Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	church_n	succession_n	2,569	5	10.4652	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85313	Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater power, and more eminent offices by divine right, then presbyterie. The arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his determination for such episcopacy are modestly examined. And arguments for the validity of presbyterial ordination added. With a brief discourse concerning imposed forms of prayer, and ceremonies. Written by G.F. minister of the gospel in defence of his own ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by Presbyters.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1660 (1660)	Wing F961; Thomason E1045_17; ESTC R208016	42,577	55

Church Are the Keyes given to Pastors to turn them but one way Ridiculous 5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted excepta Ordinatione c. It seems Jurisdiction was not excepted when they had engrossed Ordination Presbyters had that power and at first the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters thus he Tit. 1. 6. The Priests had that power not only to discern between Lepers and Lepers but as they could judge they could separate them from the Camp of Israel which did shadow out our excommunication 7. It seems very strange that when a Pastor who hath taught it may be baptized a person and now fallen into sin the Church and he have dealt with that person according to rule that now the Church must go to a Bishop to excommunicate this person to whom yet he never bare relation How came this Bishop to have power over this Church which he never saw it may be But let Dr. Fulks speak It is manifest that the Authority of binding and loosing committing and retaining pertaineth generally to all the Apostles alike and to every Pastor in his Cure Answ to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2. Bishop Jewel Reply p. 178. quotes Basil speaking thus Christ appointed Peter to be the Pastor of the Church after him and so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastots and Doctors A Token whereof is this that all Pastors do equally both bind and loose as well as he So Basil 8. In such Cities as Ephesus c. where the Church was one and divers Elders in common governed that Church let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronounce the sentence of excommunication I deny it not For his Proofs because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 So Tit. 1.11 Mouths must be stopped But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do who govern the Church in common that stopping may be meant partly if not chiefly there by Argument convince gainsayers v. 9. I must confess I cannot see the Logick of this Argument though it doth prove Jurisdiction does it prove Presbyters have not the power I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19 But because he doth not I let it alone His next is the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel c. 1. Answ Does this exclude the other Presbyters What mean those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. But to you I say If the King writes to the Speaker and reproves somthing amiss or complains somthing is not done does it lay the blame on him only and not on the Members of the House as well 2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which themselves had deserved excommunication who should have cast them out Are they Lords Paramount above all Christs Laws in his Church I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Churches obeying their Presbyters might have cast these Angels out or no way that I know of The Scriptures know no Archbishops though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun Let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters excommunicate a Presbyter the Church consenting Thus far the Dr. goeth and then undertakes to answer our Arguments but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before and I am loath to exceed in this discourse I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection where he tels us the necessity of Bishops in these respects 1. To ordain Ministers lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well Answ Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England than 24 Bishops of whom how few now were left Had the succession of Ministers depended upon them in what a sad case had the Church been 2. For the Governing of Presbyters lest by their impure manners heresies and schismes they should destroy the Church And are not Bishops equally liable to these Answ How shall the Church now be saved May we not read with our eyes in Histories and hear with our ears what Bishops have been Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament though some were wronged I know and do as much detest their ejectment to return again not one whit purged that we can fee 2. For Heresie and schism 1. We know what Bellarmine saith Certe Heresiarchae ferè omnes aut Episcopi aut Presbyteri fuerunt and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people saith he so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresie and causing schism as the Presbyters Hence he will have a Pope but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know much less Heresie 2. As for Heresie and Schism both name any National Church under Heaven more free from them than the Church of Scotland before these troubles began and yet there Bishops are not approved of 3. For Schism read but the life of Constantine and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism and the Concil Tolata 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops 4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them because Rome gave the cause I leave the Reader to enquire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in England 5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth when Schism was there both in his time and Clemens his time but Clemens mentions none Jerom saith indeed that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards I write not his known word posted But it is much that these ends of a Bishop which are so great for the good of the Church and it seems can be performed by none but him should not be foreseen by Christ at first and so this Bishop at first appointed but the ordinary main Stud of Christs House should be forgot to be set up till many years after the House was up Sure this means was none of his and so it proves 6. How can the Bishop be a fit means to cure Schism or prevent it I know no way but this that Presbyters must resign all their judgments up to his Chair and he infallibly determine which is right or wrong and so all must yield to his sentence This were brave indeed 7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand and his power from assisting Bishops let us now see how the Bishops will shew forth that wonderful vertue of Episcopacy in healing our Schisms I doubt our King who is as Constantine said of himself the Bishop extra

