Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	presbyter_n	5,396	5	10.5715	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97178	Church-lands not to be sold. Or, A necessary and plaine answer to the question of a conscientious Protestant; whether the lands of the bishops, and churches in England and Wales may be sold?	Warner, John, 1581-1666.	1647 (1647)	Wing W900; Thomason E412_8; ESTC R204017	67,640	87

is incompatible with the state of the Church in the New that is understood to be continued and commanded to the practice of the Christian Church Now that an Hierarchy or Superiority and Subordination of the Priests was instituted in the Old Testament I think is denied by none that understands the Government of that Church and that this kind of Government is repealed in the New Testament appears not for the words of Christ forbid onely an Heathenish Tyranny and not a Christianly Superiority or an over-lording and not an orderly ruling Luke 22.25 26 1 Pet. 5.3 2. When in that place our Saviour explicitely forbids such Dominion or Lordship as the Kings and Gentiles exercised not ones mentioning alluding to or touching that Government instituted and practised in the Old Testament me thinkes it stands to reason that this kind of Government by Superior and Inferior is rather confirmed then weakened by our Saviours prohibition for had be intended the abolition of such a Government is it not probable being now as it were upon the theme that be would in some glance at least have strook at that Superiority and Subordination among the Jewes Especially when you consider what before was spoken that the Apostles and their Successors did and were to order the Discipline and Government of the Christian Church by the pattern of the Jewish and whether the like kind of Hierarchy was or is likely to be incompatible for the Christian Church which was instituted for the Jewish Church we may judge by the first and after continued practice of the Christian Church from the Apostles and succeeding times And here I shall cite whom you may as well credit as you are willing to heare Mr Calvin Instit 4.4 who confesseth in the Primitive Christian times they chose one called a Bishop who was as Consul in Rome and the Consuls in Rome were above the Senators in place and power And Mr Beza and Mr Moulin come neerer to us and truth who confesse that either in or very neer after the Apostles times Bishops ruled in the Christian Church where they deny not Bishops to have been in the Apostles times onely they will not lest they should offend or lose by the truth say what they did generally read and I am perswaded did beleeve that Bishops were in the Apostles times yet in the other they are plain and peremptory saying Bishops were soon after the Apostles and could they have proved it they would as readily and as plainly have said the Bishops were not in the Apostles times but soon after but by an artificial blinding or hood-winking the truth they chose rather to expresse it as they doe Whereas Bucer Professor of Divinity in Cambridge in K. Edward the Sixth's time speaks as plainly as truly saying From the first Ordination and perpetual Institution of Christian Churches by the Apostles it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to have in them Bishops and in the Book of Consecration of Bishops made and set forth in the fifth and sixth of K. Edward the Sixth and confirmed by Parliament 8 Eliz. 1. it is thus said It is evident to all men reading the Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ viz. Bishops Presbyters and Deacons And if it were as evident that the Apostles either instituted or commended a Presbyterian Government and not Episcopal may it not be as a wonder and astonishment that so soon as ever the Apostles were deceased or the most of them the whole Christian Church dispersed through the whole world would suddenly conspire and convene to change that Government instituted or commended by the Apostles into Episcopacy And that Episcopacie and not Presbyterie was the Government generally I may say universally used in the Christian Churches from the times of the Apostles besides the authorities above mentioned I appeale to all the best Histories Moreover it cannot be denied but that this Government came into this Kingdom with the first planting of the Gospel here which was almost 1500. years agoe and hath been ever since established by our best Lawes but hath been confessed by the best learned of the Assembly not to be repugnant to Gods Word and by the most learned and strict Presbyterians Calvin Beza Monlin acknowledged to be either in or soon after the Apostles times and by the full consent of the best Historians proved to be instituted if not by Christ yet by his holy Apostles and by and from them spread over all the Christian world and yet to the end this holy Government may be abolished this detestable sin of Sacrilege must be committed The end and the means we see meet but then well weigh and consider that if it be damnation to him that doth ill to a good end as the Apostle testifieth then what damnation shall attend them who to such an end as the abolishing so holy or divine a Government as Episcopacy shall wilfully commit so detestable a sin as Sacrilege But the second end perchance is better which is as professed to pay necessary debts a good end I confesse I would it were practised by all yea or in this case But would not the Excise and Compositions have discharged that debt had the money been rightly imployed as it was pretended I pray remember that Charles Martell of France under pretence of pay for the Holy War seised on the Church Revenues and though he promised restitution yet was proclaimed by the best Historians to be a notorious and a damnable Sacrilegist But how ever the ends meet perchance there is some great cause that moved or provoked the two Houses to this selling yes and the cause is expressed for this late War was promoted by the Archbishops and Bishops and in favour of them or their adherents and dependents I confesse it seems strange to me that their Lands should be sold for what was done in favour of them who know not by whom this favour is done neither are their favourers once impeached for the favourable act for suppose one doe an evill act in favour of or for Mr Speakers sake who never desired nor acknowledged the favour shall Mr Speakers lands be sold away for this And yet more strange it is that their lands should be sold because the War was in favour of their adherents and dependents But it is said that the Bishops promoted this War and yet not said who nor when nor how but may not that more truly be said which I would not add were it not visible and apparently known to all that some one at the least of the Bishops have stood with and by the two Houses in this War For hath there been wanting one who hath sought and received dangerous wounds as it is reported and proclaimed and that in the War for the two Houses against the King For which he hath not only by suit obtained a pardon for his former disservice so called but bath

