in hand about the true cause of Appealing from Congregations to Synods is much infirmed thereby For how can that be taken to be the true cause of Appeales which is most

then that much people that beleeved might so assemble much more For if there be no impossibility but a company that is greater may so assemble I suppose the same cannot bee denyed of a company that is lesser Againe to say this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved is directly to gainsay himselfe who in Page 460 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word Sacraments and Church censures because such a Congregation he saith could not conveniently exceed one thousand whereas the much people must bee much in comparison of thousands of Jewes who rejected Christ for that otherwise it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort for which end it is mentioned and brought If it be said the whole Church be lesse then the people that beleeved then it followes that some of those beleevers were not of the Church and so what himselfe hath written Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand For in Page 125 hee saith That the Seale of Baptisme and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church and by this are all the Citizens and domesticks in-Churched and received into a visible Church And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely professe Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiasticall power valid for that effect and Page 251. he saith a visible profession of the truth and Doctrine of golinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible Church and every member of the visible Church Now if these things be so then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptisme and profession which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof And they were all members of the Church then the Church was not a lesser company then they Nor can hee say it was a greater company for the reasons mentioned before And if it was neither a greater company nor a lesser was it not then the same And if it was the same then how can this stand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand where hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved It seemes to me that which way soever he shall take his own pen will be witnesse against himselfe for in the place wee have in hand hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved and in another place hee tels us that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word Sacraments c. And yet in a third place hee tels us that in effect it was not greater inasmuch as all Baptized professing beleevers hee saith are of the Church Further when the Text speakes of the whole Church comming together in some place let the wise judge whether it be a good Exposition to say by the whole is not meant the whole but only a part Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place but part in one place and part in another the whole being distributed into severall parts and those parts into severall places So that the whole Church comming together into some place must have this meaning the whole came not together in any place but part in one place and part in another which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text which should be handled with reverence But he brings a reason for this Exposition and that is this Because else we must say that at any one Assembly all the Prophets and teachers did Prophesy at Corinth for the Text saith he is convinced of all he is judged of all whereas the consequence should bee absurd it should bee a longsome and wearisome meeting Page 465. Answ And if they Prophesyed not all in one Assem●ly but divers how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all It will not bee easie to conceive how it could be they Prophesying in such a way for the unbeleever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblyes at once but in one onely And therefore those words he is convinced of all he is judged of all will lay as much absurdity upon his Exposition of the words as upon ours or rather a great deale more For as for ours there is no absurdity therein at all for asmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time when the unbeleever was present and not that all must Prophesy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it But the Text doth not so say nor any Interpreter that I have met withall Sure I am Beza saith the expresse contrary for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophesy one by one c. He hath this note Non eodem sane die sed ternis c. That is indeed not all upon one day which is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition but three at every moeing having their turne to speak till all had spoken by course Interpreters say they met in divers Assemblies Page 465. Answ Let those Interpreters be named and there words set down and then by Gods help we shall consider of what they say and of the grounds and reasons thereof in the meane time to say that interpreters say it and yet neither to tell us the reasons nor the words of those Interpreters nor so much as the names of any of them how should this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehensions in the point True it is in another place c. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophesy one by one hee there tels us that Diodatus understands it that they might Prophecy by course and in divers or sundry Assemblies And Essius saith he saith the same to wit that these Prophets were to Prophesy in divers Assemblies Answ For Diodatus I have him not at hand and therefore I cannot peruse the place But for Estius this I may say that he neither saith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verse alledged nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter as farre as I can observe and I have read and perused him on purpose to see what were to be found in him But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for yet I find sundry places wherein he seemes to me to affirme the contrary for instance Commenting upon the verse alledged hee hath these words as the sence which he most preferres viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures c. That is If not only one Prophet but sundry yea all do speake in the Assembly in order it will come to passe that those all may also learne and receive exhortation there being never a one of them who is not also a hearer Wherein we see he speaks not

