Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	agree_v	great_a	zion_n	22	3	8.9711	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46373	Jus divinum ministerii evangelici. Or The divine right of the Gospel-ministry: divided into two parts. The first part containing a justification of the Gospel-ministry in general. The necessity of ordination thereunto by imposition of hands. The unlawfulnesse of private mens assuming to themselves either the office or work of the ministry without a lawfull call and ordination. The second part containing a justification of the present ministers of England, both such as were ordained during the prevalency of episcopacy from the foul aspersion of anti-christianism: and those who have been ordained since its abolition, from the unjust imputation of novelty: proving that a bishop and presbyter are all one in Scripture; and that ordination by presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture-patern. Together with an appendix, wherein the judgement and practice of antiquity about the whole matter of episcopacy, and especially about the ordination of ministers, is briefly discussed. Published by the Provincial Assembly of London.	London (England). Provincial Assembly.; Calamy, Edmund, 1600-1666.	1654 (1654)	Wing J1216A; ESTC R213934	266,099	375

For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promis●uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto th●m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels w●re not Dioces●n Bishop● but CongreCongregational Presbyter● seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Poly●arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and On●simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomastic● and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fall●cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and ● Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smect●ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Mil●tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Ther●fore watch and remember that ●y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theod●ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text give● to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros

and build up those that belong to the election of grace to perfect the Saints and to edifie the body of Christ. Which Ordinance of Preaching though it be vilified and prove the savour of death unto death to them that perish who stumble at the Word being disobedient whereunto also they were appointed Yet to them which believe it is the power of God unto salvation As Christ and his Ordinances are a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to the unbelievers So to them which believe Christ in his Ordinances is very precious and the dispensers of his Ordinances very acceptable For unto them How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace Thus Christ in his Ordinances and messengers when he is disallowed of men is made the head-stone of the corner and when the world by wisdom knew not God it pleased God by the Ordinance of preaching which a carnal world cals foolishness to save them which do believe Some object against this Argument That though the Ministry was needfull in former times yet there is no need in times of the Gospel The Saints shall be taught of God And God promises in the new Covenant saying I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every man his brother saying Know the Lood for they shall all know me from the lest of them unto the greatest Now if all the Saints shall be so taught of God that they shall not need to teach one another Then teaching by way of Office is not perpetually needfull in times of the Gospel And another parallel place there is 1 Iohn 2.27 The anointing which ye have received abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you But as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth and is no lie and even as it hath taught you ye shall abide in him To which we answer 1. Though the light in times of the Gospel be farre clearer then under the Law yet it remains a perpetual truth even in Gospel-times That without all controversie great is the mystery of Godliness And this mystery is so great that flesh and bloud do not reveal it to us That there is a vail upon our eyes in reading the Scriptures which vail is only done away by C●rist ● Though Christ alone doth away this Vail and all the Sa●nts be taught of God yet is neither the Vail removed nor the Saints instructed ordinarily without the Ministry of the Word when God undertakes to teach his Elect effectually and to take them one of a City and two of a Family and to bring them to Sion then God promises saying I 'le give you Pastors after mine own heart which shall feed you with understanding and knowledge So the Saints are truly taught of God in the Ministry of the Word because it is God alone that giveth Ministers and alone also teacheth his People to profit under this Ministry for it is God that giveth to every seed his own Body Paul may plant and Apollo water but it is God alone that giveth the encrease Paul's planting and Apollo's watering did not cease to be the Ordinances of God though in reference to the success of their Ministry neither was he that planted any thing nor he that watered but God alone that gives the encrease 3. When God saith They shall not teach every man his Neighbour and every man his brother This word not a note of negation is not absolute but comparative as where Christ saith My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me The world cannot hate you but me it hateth because I testifie that the works thereof are evil When God saith I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice When Paul saith God sent me not to Baptize And when to the Churches he saith As touching Brotherly Love ye need not that I write unto you for ye your selves are taught of God to love one another Yet in the very next verse he exhorts them unto brotherly Love beseeching them that they would encrease more and more And as touching the ministring of the Saints he saith It is superfluous for me to write to you yet in that very Chapter he useth many arguments and professeth that he thought it necessary to prepare their bounty and to stir up their pure mindes to a liberall contribution to the Saints and unto all men All which speeches are comparative expressions whereby not the thing it self but such a measure and degree is denied and so it must be here 1. Because when these promises That they should not teach every man his brother were fullfilled and all the Saints were taught of God yet even then were they taught by an outward Ministry Christ himself taught daily in the Temple He even taught in the Synagogues He sent also out his Dis●ples to teach And the Apostles themselves gave themselves continually to the Ministry of the Word So that in those primitive times the inward spirituall teaching of God did not take away that teaching which he himself hath ordained to be externall and ministeriall 2. This negation in this promise must be only comparative and not universall and absolute because then it would not only destroy the Ministry as unnecessary in publike but also evacuate and disannull all brotherly admonitions in private and then all godly conference and fraternall reproofs should be prohibited as sins which none can deny to be commanded as duties and such duties as are perpetuall in Gospel-times for all Saints at all times are commanded to consider one another to provoke unto holinesse and good works And they should be teaching and admonishing one another to warn them that are unruly to comfort the feeble-minded support the weak To restore a brother that is fallen with the spirit of meeknesse and to bear one anothers burthen and so fullfill the Law of Christ. 3. The Internall teaching of the Spirit doth not take away the need of an externall teaching by the Ministry because by the same Argument there should be no need of Scripture because the Scripture it self also is externall And this is not a malicious supposition but de facto there are many men in our times that do so far rely upon this inward teaching as to lay aside the Scriptures And if so there is no rule left to try the spirits which is ever needfull because many false Prophets are gone out into the world Then there is no way left to recover them that are fallen or preserve them that stand for every one then will wander after his own heart without conviction and the delusions of Satan may prevail undiscovered as if they were the Oracles of God Then a blinde world and a blinde heart will leade one another till they both fall into the ditch To prevent these dangers at all times God

Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Pr●sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they s●y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mile●●● were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bid● Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that i● saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of th● A●pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word