and by the divine acceptation of God in Christ which is sufficient in this case Argum. 11 But why then had not the Apostles or their immediate successors such lands as well as these Bishops Resp The answer is plaine and easie the reason why the Apostles had not such lands was not because the Apostles or that God would not have accepted them for sure that God that accepted of the feeding and cloathing them would not have denied them a perpetual certain maintenance nor was it because the Christians to their abilities Act. 4. Gal. 1.15 would not have given them lands as it may appeare by that story in the Acts and by that of Saint Paul I bear you record that you would have plucked out your eyes to have given them to me But one reason Saint Chrysosto●e gives that in the first planting of the Gospel the Jewes or Gentiles might perchance have supposed that the Apostles had preached rather for the gaine of their wealth then for the salvation of their soules and who knowes but that Saint Paul to that end spake that sentence 2 Cor. 12.14 I seeke not yours but you But because the Fathers of the Primitive Church are not heard in these times I desire you to heare Saint Paul who for himselfe and the other Apostles gives a more full answer hereunto 1 Cor. 9.11 Ver. 12. when he thus speaks If we have sewen unto you spiritual ●●●●gs is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things And then If others be partakers of this power over you are not we rather Neverthelesse we have not used this power but suffer all things lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ In which words the Apostle evidently sheweth that the reaping or maintenance out of their carnal things should be according to that which was sowed viz. spiritual things and what proportion of carnal things can compensate for things spiritual let the spiritual and not the carnal man judge Now the full Answer to this Objection which S. Chrysestome might happily collect out of this Text is this though we the Apostles have power to require all this as due not of Almes but morally as the seventh Verse of that Chapter shewes it yet we use it not lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ thereby And yet a second reason that the Apostles had not lands for their maintenance lay in the time wherein the Apostles lived who at that time had not onely no continuing city or certaine place of abode but wandred about Heb. 11.37 being afflicted and tormented Againe the Romans the chief lords of all were so far from letting them enjoy any lands at that time that they hardly afforded them the aire wherein to breath and live distinguish therefore of times for it holds both in Church and State aliter in constitutâ vivitur aliter in constituendâ At first planting of either Church or State there is neither the same Privilege nor the same wealth but each grow by Gods blessing in time And what is here spoken of the maintenance may in part hold for the Government of the Church that is that when Saint Paul wrote from whom the most is gathered both for the Presbyterian and Independent the Church was not then divided into Parishes and Provinces no nor into publikely known Congregations and therefore it being under bloudy Persecution it could not have the face of a visible Church Whereupon though then the Apostle and Apostolical men ordained by him exercised Episcopal authority yet it could not nor indeed ought it to have been in that height of visible power as no doubt Saint Paul himself would and those Apostolical men did use it so soon as God had added greater numbers to the Church and given them favour with the Civil Magistrate the Apostle both for that and all succeeding times leaving this one general Rule 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order And can any indifferent man hold it just and reasonable that when all other men grow in state and wealth the Church-men alone should decrease and be abused What if I should urge to any Gentleman or others Your Predecessors two or three hundred years since had not such estates therefore neither should you but be content with that which your Forefathers enjoyed would you hold this Argument to be of force I doe not in your cases and I pray be you as just to us But that I be not too tedious and irksome in this arguing let me make an indifferent motion which may well serve for this Objection be you now Christians as they were in the times of the Apostles and the Bishops will be very well content with such maintenance as the Apostles had in the times of those Christians for then the Christians sold their lands and goods and laid the price thereof at the Apostles feet which if you hold unfit now to be done as I doe then I pray conceive it as unreasonable to reduce them now to the indigency of the Apostles when all the land besides God be praised enjoyes plenty which the two Houses have found both in City and Countrey Argum. 12 But other Reformed Churches have not such Lands and why this in England rather then they Resp Neither have they perchance Bels or Chancels c. what then Must these downe in England therefore 2. Perchance they had lands but as they complaine they are taken away by Church-robbers 3. The time and state wherein they live haply will not so well bear it But 4. would not those Churches accept of Lands if time the State and Benefactors would afford it And is thine eye evil in Scotland because God is good to us in England The Commons in Germany and France live like Boors and Peasants and the Nobles in Russia and Turkie like slaves and vassals Hold you this a good Argument therefore it should be no otherwise in England We are no more bound in England to live without Lands because other Churches have none then other Churches are bound to live upon lands because we have them every Church or State are in these cases to be governed and live by their owne Laws and Customes 1 Cor. 11.16 and hitherto God be praised We have no such Custome no nor all the Churches of God Argum. 13 Some have argued that the Lands given to Bishops in England are held per Baroniam which Baronies with their Votes in Parliament being taken away by an Act the lands are or may likewise be taken away Resp That they may likewise be taken away as their Votes were in Parliament or that by power they can be taken away is not my dispute but whether they may justly and lawfully be taken and sold and then to your Argument though it be out of my sphere so far as it is a title in Law I submit this Answer First if that learned Antiquary and diligent searcher of Historie and Records G●●ssar ad