Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	church_n	council_n	trent_n	1,107	5	10.4717	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52055	Smectymnuus redivivus Being an answer to a book, entituled, An humble remonstrance. In which, the original of liturgy episcopacy is discussed, and quæries propounded concerning both. The parity of bishops and presbyters in scripture demonstrated. The occasion of the imparity in antiquity discovered. The disparity of the ancient and our moderne bishops manifested. The antiquity of ruling elders in the church vindicated. The prelaticall church bounded.	Smectymnuus.; Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.; Calamy, Edmund, 1600-1666.; Young, Thomas, 1587-1655.; Newcomen, Matthew, 1610?-1669.; Spurstowe, William, 1605?-1666.	1654 (1654)	Wing M784; ESTC R223740	77,642	91

deprive excommunicate c. their spiritual power be not as dangerous though both be dangerous and as much to be opposed as their temporal 1 Because the spiritual is over our consciences the temporal but over our purses 2 Because the spiritual have more influence into Gods Ordinances to defile them then the temporal 3 Because spiritual judgements and evils are greater than other 4 Because the Pope was Antichrist before he did assume any temporal power 5 Because the Spiritual is more inward and lesse discerned and therefore it concerns all those that have Spiritual eyes and desire to worsh●y God in spirit and truth to consider and endeavour to 〈…〉 Spiritual usurpations as well as their Temporal Whether A●rius be justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Here●●cke as some report sor affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be of an equal power Wee say as some report for the truth is he is charged with heresie meerly and onely because he was an Arrian As for his opinian of the parity of a Presbyter with a Bishop this indeed is called by Austin proprium dogma Aerii the proper opinion of Aerius And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma suriosum stolidum a mad and foolish opinion but not an heresie neither by the one nor the other But let us suppose as is commonly thought that he was accounted an Heretick for this opinion yet notwithstanding that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius and borrowed out of him by Austin and an opinion not to be allowed appeares First because the same Authors condemne Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the publ●que prayers and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead And also for the reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemne Fast which if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie Secondly because not onely Saint Hierome but Austin himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret O●cumenius Theophilact were of the same opinion with Aerius as Michael Medina observes in the Council of Trent and hath writen Lib. 1. de sacr hom origine and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools much lesse to be branded for Hereticks Thirdly because no Councell did ever condemne this for Heresie but on the contrary Concilium Aquisgranens sub Ludovico ●io Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scriture That Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge Whether the great Apostasie of the Church of Rome hath not been in swerving from the Discipline of Christ as well as from the doctrine For so it seems by that text 2. Thess. 2.4 And also Revel 18.7 and divers others And if so then it much concernes all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider how neere the Discipline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist lest while they endeavour to keep out Antichrist from entring by the door of doctrine they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the door of Discipline especially considering what is here said in this Booke That by their own confession the Discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome Whether Episcopacie be not made a place of Dignity rather then Duty and desired onely for the great revenues of the place And whether if the largenesse of their revenues were taken away Bishops would not decline the great burthen and charge of soules necessarily annexed to their places as much as the ancient Bishops did who hid themselves that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their cares rather then they would be made Bishops whereas now Bishops cut off the eares of those that speak against their Bishopricks How it comes to pass that in England there is such increase of Popery Superstition Arminianism and prophaneness more then in other Reformed Churches Doth not the root of these Disorders proceed from the Bishops and their adherents being forced to hold correspondencie with Rome to uphold their greatness and their Courts and Canons wherein they symbolize with Rome And whether it be not to be feared that they will rather consent to the bringing in of Popery for the upholding of their dignities then part with their dignities for the upholding of Religion Why should England that is one of the chiefest Kingdomes in Europe that separates from Antichrist maintain and defend a Discipline different from all other Reformed Churches which stand in the like Separation And whether the continuance in this Discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome from which we are separated and to separation from the other Reformed Churches unto which we are united Whether it be fit that the name Bishop which in Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops and not only in Scripture but also in Antiquity for some hundreds of yeers should still be appropriated to Bishops and ingrossed by them and not rather to be made common to all Presbyters and the rather because First we finde by woful experience that the great Equivocatithat lieth in the name Bishop hath been and is at this day a great prop and pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy for this is the great Goliah the master-piece and indeed the onely argument with which they think to silence all opposers to wit the Antiquity of Episcopacie that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 yeers c. which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam usque usque Now it is evident tha● this ●r●ument is a Paralogism depending upon the Equivocation