Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	bishop_n	church_n	presbyter_n	1,645	5	10.1981	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79057	His Majesties reason vvhy he cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall government. Delivered by him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, Octob. 2. 1648. With the answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing. October. 3. 1648.	England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I); Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.; Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656.; Seaman, Lazarus, d. 1675.; Caryl, Joseph, 1602-1673.; Westminster Assembly (1643-1652)	1661 (1661)	Wing C2739; Thomason E1081_7; ESTC R207932	7,097	16

HIS MAIESTIES REASON VVhy He cannot in Conscience consent to abolish the Episcopal Government Delivered by Him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight Octob. 2. 1648. With the Answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing October 3. 1648. LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the Sun over against St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1660. His Majesties Reason why He cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall Government Charles R. I Conceive that Episcopall Government is most consonant to the word of God and of an Apostolicall institution as it appears by the Scripture to have been practised by Apostles themselves Acts 14.23 Acts 6.6 1 Cor. 16.1 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 5.3 3 John 9.10 And by them committed and derived to particular Persons as their Substitutes or Successors therein as for ordeyning Presbyters Deacons giving rules concerning Christian Discipline 1 Tim. 5.22 Titus 1.5 Revel 2.3 1 Tim. 5.19 Titus 3.10 and exercising censurs over Presbyters and others And hath ever since till these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ And therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government Notwithstanding this my perswasion I shall be glad to be informed if our Saviour and the Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty as they might totally alter or change the Church Government at their pleasure which if you can make appear to me then I will confess that one of my great scruples is clean taken away then there only remains That being by my Coronation Oath obleiged to maintaine Episcopall Government as I found it setled to my hands whether I may consent to the abolishing thereof until the same shall be evidenced to Me to be contrary to the Word of God Newport 2. Octob. 1648. The Answer of the Divines to His Majesties Reason why He cannot in Conscience consent to the abolishment of Episcopal Government May it please Your Majesty WE do fully agree without hesitation that these Scriptures cited in the margin of your paper Act. 14.23 Act. 6.6 1 Cor. 16.1 1 Cor. 14.1 Cor. 5.3 3 John 9 and 10. do prove that the Apostles did ordeine Presbyters and Deacons give rules concerning Christian Discipline and had power of exercising censures over Presbyters and others And that these places of Scripture 1 Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.19 Titus 3.10 do prove that Timothy and Titus had power to ordeine Presbyters and Deacons and to exercise censures over Presbyters and others And that the second and third Chapters of the Revelation do prove That the Angels of the Churches had power of governing of the Churches and exercising censures But that either the Apostles or Timothy and Titus or the Angels of the Churches were Bishops as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters exercising Episcopall Government in that sense Or that the Apostles did commit and derive to any particular persons as their substitutes and successors any such Episcopal Government or that this is proved in the least measure by the Scriptures alleged we do as fully deny And therefore do humbly deny also That Episcopall Government is therefore most consonant to the word of God and of Apostolicall institution or proved so to be by these Scriptures None of these were Bishops or practised Episcopall Government as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters Neither is such an Officer of the Church as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter to be found in the New Testament by which we humbly conceive that our Faith and Conscience touching this point ought to be concluded The name Office and Work of Bishop and Presbyter being one and the same in all things and never in the least distinguisht as is clearly evident Titus 1.5 7. For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordaine Presbyters in every City as I had appointed thee For a Bishop must be blameless In which place the Apostle his reasoning were altogether invalid and inconsequent if Presbyter and Bishop were not the same Office as well as they have the same Name The same is manifest Acts 20.17 28. and from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Presbyters of the Church to whom he gave this charge verse 28. Take heede therefore unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and govern the Church of God Where we observe That the Apostle being to leave these Presbyters and never to see their faces more verse 28. doth charge them with the feeding and governing of the Church as being Bishops of the Holy Ghosts making But that the Holy Ghost did make any superiour or higher kinde of Bishops than these common Presbyters is not to be found in that or any other Text. And that under the mouth of two or three witnesses this assertion of ours may stand we adde to what we have already said that in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Presbyters which are among you I exhort who am also a Presbyter Feed the flock of God which is among you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 performing the office of Bishops where it appears plaine to us that under the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in this place is expressed whatsoever work the Presbyters are to do Neither can Bishops so called as above Presbyters do more for the government and good of the Church otherwise then is there expressely injoyned unto Presbyters By all which that hath been said the point is rendered to be most clear to the judgement of most men both ancient and of later times That there is no such Officer to be found in the Scriptures of the New Testament as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter neither doth the Scripture afford us the least notice of any qualification required in a Bishop that is not required in a Presbyter nor any Ordination to the Office of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter nor any work or duty charged upon a Bishop which Presbyters are not enjoyned to do nor any greater honour or dignity put upon them For that double honour which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 5.17 as due to Presbyters that rule well is with a note of especially affixed to that Act or work of labouring in the Word and Doctrine which is not that Act wherein Bishops have challenged a singularity or peculiar eminency above the Presbyters To that which Your Majesty doth conceive That Episcopall government was practised by Apostles themselves We humbly answer That the Apostles as they were the highest Officers of the Church of Christ so they were extraordinary in respect of their commission gifts and office and distinguisht from all other Officers 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers Ephes 4.11 Christ gave some Apostles and