his page 482. alledging Mr. Tompson and me pag. 16 17. Hee reports us to say that though some have appealed as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a generall Councell yet not from a Congregation to a generall Councell Answ As he one of these pages hath nothing at all concerning this matter and therefore might well have been spared so neither of them both doth make any mention of Luther either of one purpose or other and therefore it is some marvaile why he should be mentioned as thus spoken of by us who do not speak of him at all so much as one word for any purpose whatsoever Nor do the rest of the words of appealing from a Congregation to a generall Councell agree with ours as we have set them downe in the 16. page alledged and therefore that our mind and meaning may appeare let me relate our own words which are these How this example sc of Cramners appealing to Councell related by Mr. Fox doth suit the present question we do not understand for his appeale was not from a particular Congregation but from the Pope nor was it from a Synod but to the next generall Councell which from that day to this hath not yet been assembled nor called If we must hold a necessity of appeales to such a Iudicatory as Cranmer appealed unto then the supremacy of Synods provinciall and nationall is utterly taken away These are our words in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford now what doth he answer thereto In matters doctrinall saith he some as Luther and others have justly appealed from Congregation to a generall Councell though Luther and Cranmer did it not Answ Say it be true that Cranmer did it not yet for Luther how can it be that he should be an instance both of such as did it not and of such as did it for Luther and others have justly done it and yet Luther and Cranmer are two of them that did it not these are sayings which seem not to agree Againe if Luther did so appeale why is no proof alledged for Confirmation of what here is affirmed which if there had been we might have considered thereof But sith there is not we may be allowed to forbeare assent till that which is here nakedly affirmed be further strengthened by some proofe or other to make it good Lastly if Luther or others have justly appealed from a Congregation to a generall Councell then why will it not be lawfull for others upon like occasion to do the like And if so then as we argued in the answer the supremacy of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries is utterly taken away and so by this meanes causes and controversies may still be depending and never come to be determined so long as this world shall endure which whether it be agreeable to the wisdome of Christ and good of his people let the wise judge Though verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell there may be some meerly doctrinall power if such a Councell could be had and that is all Answ For my part I am altogether of the same minde But here I have a quere or two to propose to our reverend Brothers serious consideration first of all how this passage doth agree with that which himself hath written pag. 387. where he saith It may be made good that a power Dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of Jurisdiction and that we read not of any society which hath power to meet to make lawes and decrees which have not power also to back their decrees with punishment Yea he saith further that if the Jewish Synodry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods law in point of conscience and what not farre more may they punish contraveners of the law For Anomothetick power in a society which is the greater power and is in the fountaine must presuppose in the society 〈◊〉 lesser power which is to punish Anomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring So that whereto in the place we have in hand he saith there may be in a generall Councell some 〈◊〉 doctrinall power without any power of jurisdiction to censure in this other place he saith these powers do not differ in nature nor can the former be without the latter but doth alwayes presuppose the same as that which is lesser and which it cannot want Now how these things do agree I am not able to understand next of all how doth this passage we have in hand agree with that which is written p. 308 309. Where he saith it is by accident and not through want of inate and intrinsecall power that the court of a Catholick Councell can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise the power which Christ hath given to her and what that power is he expresseth in two or three lines proceeding viz. A power of jurisdiction to Excommunicate and relax from Excommunication even nationall Churches If the Lord should be pleased to give the Christian Churches a generall Councell this day might lawfully in a jurisdictiall way declare the faction of the Romish pretended Catholicks to be mysticall Babylon which in Excommunication in the essence and substance of the act And againe This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a generall Councell And in page 304. He tells in that a power of jurisdiction though he call it extraordinary and remote and which is but rarely to be put forth in acts is given to the Catholick visible Presbytery of the whole Catholick visible Church In all which places he plainly affirmeth there is a power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls in a generall Councell which in the place we have in hand he doth as plainly deny Thirdly if there be no power of jurisdiction to censure scandals in a generall Councell then how shall it appeare that there is such power of Jurisdiction in the Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries which are farre lesse Yea and that there is in these Presbyteries a power Independent and Supreame without appeale to any other For such power there must be in some of them if there be any power of jurisdiction in them at all sith we are told there is no power of jurisdiction in the generall Councell to appeale unto Now how shall it appeare that any such Independent supream power of jurisdiction is given to any of those Presbyteries where are the texts of Scripture that speak of such power For our parts we know of none but do still think that this power is placed by Christ in a single Congregation and its Presbytery and are the rather strengthened in this apprehension for that the reason which is wont to be given against the Congregations power and wherein our Brethren are wont to place their greatest strength sc that appeals are juris naturalis and that defects in the parts are to be supplyed

