Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	bishop_n	rome_n	year_n	1,605	5	4.8720	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51155	An enquiry into the new opinions, chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland together with some animadversions on a late book, entitled, A defence of The vindication of the kirk : in a letter to a friend at Edinburgh / by A.M., D.D.	Monro, Alexander, d. 1715?	1696 (1696)	Wing M2439; ESTC R7	25,403	65

Men who have sufficiently expos'd the Writings of Blondel and Salmasius on this Head particularly the incomparable Bishop of Chester yet I may be allowed to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity that are alleg'd by those Men to support their Doctrine of Parity that the Reader may have a Sample of their Partialities and Prepossessions and if none of the first Worthies of the Christian Church appear for the New Doctrine of Parity we may safely infer that there are little hopes to defend their cause by the Suffrages of after Ages And in the next place I will particularly examine Blondel's Argument from the Authority of St. Jerome and Demonstrate that he mistakes or which is much more probable hides and misrepresents the Doctrine of that Learned Father and if St. Jerome be not his Friend he and his Associates may despair of any other First I will examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies from Antiquity and the first that is nam'd is S. Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians This is the Celebrated S. Clement so Honourably mentioned by S. Paul himself Philip. 4. 3. together with some others whose Names are Written in the Book of Life who was fellow Labourer with the Apostles and Third Bishop of Rome by the Testimony of Irenaeus and probably sat in the Chair of Rome from the Year 64 until the Year 81 or 83. He wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to compose the scandalous Divisions and Schisms that had risen among them by the Pride and Vanity of some turbulent Brethren who valu'd themselves upon the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit to the Contempt of their ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors It is thought by some that this Epistle was written towards the end of Nero's Persecution before he was advanc'd to the See of Rome It is very observable that Blondel before he produces any Testimony from S. Clement acknowledges that by the universal consent of the Ancients this very S Clement succeeded S. Peter in the Government of the See of Rome and thô they vary as to his Order of Succession yet all of them agree as to the thing it self His first Argument for Parity is founded on S. Clement's Inscription of his Epist to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From this Inscription he concludes that the Church of Rome was then Govern'd by a Colledge of Presbyters because the whole Church of Rome wrote to the whole Church of Corinth not mentioning the Distinction of the Clergy from the Laity when the Learned Blondel Reasoned at this rate he design'd it seems to please the Independent Party who were then most Numerous and Potent in England rather than the Presbyterians For if his Argument proves any thing it proves too much viz. That the Laity hath an equal share of Jurisdiction in the Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs with Bishops and Presbyters And thus he might conclude that when S. Paul wrote an Epistle together with Sosthenes Timotheus Sylvanus and all the Brethren that were with him that he had no greater Authority in the Ecclesiastical Senate than the meanest of the Laity Our Learned Country-man Junius gives a far more reasonable Account of this Ancient Simplicity of the Writings of the Apostolical Age than such Childish Reasonings and he tells us that St. Clement did not prefix his Name ut modestiae humilitatis posteris aetatibus exemplar imitandum proponeret and this was very subservient to his Design that he might Teach the Corinthians whom he exhorts to Concord and Humility by his own Example that true and undisguised Modesty which was then so visible in the Practice of the first Christians when both Clergy and Laity were of one Heart and one Mind The next attempt that Blondel makes to support his imaginary Parity in the Primitive Church is from St. Clement's dividing the Clergy into Bishops and Deacons according to the current Phraseology that prevail'd in the Apostolical Age. When they considered the Clergy only in opposition to the body of the People I have answered this already when I examined their Argument founded upon such Dichotomies But when we consider this particular place of S. Clement with regard to that Latitude and Promiscuous use of Names that was very current in those Days the Word Deacon may be understood to comprehend all those Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the modern Notion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables and then his Argument vanishes into nothing nay rather it is a strong confirmation of that which he would most willingly destroy for by Bishops and Deacons we may understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendants upon Tables for the Word Deacons in the Language of the Holy Scriptures is taken in the greatest Latitude that may be not only for such as were appointed by the Apostles particularly to the Ministry of Tables but also the Apostles themselves the highest Officers in the Christian Church are called Deacons Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Deacons by whom they believed even as the Lord gave to every Man And again who hath made us able Deacons of the New-Testament c. And upon other occasions they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And those who were ordain'd to the special Ministry or Tables were Originally constituted that the Apostles themselves might not be diverted from the Ministry of Deaconship of the Word And Tychicus is called a faithful Deacon as also Timothy so likewise