there were in one City more then one as in Philippi and Ephesus And we humbly offer to your Majesty as observable That though one Order might be superior to another Order yet in the same Order of Officers there was not any one superiour to others of the same Order No Apostle was above an Apostle No Evangelist above an Evangelist No Presbyter above a Presbyter No Deacon above a Deacon And so we conclude this part That since Church-Officers are instituted and set in the Church by God or Christ Jesus and that Ordination by or in which the Office is conveyed is of no other Officers but of Presbyters and Deacons Therefore there are no other Orders of ordinary and standing Officers in the Churches of Christ As for the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles we answer First our Faith reaches no farther than the holy Scriptures No humane testimony can beget any more than a humane faith Secondly we answer That it is agreed upon by learned men as well such as contend for Episcopacy as others that the times immediately succeeding the Apostles are very dark in respect of the History of the Church Thirdly That the most unquestionable Record of those times gives clear testimony to our assertion viz. The Epistle of Clements to the Corinthians who reciting the Orders of Church Officers expresly limits them to two Bishops and Deacons and them whom in one place he cals Bishops he always afterwards nameth Presbyters The Epistles of Ignatius pretend to the next antiquity but are by some suspected as wholly spurious and proved by Vedelius to be so mixed that it is hard if not impossible to know what part of them are genuine Besides Bishop Usher in his late observations on them chap. 18. pag. 138. confesses that of the twelve of his Epistles six are counterfeit the other six mixt and none of them in every respect to be accounted sincere and genuine Fourthly We grant That not long after the Apostles times Bishops in some superiority to Presbyters are by the writers of those times reported to be in the Church But they were set up not as a Divine Institution but as an Ecclesiastical as afterwards both Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs were which is clear by Doctor Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowles wherein he shews out of Bishop Jewel That Ambrose Chrysostome Jerome Augustine and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle Paul agree that by the Word of God there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter And that Medina in the Councel of Trent affirms not onely the same Fathers but also another Jerome Theodoret Primasius Sedulius and Theophylact to be of the same judgement And that with them agree Oecumenius Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme Gregory and Gratian and after them many others That it was inrolled in the Canon Law for sound and Catholick Doctrine and publickly taught by learned men And addes that all who have laboured in the Reformation of the Church for these 500. years have taught that all Pastors be they intituled Bishops or Priests have equal authority power by Gods word The same way goes Lumbard Master of the Sentences and Father of the Schoolmen who speaking of Presbyters and Deacons saith The Primitive Church had those Orders onely and that we have the Apostles precept for them alone With him agree many of the most eminent in that kind and generally all the Canonists To these we may adde Sextus Senensis who testifies for himself and many others And Cassander who was called by one of the Germame Emperours as one of singular ability and integrity to inform him and resolve his conscience in questions of that nature who said It is agreed among all that in the Apostles times there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter For a conclusion we adde that the Doctrine which we have herein propounded to your Majesty concerning the Identity of the Order of Bishops and Presbyters is no other then the Doctrine published by King Henery the 8. 1543. for all his subjects to receive seen and allowed by the Lords both spiritual and temporal with the nether House of Parl. Of these two Orders only so saith the Book that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands By all which it seems evident that the Order of Episcopacy as distinct from Presbytery is but an Ecclesiasticall Institution and therefore not unalterable Lastly we answer That Episcopall Government which at first obtained in the Church did really and substantially differ from the Episcopall Government which the Honorable Houses of Parliament desire the abolition of The Bishop of those times was one presiding joyning with the Presbytery of his Church ruling with them and not without them Either created and made by the Presbyters choosing out one amongst themselves as in Rome and Alexandria or chosen by the Church and confirmed by three or more of his neighbours of like dignity within the same precinct lesser towns and villages had and might have Bishops in them as well as populous and eminent Cities untill the Councel of Sardis decreed that villages and small Cities should have no Bishops least the name and authority of a Bishop might thereby come into contempt But of one claiming as his due and right to himself alone as a superior order or degree all power about ordination of Presbyters and Deacons and all jurisdiction either to exercise himself or delegate to whom he will of the Laity or Clergy as they distinguish according to the Judgement and Practise of those in our times we read not till in the latter and corrupter ages of the Church By all which it appears that the present Hierarchy the abolition whereof is desired by the Honorable Houses may accordingly be abolished and yet possibly the Bishops of those Primitive times be They are so farre differing one from another In answer to that part of your Majesties Paper wherein you require whether our Saviour and his Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty as they might totally alter or change the Church-Government at their pleasure We humbly conceive that there are substantials belonging to Church Government such as are appointed by Christ and his Apostles which are not in the Churches liberty to alter at pleasure But as for Arch-bishops c. we hope it will appear unto your Majesties conscience that they are none of the Church-Governours appointed by our Saviour and his Apostles And we beseech your Majesty to look rather to the Original of them then Succession Octob. 3. 1648. Imprimatur JA. CRANFORD FINIS