3. In respect of the President and perpetual Order which was to be left to the Church of Christ it was necessary that the Presbytery should impose their hands Nec tantum dicit mearum manuum Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacra ord p. 226. sed addit etiam Presbyterii 1 Tim. 4. ne existimetur discrimen esse sive ab Apostolis sive à Presbyteriis quis ordinetur saith Chemnitius Object 2. But who knows what Presbyters these were Chrysostome saith Bishops Answer So saith Lorinus Intelligit chorum Presbyterorum i. e. Episcoporum Be it so for now I am sure Presbyters and Bishops were the same Some say It was the Presbytery of Ephesus if they could prove this it were to the purpose indeed Junius saith the Presbytery of Lystra whence Paul took him What Presbyters are we know by the Scripture and Presbyterium is a company of Presbyters as Lorinus said If it please you not I pray teach us better The Rhemists render the word Priesthood and quote the 3d Canon Concil Carth. 4. before named to open it by This is more for us against Chrysostome Thus also Cajetan Dicit pluraliter manuum Presbyterii fortè ad significandum plurium Sacerdotum concursum c. This Presbytery imposing hands on Timothy was no doubt the ground of Cyprians practice so of that Canon in the Council of Carthage and of our Bishops Canons whence I wonder any rational man should so scorn Presbyterial Ordination Object But there was Pauls Imposition and so there was the Bishops Imposition but not Presbyters alone Answ As for Paul the answer to the first Objection will satisfie For the Bishop true he was there but how came he there Jerome tells us and we have reason to believe him because he groundeth his discourse upon the Scriptures However the Bishop did not superadd any thing to the perfection of the Ordinance he put forth no more power than the other Presbyters only for Order-sake he carried on the work So had we our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Association who was so and should have continued so dur ante vitâ for me But as in the absence of a Bishop the sufftagan might supply his room so as well in the absence of our President another might supply his being especially chosen and earnestly desired by his fellow Presbyters to do it IV. Arg. 4 If Prophets and Teachers may separate Apostles to their work by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of hands then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters and that Ordination is valid but the Antecedent is true Acts 13.1 2 3. Ergo. Teachers are inferiour to Prophets and all preaching Presbyters I hope are Teachers but these imposed hands the Prophets were inferiour to Apostles Object But this was not Ordination Answ I have spoken to this in another Treatise more largely but I could name and have named there several of the Fathers Lutherans and Calvinists who say it was Ordination and for the Papists divers of those I could mention who call it Ordination If it was not Ordination I pray what was it We find Barnabas after this Act is called an Apostle Acts 14.14 but so he was never before he was at the highest but a Prophet as the Text declares So Jerom Catal. Script Keeles speaking of Barnahas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was a separation to a work and what do you more in Ordination than is here set down But I speak no more of it in this place because as I said I have done it before V. Arg. 5 Those who have Authority to perform the greatest ministerial Acts they have power to perform the less But Prebyters have Authority to perform the greatest Ergo. For the Major those who will deny it give us a sound and convincing reason why they do so I cannot imagine one à majore ad minus valet consequentia in this case sure For the Minor When Paul saith 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gespel surely Paul mentioned the highest Ministerial Act else Paul must say not to baptize nor to preach but to ordain Ministers Reverend Davenant saith Pag. 194. that in rebus maximi momenti ad salutem hominum Presbyters have power as well as Bishops and therefore the name Bishop may well agree to them saith he why not then in rebus minoris momenti I wish he had given a sound reason for it it seems they can do those Acts which tend to the end of the Ministry mainly and principally and not the lesser What rational man can swallow this If Ability be the question I think the Presbyters have shewn enough to answer it Compare Episcopal Ordinations and Presbyterial where did the Majesty of Gods Ordinance appear most And as for the Ordained by them compare them with others and see if not able for the work I will adde two or three Arguments ad homi nem VI. If Ordination by Bishops be valid Arg. 6 then ordination by Presbyters is valid but you suppose the first is true and we wish you had proved it more sufficiently that our-people might not have separated from us upon that account The consequence I prove thus 1. For Presbyters we are sure they are the Officers of Christ but for your Bishops especially such as are in England extending their power as I said in the beginning after that manner so vastly I dare say quâ tales they are none of Christs Officers nor as they take to themselves a power above other Ministers 2. Take Bishops in the fairest sence so Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order If of the same Order then Presbyters Ordination is as valid as the Bishops That they are of the same Order Learned Davenant doth in the beginning of his Determination name Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson and Durandus among the Papists affirming it to which as a further confirmation I may add that saying of Ambrose on 1 Tim. 3. Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus Ordinationem subject quare Nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est for that he adds Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est I shall not stick at that still they are the fame Order For the Consequence I borrow this only out of Mr. Baxter who saith he had it from Bishop Usher to prove Ordination by meer Presbyters without a Prelate is valid for ad ordinem pertinet ordinare VII Arg. 7 Ordination by Presbyters in case of necessity is valid So saith learned Davenant 191. But The Ordination by Presbyters now was in a case of necessity The Minor 1. Bishops were now put down by Authority 2. Solemn Covenant against them in part taken being imposed by Authority 3. Bishops dared not to Ordain openly why not we as much afraid to go to them 4. The eye of the State not so favourable upon those who were ordained by them and unless we were satissied they were Officers of Christ we had no