Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	successor_n	2,614	5	9.1249	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89568	The humble answer of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament, at the treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight. To the second paper delivered to them by his Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. about episcopall government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to print this copie, entituled The humble answer of the Divines, &c. Richard Vines,	Westminster Assembly; Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655, attributed name.	1648 (1648)	Wing M757; Thomason E468_21; ESTC R204007	22,916	44

successors then the names were by common usage very soon appropriated That of Episcopus to Ecclesiastical Governours That of Presbyter to the ordinary Ministers This asser●ion your Majesty is pleased to make without any demonstration for whom the Scripture cals Presbyters Rulers and Pastors and Teachers it calls Governors and commits to them the charge of feeding and inspection as we have proved and that without any mention of Church Government peculiar to a Bishop we deny not but some of the Fathers have conceived the notion that Bishops were called Apostles till the names of Presbyter and Episcopus became appropriate which is either an allusion or conceipt without Evidence of Scripture for while the Function was one the names were not divided when the Function was divided the name was divided also and indeed impropriate but we that look for the same warrant for the division of an Office as for the Constitution cannot find that this appropriation of names was made till afterwards or in processe of time as Theodoret one of the Fathers of this conceit affirms whose saying when it is run out of the pale of Scripture time we can no further follow from which premises laid altogether we did conclude the cleernes of our assertion that in the Scriptures of the New Testament a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in Qualification Ordination Office or dignity is not found the contrary wherof though your Majesty saith that you have seene confirmed by great variety of credible Testimony yet we believe those testimonies are rather strong in asserting then in demonstrating the Scriptures Originall of a Bishop which is declared against by a cloud of witnesses named in the latter end of our former Answer unto which we should refer if matter of right were not properly tryable by Scripture as matter of Fact is by Testimony Wee said that the Apostles were the highest order of Officers of the Church that they were extraordinary that they were distinguisht from all other Officers and that their Government was not Episcopall but Apostolicall to which Answer your Majesty being not satisfyed doth oppose certaine assertions That Christ himselfe and the Apostles received their Authority by Mission their Ability by Unction That the Mission of the Apostles was ordinary and to continue to the end of the world but the Unction wherby they were enabled to both Offices Functions Teaching and Governing was indeed extraordiry That in their Unction they were not necessarily to have successours but necessarily in their Mission or Office of Teaching and Governing That in these two ordinary Offices their ordinary successours are Presbyters Bishops That Presbyters qua Presbyters do immediately succeed them in the Office of Teaching and Bishops qua Bishops immediately in the Office of Governing The demonstration of which last alone would have carryed in it more conviction then all these Assertions put together Officers are distinguished by that whereby they are constituted their Commission which being produced Signed by one place of Scripture gives surer evidence then a Pedigree drawne forth by such a series of distinctions as do not distinguish him into another Officer from a Presbyter whether this chaine of distinction be strong and the links of it sufficiciently tackt together we crave leave to examine Christ saith your Majesty was the Apostle and Bishop of our soules and he made the Apostles both Apostles and Bishops we do not conceive that your Majesty meanes that the Apostles succeeded Christ as the chief Apostle and that as Bishops they succeed Christ as a Bishop least thereby Christ his Mission as an Apostle and Bishop might be conceived as ordinary as their Mission is said to be But we apprehend your Majesty to mean that the Office of Apostle and Bishop was eminently contained in Christs office as the office of a Bishop was eminently contained in that of Apostleship but thence it will not follow that inferior offices being contained in the superior eminently are therefore existent in it formally For because all honours and dignities are eminently contained in your Majesty would it therefore follow that your Majesty is formally and distinctly a Baron of the Realm as it is asserted the Apostles to have been Bishops in distinct sense That Mission refers to Office and authority and Vnction only to Ability we cannot consent for besides that the breathing of Christ upon his Disciples saying Receive ye the Holy Ghost doth refer to mission as well as unction we conceive that in the proper anointing of Kings or other Officers the naturall use and effect of the oyle upon the body was not so much intended as the solemn and ceremonious use of it in the inauguration of them so there is relation to Office in unction as well as to conferring of abilities else how are Kings or Priests or Prophets said to be anointed And what good sense could be made of that expression in Scripture of anointing one in anothers room to omit that Christ by this construction should be called the Messias in respect of abilities only And although we should grant your Majesties explication of Mission and Vnction yet