of the 〈◊〉 ●●shop For Bishops in the Apostles time were the s●me with Pre●byters in name and office and so for a good wh●le after An● when afterwards they came to be disting●●shed the ●i●hops of th●●rimitive times differed as much from o●●s now as Rome anci●nt ●rom Rome at this day as hath been su●fi●ie●●ly decl●●ed in this Book And the best way to confute this ●rgumen● i●●y h●nging in a Community of the name Bishop to a Presby●er a● w●ll 〈…〉 a ●●shop Secondly becau●● we ●in●e 〈…〉 late Innovators which have so much disturbed 〈…〉 p●r●ty of our Church did first begin w●●h the al●●ratio● 〈…〉 and by changing the word Table into the word Altar and the word Minister into the word Priest and the wo●d Sacr●ment into the word ●acrifice have endeavoured to bring in the Popish Mass. And the Apost●e exhorts us 2 Tim. 1.13 T● hold fast the form of sound words and 1 Tim. 6.20 To avoid the prophane novelties of words Upon which text we will only mention what the Rhemists have commented which we conceive to be worthy consideration Nam instruunt nos non solùm docentes s●d eti●m errantes The Church

not the Text we shall admit it but if it doe we must answer with Tertullian Id verum quodcunque primum id adulterum quod posterius whatsoever is first is true but that which is latter is adulterous In the examination of this Glosse to avoyd needlesse Controversie First we take for granted by both sides that the first and best Antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously Secondly that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri Thirdly that this was not Nomen inane but there was some kinde of Imparity between him and the rest of the Presbyters Yet in this we differ that they say this Impropriation of name and Imparity of place is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution we affirme both to be occasional and of humane Invention and undertake to shew out of Antiquity both the occasion upon which and ●he Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church On our parts stands Ierome and Ambrose and others whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant will grant a place among his Glossators Saint Ierome tells us in 1 Tit. Idem est ergo Presbyt●r qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis eco sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae Communi Presbyterorū Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos bap●izaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret schismatum semina tollerentur Putat aliquis non Scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam Episcopum Presbyterum unum esse aliud aetatis aliud esse nomen of●ic●i relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis Paulus Timothaeus servi Iesu Christi qui sunt Philippis cum Episcopis Diaconis c. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae certè in una Civitate non poterant plures esse ut nuncupantur Episcopi c. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Devils instinct divisions in Religion and the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I o● Cephas the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed thorow the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of all the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinks any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Jesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one city of Macedonia and certainly in one city there could not be many Bishops as they are now called c. and after the allegations of many other Scriptures he concludes thus as the Elders therefore may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custome of the Church so let the Bishops know that it is more from custome then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters that they ought to rule the Church in common In which words of Ierome these five things present themselves to the Readers view First that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Secondly that that Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custome and not upon devine Institution Episcopi noverint c. Thirdly that this was not his private judgement but the judgement of Scripture Putat aliquis c. Fourthly that before this Priority was upon this occasion started the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio by the Counsel of the Presbyters in common and that even after this imparity it ought to be so governed Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere Fifthly that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders was the divisions which through the Devils instinct fell among the Churches Postquam verò Diaboli instinctu Saravia would take advantage of this place to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times because even then they began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos but sure S. Ierome was not so weake as this man would make him to speak Inconsistencies and when he propounds it to himself to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same to let fall words that should confute his own proposition whereas therefore S. Ierome saith that after men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest c. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase but not of the Apostles times else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that followes But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity which yet we grant not having proved the contrary yet it appeares it was not of Apostolical intention but of Diabolical occasion And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schisme yet there is just cause to think that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this invention First because we read in the Apostles dayes there were Divisions Rom. 16.7 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 and 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ordaine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses inter vos esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestae fiunt Secondly because as Doctor Whitaker saith the remedy devised hath proved worse then the disease which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author Thirdly because the holy Ghost who could foresee what would

