Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	bishop_n	church_n	ordain_v	4,727	4	9.0001	4	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

to have been Bishops for our part we beleeve that ●Word-● belonged unto 〈◊〉 and Titus with 〈…〉 Churches where they might 〈…〉 any time have the Office of Ordeyning and Governing as it is written in the same Chapter 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Those things I have written unto th●● c. that thou mayest know how to be have thy selfe in the House of God which is the Church and therefore if there had been any proper Character or Qualification of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter if any Ordination or Office we think the Apostle would have signified it but because he did not we conclude and the more strongly from the insufficiency of your Majesties two reasons that there are onely two Orders of Officers and consequently that a Bishop is not superiour to a Presbyter for we find not as we said in our Answer that one Officer is superiour to another who is of the same Order Concerning the Ages succeeding the Apostles Your Majesty having in your first Paper said that you could not in Conscience consent to Abolish Episcopall Government because you did conceive it to be of Apostolicall Institution Practised by the Apostles themselves and by them comitted and derived to particular persons as their Successors and have ever since til these last times bin exercised by Bishops in al the Churchs of Christ We thought it necessary in our Answer to subjoyne to that we had said out of the Scriptures the Iudgment of divers ancient ●riters and Fathers by whom Bishops were not acknowledged as a Divine but as an Ecclesias●ticall Institution as that which might very much conduce both to the easing of your Majesties scruple to consider that howsoever Episcopal Government was generally currant yet the superscription was not jugded Divine by some of those that either were themselves Bishops or lived under that Government to the vindication of the opinion which we hold from the prejudice of Novellisme or of recesse from the Iudgement of all Antiquity We doe as firmely beleeve as to matter of fact that Chrysostome and Austin were Bishops as that Aristotle was a Philosopher Cicer● an Orator though wee should rather call out Faith and beliefe thereof ●●rtaine in matter of fact upon humane Testimonies uncontrouled then infallible in respect of the Testimonies themselves But where is your Majestie saith That the darknesse of the Historie of the Church in the time succeeding the Apostles is a strong Argument for Episcopacie which notwithstanding that darknesse hath found so full proofe by unquestioned Catalogues as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like Wee humbly conceive that those fore-mentioned times were darke to the Catalogue-makers who must derive the series of Succession from and through those Historicall darknesses and so make up their Catalogues very much from Tradition and Reports which can give no great Evidence because they agree not amongst themselves and that which is the great blemish of their Evidence is that the neerer they come to the Apostles times wherein they should be most of all clear to establish the succession firm and cleare at first the more doubtfull uncertaine and indeed contradictorie to one another are the Testimonies Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Lin●s Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirme are inextricable Some say that Titus was Bishop of Crate some say Arch-bishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say that Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say that Polycarpus was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one B●colus and another that Arist● was first Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one Citie at the same time And how should those Catalogues be unquestionable which must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one with another Wee confesse that the Ancient Fathers Tertulltan Irenaus c. made use of Succession as an Argument against Heretikes or Innovators to prove that they had the traduces Apostoliei seminis and that the Godly and Orthodox Fathers were on their side But that which we now have in hand is Succession in Office which according to the Catalogues resolves it selfe into some Apostle or Evangelist as the first Bishop of such a Citie or Place who as we conceive could not be Bishops of those places being of an higher Office though according to the language of after-times they might by them that drew up the Catalogues be so called because they planted and founded or watered those Churches to which they are entituled and had their greatest residence in them or else the Catalogues are drawne from some eminent men that were of great veneration and reverence in the times and places where they lived and Presidents or Moderators of the Presbyteries whereof themselves were Members from whom to pretend the Succession of after-Bishops is as if it should be said that Caesar was Successor to the Roman Consuls And we humbly conceive that there are some Rites and Ceremonies used continually in the Church of old which are asserted to be found in the Apostolicall and Primitive times and yet have no colour of Divine Institution and which is Argument above all other the Fathers whose Names wee exhibited to your Majestie in our Answer were doubtlesse acquainted with the Catalogues of Bishops who had beene before them and yet did hold them to be of Ecclesiasticall Institution And lest your Majestie might reply That however the Testimonies and Catalogues may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that Succession of men to feed and governe those Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinarie and temporarie Officers were by Ecclesiasticall Writers in complyance with the Language and usage of their owne times called Bishops and so were other eminent men of chiefe note presiding in the Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division or distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordaining giving Rules and Censures wee humbly conceive can never be proved by authentike or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majestie should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as

〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 And whereas your 〈…〉 of their work 〈…〉 in the Apostles we could wish that you had declared whether it belong to their Mission or Unction for we humbly conceive that their Authorative Power to do their Work in all places of the world did properly belong to their Mission and consequently that their Office as wel as their Abilities was extraordinary and so by your Majesties own concession not to be succeded into by the Bishops As to the Orders of standing Officers of the Church your Majesty doth reply That although in the places cited Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 8. there be no mention but of the two Orders only of Bishops or Presbiters and Deacons Yet it is not thereby proved that there is no other standing Office in the Church besides which we humbly conceive is justly proved not only because there are no other named but because there is no rule of Ordeyning any third no Warrant or way of Mission and so the Argument is as good as can be made a non cause ad non effectum for we do not yet apprehend that the Bishops pretending to the Apostolick Office do also pretend to the same manner of Mission nor do we know hat those very many Divines that have afferted two orders onely have concluded it from any other grounds then the Scriptures cited There appears as your Majesty saith two other manifest reasons why the Office of Bishops might not bee so proper to be mentioned in those places And wee humbly conceive there is a third more manifest then those two vizt because It was not The one reasun given by your Majesty is because in the Churches which the Appostles themselves planted they placed Presbiters under them for the Office of Teaching but reserved in their own hands the Power of Governing those Churches for a longer or shorter time before they set Bishops over them Which under your Majesties favour is not so much a reason why Bishops are not mentiioned to bee in those places as that they indeed were not the variety of reasons may we say or conjectures rendred why Bishops were not set up at first as namely because fit men could not be so soon found out which is Epiphanius his reason or for remedy of Schisme which is Jeromes reason or because the Apostles saw it not expedient which is your Majesties reason doth shew that this cause labours under a manifest weaknesse for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of Governing we grant it they could no more devest themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could loose their Apostleship had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more pa●ted with their power of Governing then they did in seting up the Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the Office of Teaching and that both the Keys as they are called being by our Saviour comitted into one hand were not by the Apostles divided into two Nor do we see how the Apostles could reasonably commit the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus Act. 20 and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in Ordinary in his own hands who took his solemn leave of them as never to see their faces more As that part of the power of Government which for distinction sa●e may be called Legis-Lative and which is one of the three fore-mentioned things challenged by the Bishops viz giving Rules the reserving of it in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties Iudgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops of 〈◊〉 and Creete to whom the Apostles gives Rules for ●●●ring and Governing of the Church Nor is there ●●y more reason that the Apostles reserving that part of the Power of Governing which is called E●●cuti●● in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought 〈◊〉 should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of Power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at the first then that they never did And since by your Majesties Concession the Presbiters were placed by the Apostles first in the Churches by them planted and that with Power of Governi●● as wee prove by Scripture you must prove the 〈…〉 of a Bishop over the Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times or else we must conclude that the Bishop got both his Name and Power of Government out of the Presbyters hand as the Tree in the ●●ll m●ns out the stones by little and little as i● 〈◊〉 grows As touching Phillippi where you Majesty saith it may be probable there was yet 〈◊〉 Bishop it is certaine there were many like them 〈…〉 at Epheful to whom if only the Office of Teaching did belong they had the most labori●us and honorable part that which was less honorable being reserved in the Apostles hands and the Churches left in the mean time without ordinary Government The other reason given why two Orders only a●● mentioned in those places is because he wrot in the 〈◊〉 to Timothy and Titus to them that were Bishops ●● there was no need to writ any thing concerning the 〈…〉 Qualification of any other sort of 〈◊〉 then such as belonged to their Ordination or inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons only and no Bishops The former reason why two only Orders are mentioned in the Epistle to the Philip●●ans was because there was yet ●● Bishop this latter reason why the same two onely are mentioned in these Epistles is because there was no Bishop i●●● Ordained we might own the reason for good if there may bee found any rule for the Ordination of the other order of Bishops in some other place of Scripture but if the Ordination cannot be found how should we find the Order and it is reasonable to think that the Apostle in the Chapter formerly alleadged 1 Tim. 3. where he passes immediatly from the Bish to the De●●on would have 〈◊〉 exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whither the Bishop ●ver Presbyters or the Presbiter Bishop to have avoyded the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the 〈◊〉 of the Presbiter-Bish if there had bin some other Bishop of 〈…〉 And wheras your Ma● saith there was no need to writ to them about 〈…〉 in a distinct sence who belonged not to their Ordination and inspection We conceive that in your Majesties judgment Bishops might then have Ordeined Bishops like themselves for there was then no Ca●●● forbiding one single Bish to ordain another of his own rank and ther being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient as those ancient Fathers that call him Arch-Bishop think he did to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this reasoning his against the principles of those 〈…〉