Arthippus is commanded to take heed to his Deaconship thô it be not expresly determined what room he held in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy weather he was Bishop Presbyter or Deacons nay such was the Latitude of the Word Deacon in the Apostolical Age that it was applyed promiscuously to all the three Order of the Christain Hierarchy So that if we understand St. Clement according to the current extent of the Word we may safely judge him to have meant by Bishops the Ecclesiastical Governors and by Deacons all subordinate Ministers of Religion whether such as were promoted the Priesthood or the Deacons who were confin'd to their Attendance upon Tables What advantage then does Monsieur Blondel gain to his cause for though Presbyters in the modern Notion are not perhaps the only Persons who may be understood by the Word Deacon yet they may be comprehended as well as other Ministers of a lower Rank Let it be observed also that S. Clement speaks not of the Ecclesiastical Polity such as it was brought to perfection after wards by the Apostles but rather of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of our Saviour For thô all the Degrees and Subordinations of the Apostolical Government were founded upon divine Right yet they were not in one moment established in their True and Everlasting Figure but had their beginning as the Jewish Church went on from lessen steps to

drives Men against Light and Conviction and darkens all their Intellectuals in defiance of common Sense and Reason A third Witness alledg'd by Blondel is Hermas I only name some few of those that are nearest to the Apostles I do not now enquire into the Authority of this Book It is most probable that it was written towards the end of the Apostolical Age and some of the Ancients of great Authority make him to be the same that is mention'd by S. Paul Rom. 16. 14. It is without all Controversie a Book of great Antiquity as appears by the Citations out of him still preserv'd in some Authentick Monuments particularly Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen There are two palpable evidences that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government that obtain'd in the Christian Church when this Book was written The first is from the second Vision of the first Book where the sending of the Encyclical Epistle in exteras civitates is insinuated to be the peculiar Priviledge of S. Clement then Bishop of Rome The other insinuation is from the second Book and 12th Mandat Paragr 2. where he reproves the preposterous Ambition of such as would thrust themselves into the highest dignities contrary to the Evangelical Methods of Humility and self-denial exaltat enim se vult primam Cathedram habere If there be no Power there can be no Abuse of it and therefore he reproves that insatiable thirst of Preferment that puts some amongst them upon Projects and Designs contrary to the command of our Saviour who taught us that he that deserv'd the Ecclesiastical Promotion was to be the Servant of all and therefore many of the Primitive Bishops fled and hid themselves upon the first Motion of their being nam'd to the Episcopal Dignity And the other Citation from Book the third Similitud 8. insinuates the very same thing that I intend viz. a Principatus then established as the fixt Government of the Church which some were too too hasty to grasp 2 Tim. 4. 3 4. Vid. Dickson in Matt. and Answer to the Irenicum by G. R. vid. Bez. in 〈◊〉 Vid. Smectim Jus divin Minister Anglican The Unbishoping Timothy and Titus Altare Damascen Durh. Dissert on the Revel v. Cotel Not. inpriorem Epist S. Clem. p. 96. in quibus fus● solide dem●nstratur argumentum a confusione nominum nequaquam Jurisdictionem Authoritatem Episcoporum supra Presbyteros labefactare posse V. Doctiss Bevereg cod canon Eccles primit lib. 2 c. 11. Vid. Clariss Dodwell dissert Cypr. p. 205. Walo Mess Tertul. de Baptismo Stromat Lib. 6. Pastor Herma * Apud clariss Dodwell disertat Cyprian p. 205 ● Cotel in prie● Epist Clemen ad Corinth 1 Cor. 15. 7. W●●● M●● * Aplog prosenten Hieronym Amstol 1646. Vind. St. Ignat. Adversus Hereses lib. 3. cap. 3. V. Doctiss Cav Hist liter p. 18. Blondel Apolog p. 9. Plerique Latinorum Hieronymo teste secundumpost Petrum fuisse putaverunt ut ante annum Domini 65 ad Romanae Ecclesiae clavum sedissenecesse sit Apol. pro sent Hier. p. 9. page 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. doctiss Bevereg cod Can. Eccles Prim. lib. 2. p. 314. 1 Cor. 3. 5. 2. Cor. 3. 6. Acts. 6. 4. Coloss 4. 7. 1 Thess 3. 2. Coloss 4. 17. Vid. etiam Bevereg ubi supra Pag. mihi 40 41. Pag. 10. Edit Jun. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P● mihi 52 53. V. Cotel Not. in Pr. S. Clemen Epist col 95. Apud Jun. Not. in Clemen p. 12. * Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Polycarpus aut●●●non solum ab Apostolis edoctus conversatus cum multis excis qui dominum nostrum viderunt sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asia in ea quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitututs Episcopus qurm nos vidimus in prima nostra aetate * Catalog ●pt Eccles Apol. p. I● Vid. Test Veterum ad frontem editionis Oxon

