Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	appoint_v	parity_n	prelacy_n	36	3	15.9786	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57857	The good old way defended against the attempts of A.M. D.D. in his book called, An enquiry into the new opinions, (chiefly) propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland : wherein the divine right of the government of the church by Presbyters acting in parity, is asserted, and the pretended divine right of the hierarchie is disproved, the antiquity of parity and novelty of Episcopacy as now pleaded for, are made manifest from scriptural arguments, and the testimony of the antient writers of the Christian-church, and the groundless and unreasonable confidence of some prelatick writers exposed : also, the debates about holy-days, schism, the church-government used among the first Scots Christians, and what else the enquirer chargeth us with, are clearly stated, and the truth in all these maintained against him : likewise, some animadversions on a book called The fundamental charter of Presbytery, in so far as it misrepresenteth the principles and way of our first reformers from popery, where the controversie about superintendents is fully handled, and the necessity which led our ancestors into that course for that time is discoursed / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1697 (1697)	Wing R2221; ESTC R22637	293,951	328

Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc● plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha● Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha● way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we● be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of

Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o● that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an● Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an● might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th● Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th● other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these

and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Be●ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that ●re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.

Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the ●ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these ●oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All