the fore-front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves And if to the whole Church much more to the Presbyters of that Church This is proved Revel 1.11 What thou seest write in a Book and send it to the seven Churches which are in Asia And also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle He that hath an care to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches Upon which words Ambrosius Ausbertus in his second book upon the Revelation saith thus Vnâ eademque locutione Angelos Ecclesias unum esse designat Nam cum in principio locutionum quae ad septem fiunt Angelos dicat Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe in fine tamen earundem non dicit Qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat Angelo sed quid Ecclesiae dicat By one and the same phrase of speech he sheweth the Angels and the Churches to be one and the same For whereas in the beginning of his speech which he makes to the seven Churches he saith And write to the Angel of the Churches yet in the close of the same he doth not say He that hath an Eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Angel but what he saith to the Church And this is further proved by the whole argument of those Epistles wherein the admonitions threatnings commendations and reproofes are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches Revel 2.10 The Devil shall cast some of you into prison c. Revel 2.16 I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will put upon you no other burthen c. I say unto you and the rest of Thyatira as many as have not this Doctrine and which have not known the depths of Satan c. And when it is said in the singular Number as it is often I know thy works and labour c. vers 2. and vers 4. Repent and do thy first works and vers 13. Thou hast not denyed my Faith c. and cap. 3.26 Because thou art neither hot nor cold c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one individual person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because that the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Revel 2.5 Repent and do thy first works or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy Candlestick out of his place Rev. 2.16 Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth Revel 2.24 I will not put upon you any other burthen Now we have no warrant in the Word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and the Churches themselves are free from those sins And if God should take this course in what woeful miserable condition should the Church of England be which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates By all this it appears that the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not properly but figuratively And this is the judgment of Master Perkins upon the second Chapter of the Revelation and of Master Brightman and of Doctor Fulke who in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1.20 hath these words S. Iohn by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should wear on their heads Myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols but them that are the faithful messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Again they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers Master Fox likewise in his Meditation upon the Revelation pag. 7.9.17 is of this opinion and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters he could meet and saith that they all consent in this that under the person of an Angel the Pastors Ministers of the Churches were understood S. Austin in his 132. Epistle saith thus Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum colorum non de Praepositis Ecclesiarum vellet intelligi non consequenter diceret Habeo adversum te c. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation if that book be his Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae Habeo adversum te panca dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum c This also Gregory the Great lib. 34. Moral in Iob. cap. 4. Saepe sacram scripturam praedicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant angelorum nomine solere designare hinc esse quod Iohannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur id est Praedicatoribus populorum Master Box citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richard Thomas and others to whom we refer you If it be here demanded as it is much by the Hierarchical side that if by Angel be meant the whole company of Presbyters why Christ did not say to the Angels in the plural number but to the Angel in the singular We answer that though this question may savor of a litle too much curiosity yet we will make bold to subjoyn three conjectural reasons of this phrase of speech First it is so used in this place because it is the common language of other Scriptures in types and visions to set down a certain number for an uncertain the singular number for the plural Thus the Ram Dan. 8.3 is interpred vers 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia. And the enemies of Gods Church are set out by four horns And the deliverers by four Carpenters Zach. 1.18.20 And the wise and foolish Virgins are said to be five wise and five foolish And many such like And therefore as we answer the Papists when they demand why Christ if he meant figuratively when he saith this is my body did not speak in plain language this is the sign of my body We say that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments So we also answer here this phrase of speech Angel for Angels is common to all types and visions Secondly Angel is put though more be meant that so it may hold proportion with the vision which Iohn saw Chap. 1.12.20 He saw seven golden Candlesticks and seven Stars And therefore to hold proportion the Epistles are directed to seven Angels and to seven Churches And this is called a mystery Revel 1.20 The Mystery of the seven Stars c. Now a mystery is a secret which comprehends more th●n is expressed and therefore though but one Angel be expressed yet the mystery implyes all the Angels of that Church Thirdly to signifie their unity in the Ministerial function and joynt commission to attend upon the feeding and governing of one Church with one common care as it were with one hand and heart And this i● more fitly declared