first for the performance of these things mentioned is as comple●t in him notwithstanding this addition as it was before and not any whit abated nor impayred thereby And the reason is because matters of order flowing from the essence of a Pastor may bee sufficiently and compleatly performed by one Pastor singly which acts of Iurisdiction cannot Mr. Rutherford his own words in this case are these viz. A single Pastor may Ministerially give out Commandements in the authority of Christ but hee cannot himselfe censure or Excommunicate the contraveners of those Commandements Due Right Page 387. And againe Page 387 388 It is proper is acts of Iuris●iction Ecclesiasticall that they cannot be exercised by one alone but must be exercised by a society but a Pastor as a Pastor himselfe alone without any collaterally joyned with him exerciseth his Pastorall acts of Preaching and administring the Sacraments Now if a Pastor as a Pastor himself alone without any collatterally joyned with him may thus exercise his Pastorall acts then indeed the accesse or addition of other Pastors is not at all destructive of his Pastorall power but he still retaineth the same as compleat and perfect as before because hee doth these acts as a Pastor and remaineth a Pastor still But how this example and instance can any thing further Mr. Ruth●rford his purpose I do not understand For his intention is to make good that a Congregation may have entire power when it is alone a●d yet not so when other Congregations do arise and for the consuming of this hee brings this instance and example from a Pastor that hath a Pastorall power afore other Pastors are added who by the addition of others hath no lesse power then afore which example I conceive rather makes against him then for him For saith he Page 456. Their Pastorall power added to him is Cumulative and auxiliary but not privative or destructive of his Pastorall power and therefore that the first Pastor suffereth losse by the addition of these three to him who saith he will say this Answ I know none that will say it but if their power be Cumulative and auxiliary to his Pastorall power and no wayes privative or destructive thereof then what power he had afore they were added the same he hath still in as great measure as formerly and so his Pastorall acts are as perfect and valid as they were before Now let the same bee granted to a Congregation that hath neighbour Congregations added and we have what we demand And if this be not granted then though the power of those other Pastors be Cumulative and auxiliary to the other Pastor yet the power of those other Congregations seemes not so to the former Congregation but rather privative or destructive of its power and then how can this example confirme our Brothers purpose or how can it be avoided but the example which he produceth doth make against himselfe Sure if the power of these other Pastors bee not destructive to the former Pastors power but auxiliary thereto so that what power he had before the same he retayneth still and in the same measure then it must bee so likew●se in a Congregation when neighbour Congregations are added or else this example will not suit But make the examples to agree and our cause is advantaged thereby Our Brethren doe conceive the power of Congregations in its kind and essence to be Monarchicall so as if any power from consociated Congregations be added thereunto the Congregations power Monarchicall is diminished and the essence of it changed Answ The power of Congregations we ●old to be Ministeriall as being delegated from Christ Iesus and to be exercised according to his appointment and in him alone and in no other do we place this Monarchicall power according to what the Holy Ghost witnesseth that there are differences of administrations but the same Lord 1 Cor. 12. 5. And though our Brother is pleased to put this upon us that we conceive the power of Congregations to bee Monarchicall yet in truth the same is farre from us Nor do I thinke that so much as one of us can be named that at any time hath so spoken Nor doth such a thing follow from any thing delivered by us concerning the power of Congregations For as for that which here he intimateth and elsewhere expresseth more plainly so that the power of Iurisdiction in Congregations is closely made void or destroyed by that power which some ascribe unto Classes if this be holden by us doth it thence follow that we hold the power of Congregations to be Monarchical●● It followes not at all For then by the like reason I could prove that himselfe d●th hold a power Monarchicall in the universall or Provinciall Churches For he expresly affirmeth Page 337. That the Popes power destroyeth the power of the Church universall and the Prelates power destroyeth the power of the Church whereof hee is pretended Pastor And yet I hope he doth not hold a Monarchicall power in the one Chu●ch nor in the other nor in any Church or Churches but in Christ alone nor can the same bee truly concluded upon that which hee affirmeth of destroying the power of Churches by the power of the Pope and Prelate And if not how then can any man conclude against us that we hold a Monarchicall power in Congregations though wee should hold that the power of Congregations is destroyed or diminished by that power which some would give unto Classes● If our pr●mises will warrant him to fasten such a Tenent upon us his own will give a warrant for the like against himselfe And if the ground be insufficient to beare such a conclusion against him as I confesse it is I know no sufficient ground why the same should be imputed unto us Compleat and en●ire power to rule both the Congrega●ion and members of consociated Churches in so farre as they do keep communion with that Congregation and may either edifie or Scandalize them floweth not immeaiately and ●ecessarily from the essence of every Congregation even in remote Ilands not consociated with others that we never said Answer Indeed it were an absurd and grosse saying for any man to say that a Congregation in a remote Iland not consociated with others should have power yea compleat and entire power to rule the Congregation and members of Churches consociated and that this should flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of such a Congregation But there is no need that our Brother should cleere himselfe from this saying for I know none that imputes it to him Neverthelesse the saying here ●●joyned cannot be denyed for they are his own verb●ti●● First the ordinary power of Iurisdiction because of neerest vicinity and contiguity of members is given by Iesus Christ to one Congregation in an Isle because that Church is a Church properly so called It is a little City and a little Kingdome of Iesus Christ having within it selfe power of the ●ord and Sacraments