it will not follow that the mission of the Apostles was ordinary and their unction only extraordinary That into which there is succession was ordinary That into which there is no succession for succession is not unto abilities or gifts extraordinary and so the Apostles were ordinary officers in all whereunto there is properly any succession and that is office They differed from Bishops in that wherein one Apostle or Officer of the same order might differ from another to wit in abilities and measure of Spirit but not in that wherein one order of officers is above another by their office To which we cannot give consent for since no man is denominated an officer from his meer abilities or gifts so neither can the Apostles be called extraordinary officers because of extraordinary gifts but that the Apostles mission and office as well as their abilities was extraordinary and temporay doth appeare in that it was by immediate Commission from Christ without any intervention of men either in Election or Ordination for planting an authoritative governing of all Churches through the World comprehending in it all other Officers of the Church whatsoever and therefore it seemes to us very unreasonable that the Office and authority of the Apostles should be drawn down to an ordinary thereby to make it as it were a fit stock into which the ordinary Office of a Bishop may be ingrafted nor doth the continuance of Teaching and Governing in the Church more render the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles an ordinary office then the office of teaching and governing in Christ himselfe render his Office therefore Ordinary The reason given That the Office of Teaching and Governing was ordinary in the Apostles because of the continuance of them in the Church wee crave leave to say is that great mistake which runnes through the whole file of your

Apostles and extraordinarie persons or lesse then Bishops as meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopall Government mentioned by your Majestie in their owne hand it will follow that all that your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocall acceptation of the word Episcopus For Clemens his Testimonie which your Majestie conceiveth to be made use of as our old fallacie from the promiscuous use of the words to inferre the indistinction of the things wee referre our selves to himselfe in his Epistle now in all mens hands whose Testimonie wee thinke cannot be eluded but by the old Artifice of hiding the Bishop under the Presbyters name for they that have read his whole Epistle and have considered that himselfe is called a Bishop may doubt of Clemens opinion concerning the distinct offices of Bishops and Presbyters or rather not doubt of it if onely his one Epistle may be impaneld upon the Inquest Concerning Ignatius his Epistles your Majesty is pleased to use some earnestnesse of expression charging some of late without any regard of ingenuity or truth out of their partiall disaffection to Bishops to have endeavoured to discredit his writings One of those cited by us cannot as we conceive be suspected of disaffection to Bishops and there are great Arguments drawn out of those Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronious and the rest of the Popish writers do of such rites and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned He doth indeed give te●timonie to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter that which may justly render him suspected is that he gives too much Honour saith he the Bishop as Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom aswell as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy Names That which your Majesty saith in Your fourth Paragraph That we might have added if we had pleased That Iames Timothy Titus c. were constituted and ordained Bishops of the forementioned places respectively and that all the Bishops of those times were reputed successors to the Apos●les in their Episcopall office We could not have added it without prejudice as we humbly conceive to the truth for the Apostles did not ordein any of themselves Bishops nor could they do it for even by your Majesties concession they were Bishops before viz. as they were Apostles nor could any Apostle his choyce of a certain Region or Place to exercise his function in whilest he pleased render him a Bishop any more then Paul was Bishop of the Gentiles Peter of the Circumcision Neither did the Apostles ordein the Evangelists Bishops of those Places unto which they sent them Nor were the Bishops of those times any more then as your Majesty saith reputed successours to the Apostles in their Episcopall office they came after the Apostles in the Churches by them planted so might Presbyters do but that 's not properly succession at least not succession into office and this we say with a Salv● to our assertion that in those times there were no such Bishops distinct from Presbyters Neither do we understand whether the words Episcopall office in this Section refer to the Bishops or Apostles for in referrence to Apostles it insinuates a distinction of the Apostles office into Apostolicall and Episcopall or that the office Apostolicall was wholly Episcopall unto neither of which we can give our consent for reasons forementioned To the testimonies by us recited in proof of two onely Orders Your Majesty answers first that the promiscuous use of the names of Bishops and Presbyters is imported That which your Majesty not long ago called our old fallacy is now Your answer onely with this difference We under promiscuous names hold the same office Your Majesty under promiscuous names supposes two which if as it is often asserted was but once proved We should take it for a determination of this controversie Secondly that they relate to a School-point or a nicety utrum Episcopat●● sit ordo vel