disclaimed the Prelates and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches Calvin Beza and others with no better titles then of Rascals Blasphemers c. But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this that no such consequent can be drawn from their opinion for their Ius divinum pleads only for a Iustifiablenesse of this holy calling not for an absolute necessity of it warranting it where it is and requiring it where it may be had but not fixing upon the Church that wants it the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church but only of the glory and perfection of it neither is it their sin but their misery And is it so doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessitie but only a Iustifiablenesse of this calling nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence but onely of perfection we had thought that page the 20th where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedegree of Episcopacie from no lesse than Apostolicall and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding administration of the Church in essentiall matters but here it seemes he is willing to retract what there fell from him there it was to his advantage to say this Government was a thing essentiall to the Church and here it is no lesse advantage to say it is not essentiall But if it be not Essentiall then what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received Orders at Rome turnes to us they urge not him to receive ordination among us again but when some of our brethren who flying in Queene Maries dayes had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned again in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth they were urged to receive Imposition of hands againe from our Bishops and some did receiv● it If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essentiall to a Church then what Essentiall want was there in the Ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches that might deserve a Re-ordination more than if they had first received their Ordination at Rome And what is the reason that Bishop Mountague so confidently affirmes that Ordination by Episcopall hands is so necessary as that the Church is no true Church without it and the Ministery no true Ministery and ordinarily no salvation to be obtain●d without it And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Mountague to answer for himself yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions which arise from his own Book First whether that Office which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining and Ruling all other Officers in the Church as he saith Episcopacie hath belong not to the being but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church Secondly there being in this mans thoughts the same Ius divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church but of the perfection and glory of it But this Remonstrant seemes to know so much of the minde of those Churches that if they might have their option they would most gladly embrace Episcopall Government as little differing from their own Moderatorship save onely in the perpetuitie of it and the new Invention as he odiously calls it of lay-Elders But no question those learned Worthies that were intrusted by the Churches to compile their Confessions did comprise their Iudgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance And to his presumtion we oppose their Confession We will begin with the French Church who in their Confession speake thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus sancivit ità videlicet ut fint in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive Seniores Diaconi ut doctrinae puritas retineatur c. Art 29. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt eâdem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summóque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. Art 30. Gallicae Confessionis Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam aebere regi ac gubernari spirituali illâ politiâ quàm nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit ità ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri qui purè concionentur Sacramenta administrent sint quoque Seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae Senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Religio conservari Hominésque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim ritè ordinatè omniae fiunt in Ecclesiâ cùm viri fideles pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Divi Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic Art 30. Caeterùm ubicuuque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri candem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum Authoritatem ut qui sunt aequè Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capit is Ecclesiae Ministri We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ Jesus our Lord established viz. that there be Pastors Presbyters or Elders and Deacons And again We believe that all true Pastors whereever they be are endued with equal and the same power under one chief Head and Bishop Christ Jesus Consonant to this the Dutch Churches We believe say they the true Church ought to be ruled with that spiritual policy which God hath taught us in his Word to wit that there be in it Pastors to preach the Word purely Elders and Deacons to constitute the Ecclesiastical Senate that by these means Religion may be preserved and manners corrected And so again We believe where-ever the Ministers of God are placed they All have the same equal Power and Authority as being All equally the Ministers of Christ. In which Harmony of these Confessions see how both Churches agree in these five points First That there is in the Word of God an exact form of Government set down Deus in verbo suo edocuit Secondly That this form of Government Christ established in his Church Iesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit Thirdly That this form of Government is by Pastors Elders and Deacons Fourthly That the true Church of Christ ought to be thus governed Veram Ecclesiam debere regi Fifthly That all true Ministers of the Gospel are of equal power and authority For the reason he assigns why those Churches should make this Option we cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen as to say There is little difference between their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Episcopacy save onely in perpetuity and lay-Elders for who knows not that between these two there is a vast a difference as between the Duke of Venice and an absolute Monarch For 1 the Moderator in Geneva is not of a