Equality even in such a Parity as excludes the Power and Jurisdiction of any higher Order than that of a Presbyter in the modern Notion Let us now examine whether there be any Foundation for their Inference in the Texts last mentioned In the first place we find that our Blessed Saviour supposes Degrees of Subordination amongst his own Disciples as well as all other Societies and therefore he directs the Ecclesiasticks who would climb to the Highest Places in the Church to take other Methods than those that are most usual amongst the Grandees of the World He that deserved Preferment in the Church was to be the Servant of all so that this Text refers to the Method of Promotion and not to the Extirpation of their Jurisdiction They were not to aspire to Honour and Dignity by Force and Violence or the other Arts that are so fashionable in Secular Courts but rather by all the Acts of Modesty Humility and Self-denial Next let me ask whether the Apostles understood this Precept of our Saviour in the sense of our Adversaries or not If they did as it is alledg'd how came they to exercise Jurisdiction over all Subordinate Ecclesiasticks during their Life time in all the Churches they Planted Did they go cross to the Institution of our Saviour who perfectly understood his meaning and to whom the Precept was Originally delivered But that which Baffles and Exposes this Argument to all Intents and Purposes is this that he did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of this towards one another in Obedience to the Command now under consideration could not infer a Parity unless they Blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal for when you read the Text with attention you see that our Saviour recommends what he Enjoyns from his own Constant and Visible Practice amongst them viz. that he himself who was their Lord and Master was their Servant and therefore it became the Greatest among them in imitation of him to be Modest Calm and Humble towards all their Subordinate Brethren and this qualify'd them more than any other thing for Ecclesiastical Promotions It is very sad that any should be so much Infatuated with their new Schems of Parity as to alledge such Texts which if understood in their Sense Degrades our Blessed Saviour to the Degree of one of his Disciples for what he Commanded the Apostles he Practised among them himself And this is the strongest Motive to engage their Obedience therefore I may reasonably infer that whatever it was that our Saviour commanded in those places of Scripture it must of necessity be toto coelo different from all Parity and Equality He Commanded them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles did by a Spirit of Pride and Domination but rather by the more Christian and engaging Behaviour of Charity and Humility He that was to be the Greatest among them was to be their Servant in Imitation of that Heavenly Patern that was set them by our Blessed Lord and Saviour S. Paul thought himself oblig'd to answer his Episcopal Character after this manner when the Care of all the Churches lay upon him when he employ'd his Apostolical Power to promote the Edification of all Men and all the Fathers of the Church who were advanc'd above their Brethren to Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction had this Evangelical Notion of their Dignity that they were the Servants of all others From what hath been said one may easily see that there is no Ground no not a Shadow of any Argument for the New Doctrine in these Texts of Scripture It is true that Salmasius glances at this way of Reasoning in his Walo Messalinus but he lays no great stress upon it That which is most to our purpose is that Beza himself in his larger Notes upon the New Testament asserts that all kind of Jurisdiction is not forbidden in these Texts but that only which is joyn'd with imperious Bitterness and Domination Let it be further considered that the Hierarchy and Subordination of Priests was Established by Divine Authority in the lewish Church and if our Saviour had pull'd down that ancient Polity and commanded an Equality amongst the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition between his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but rather between the Priests of the Mosaie Oeconomy and the Disciples of the New Testament When he reprov'd the corrupt glosses that were introduc'd into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees and taught them Purer and more Heavenly Strains of Morality he states the Opposition between the current Doctrine receiv'd amongst the Jews and that which he himself Taught and Recommended and there is no doubt to be made if he had forbidden the several Degrees and Subordinations of Priests and Established a perfect Equality he would have stated a plain Opposition between the Model of the Temple and the other Plat-form that was to succeed in the Christian Church As for the other Text that is ordinarily cited to serve the same design 1 Pet. 5.2 3. It is but the Apostle's Commentary on our Saviour's Words and Commandment and it forbids the Spirit of Pride and Insolence as a thing very unsuitable to all Power and Authority in the Church Thus such Texts have been understood from the beginning and it is one strong Prejudice against the new Exposition that it was never heard of until these latter days Secondly If the Presbyterians cannot Establish their Divine Right upon express Texts of Scripture they will support it as they think by the Clearest and most immediate Consequence and this is Equivalent to the most Positive Command and Institution The Argument from the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter fill all their Books from top to bottom And if this be in it self Lame and Sophistical they must despair to Establish the pretended Equality of Presbyters in the Ecclesiastical Government The Argument most insisted on in favour of their Parity exclusive of Episcopal Jurisdiction is built upon the Homonomy of Bishop and Presbyter in the Language of the New Testament or because the Clergy are Dichotomiz'd only into Bishops and Deacons in some Texts of Scripture and in some Ancient Writers of the Primitive Church Hence they exclude the Authority of a Bishop above a Presbyter though the Offices themselves be as much distinguished as is possible in several Texts of the New Testament And if this Argument alone appear Childish and Sophistical they have not another Sanctuary to flee to so my present Business is to Examine the force of it There is not one of their number with whom you Engage in this Controversie but immediately he will tell you that there is no distinction between Bishop and Presbyter in the Scriptures and therefore they conclude that their Argument a Confusione Nominum against the Superiority of a Bishop is