gradus both sides of the questionists or disputants in the mean time acknowledging the right of Church-government in the Bishops alone It is confest by us that that question as it is stated by Popish Authors is a curious nicety to which we have no eye or reference for though the same officers may differ fromand excell others of the same order in gifts or qualifications Yet the office it self is one and the same without difference or degrees as one Apostle or Presbyter is not superiour to another in degree of office they that are of the same order are of the same degree in respect of office as having Power and Authority to the same Acts. Nor doth the Scripture warrant or allow any superiority of one over another of the same order and therefore the proving of two orders onely in the Church is a demonstration that Presbyters and Bishops are the same In which point the Scripture will counter-ballance the testimonies of those that assert three degrees or orders though ten for one But for easing of your Majesty of the trouble of producing testimonies against those cited by us We make this humble motion that the Regiments on both sides may be discharged out of the field and the point disputed by Dint of holy Scripture id verum quod primum Having passed through the Argumentative parts of your Majesties Reply wherein we should account it a great happinesse to have given your Majesty any satisfaction in order whereunto You pleased to honour us with this imployment We shall contract our selves in the remainder craving your Majesties pardon if You shall conceive us to have been too much in the former and too little in that which follows We honour the Pious intentions and munificence of Your Royall Progenitors and do acknowledge that ornamentall accessions granted to the Person do not make any substantiall change in the office the reall difference between that Episcopall Government which first obtained in the Church and the present Hierarchy consists in ipso regimine modo regiminis which cannot be clearly demonstrated in particulars untill it be agreed on both sides what that Episcopacy was then and what the Hierarchy is now and then it would appear whether these three forementioned essentialls of Episcopall Government were the same in both For the power under Christian Princes and under Pagan is one and the same though the exercise be not And we humbly receive your Majesties Pious advertisement not unlike that of Constantines stirring us up as men unbyassed with private interests to study the neerest accommodation and best resemblance to the Apostolicall and Primitive times But for your Majesties Salve to the Bishops sole Power of Ordination and Iurisdiction and that distinction of Ordination Authoritative in the Bishop and Concomitant in the Presbytery which You seem to found upon these two Texts 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. and which is used by D. Bilson and other defenders of Episcopacy in explication of that Cannon of the fourth Councell of Carthage which enjoyns the joyns imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters hands We shall give your Majesty an accompt when we shall be called to the disquisition thereof Albeit that we do not for the present see but that this Proviso of your Majesty renders our accommodation to the Apostolicall and Primitive times where unto You did exhort us unseasonable We not withstanding do fully professe our acknowledgement of subordination of the outward exercise of Iurisdiction to the Soveraign Power and our accomptablenesse to the Laws of the Land As for your Majesties three questions of great importance Whether there be a certain form of Government left by Christ or his Apostles to be observed by all Christian Churches Whether it binde perpetually or be upon occasion alterable in whole or in part Whether that certain form of Government be the Episcopall Presbyterian or some other differing from them both The whole volume of Ecclesiasticall Policy is contained in them and we hope that neither your Majesty expected of us a particular answer to them at this time nor will take offence at us if we hold onely to that which is the question in order to the Bill of Abolition for we humbly professe our readinesse to serve your Majesty answering these or any other questions within our proper Cognizance according to the proportion of our mean abilities For your Majesties condescension in vouchsafing us the liberty and honour of examining Your learned Reply clothed in such excellency of stile and for Your exceeding candour shewed to such men as we are and for the acceptation of our humble duty we render to your Majesty most humble thanks and shall pray That such a pen in the hand of such abilities may ever be imployed in a subject worthy of it That your Majesty would please to consider that in this point under debate succession is not the best clew and most certain and ready way to finde out the Originall for to go that way is to go the furthest way about yea to go backward and when You are at the spring viz. the Scripture it self You go to the rivers end that You may seek the spring And that the Lord would guide your Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament by the right hand of his Councell and shew You a happy way of healing our unhappy differences and of settling the Common-wealth of Jesus Christ which is the Church so as all the members thereof may live under You in all Godlinesse Peace and Honesty Imprimatur Ia. Cranford Octob. 19. 1648. FINIS Eccle. Pol l. b. 5 a Acts 17. 14. b 15. c 1 Thess. 3. 1 2. d Acts 18. 5. e Acts 19. 22. f Acts ●0 4 g 5. 6. h 17. i 1 Tim. 1. 3. k Heb. 13. 23. Phil. 1. 1. Philem. ver. 1. Col. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23. 2 Tim. 4. 6. 10. 11. 12. 16. a Galat. 1. 2. b Titus 3. 12. c 2 Cor. 2. 12. d 2 Cor. 5. 6. e 2 Cor. ● 6. f 2 Tim 4. 10.