Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	bishop_n	distinct_a	presbyter_n	2,893	5	10.6560	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77860	Reasons shewing the necessity of reformation of the publick [brace]1. doctrine, 2. worship, [double brace] 3. rites and ceremonies, 4. church-government, and discipline, reputed to be (but indeed, not) established by law. Humbly offered to the serious consideration of this present Parliament. By divers ministers of sundry counties in England.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1660 (1660)	Wing B5678; Thomason E764_4; ESTC R205206	61,780	69

elected there can be legally and regularly no succession of Bishops There is no necessity of such a Consequence nor of making more Archbishops or Deans and Chapters or continuing of any such if it shall please the King and Parliament by any Act or Statute to appoint any other way and course of Election and Consecration of Bishops Which is as easie to be done as any thing else Enacted in Parliament there being no Divine Right so much as pretended unto for such Election or Consecration as of late was used in England 2. Whereas it is of late much insisted upon that Episcopacy is not only an Office of Precedency and Presidency above other Presbyters and Ministers given to them by the free Election of the rest to regulate order and act things agreed upon by the Presbytery joyned with them as the Commander in chief in an Army as the Capital Justice in a Court or as the Speaker in either House of Parliament but that it is a distinct and specifical Order by Divine Right Superiour to all other Presbyters which Order onely is Authorized to exercise such things as none else may medle with We say that this in England was never at all arrogated by any Bishops till of very late times 2. The things they make peculiar to Bishops ratione Ordinis are sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction as if none had power in either of these but themselves neither of which even they who pretend to derive their Episcopacy from the Apostles ever undertook to make good by any solid Antiquity Yea 3. those very Antiquities which they allege are either spurious or else speak nothing either of sole Ordination or of sole Jurisdiction but rather the contrary as might easily be made out But we tye our selves to speak to these particulars only as said to be made out by Law 3. This was never yielded by any Law of England nor by the Book of Ordination For however that Book established in 5.6 Edw. 6. and after repeal by Queen Mary confirmed in 8. Eliz. cap. 1. Yet when it speaks of the making of Bishops it calls that a Consecration and not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters which it calleth Priests calling one The form and manner of Ordering Deacons the other The form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this Word Ordering and calls it The form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop Which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never meant to make Bishops or as Dr. Gauden calls it Legal Episcopacy to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ's and his Apostles institution Superiour to a Presbyter It is indeed an easie matter for a bold man to contradict this and to say that the antient Writers call the Solemn form of consecrating a Bishop by no other name then that of Ordinatio Episcopi but it seems it is not so easie to prove what he saith For he produceth no such proof at all so that this confident saying touching such Ordination of Bishops affirmed by his Adversary to be a Novel Popish Position that this is Not Novel he is sure is but a meer shift and a put off no confutation at all And where he is pleased afterwards to urge the Preface to the Book of Ordination Dr Heylin Certam Epistol p. 143. which mentioneth three Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and one passage in one of the Prayers at the Consecration of an Archbishop or Bishop to prove that Episcopacy is a distinct Order from and Superiour to that of Presbyters he must be intreated to take notice 1. That the Preface alleged saith not as he speaks these THREE Orders but onely these Orders of Ministers c. But even there by way of explanation the Preface calls them Offices which Offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation c. now we deny them not to be distinct Offices only we cannot admit in his sense the Office of a Bishop to be a distinct Order above Presbytery For even in that very Preface it speaks of Consecrating not of Ordaining a Bishop as the Book all along doth of Ordering that is Ordaining of Deacons and Priests but never of other then of Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops that is of setting them over the rest in degree to be the mouth and hand of the rest in executing what by the rest is agreed upon And 2. touching that Prayer he mentions wherein Episcopacy is called in that Part of the Book it self which concerneth Bishops an Order This is but a wyre-drawing of the Words and a meer wresting of them The Words of the Prayer are these Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Now how do these words prove a Bishop to be a distinct Order when speaking of the person then to be made Bishop it is not said he is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And seeing he onely talks of antient Writers but produceth none we shall make bold to mind him what is the sense of the Canon-Law which he pleads to be still in force in England if Lindwood that great English Canonist be of any value with him who saith expresly Episcopatus non est Ordo Yea the very Book of Ordination in ordering of Priests appointing 1 Tim. 3. to be then read If any desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth an honest work A Bishop must be blameless c. doth more then tacitly admit a Bishop and a Presbyter not to differ in Order To which we shall add the judgement of an antient Archbishop of Canterbury even Anselmus himself an high man for the Pope and a great Contestor with the King for Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction even beyond the bounds of the Laws of this Land who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians where Paul cap. 1. saluteth but two Orders Bishops and Deacons on the word Episcopis saith thus Episcopis id est Presbyteris Episcopos namque pro Presbyteris more suo posuit Non enim plures Episcopi in una civitate erant neque Presbyteros intermitteret ut ad Diaconos descenderet Sed dignitatem excellentiam Presbyterorum declarat dum eosdem qui Presbyteri sunt Episcopos esse manifestat Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedio facium est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Evangelium rumperet Nam est Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos qui sederunt in Centuria 3. Presbyterum unum de se elecium in Excelsiori loco Gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si Exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi elegant

de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct

Order to have the sole power of Ordination which hath been proved not to be so It is requisite that herein also some Declaration be made to the contrary that we may not give offence to the Protestant Churches with whom we hold Communion nor admit of such an untruth among our selves to which all must subscribe 4. As for Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops in which the same Scripture 1 Tim. 3. is read again that was used in Ordaining of Priests which sheweth that the Compilers of that Book never dreamt of a distinction of Orders between Bishops and Presbyters we onely say thus much That there being no warrant in Scripture for Archbishops but onely from the practice of after-times whereby they were by men onely called to that height we see no necessity of their Consecration no more doth our Church for that it makes the same Consecration which is for Bishops to serve for Archbishops Upon this account we see no reason why a solemn Oath of Canonical Obedience to the Archbishop should then be administred to every person that is to be Bishop The Exception against that Expression of the Archbishop in the act of Consecration of a Bishop Take the Holy Ghost being spoken to before here we onely make the same profession against it which there we did and so leave it and proceed to the next Head of Ecclesiastical Government which is Jurisdiction II. Of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IT hath been of late the claim of our Bishops to have in them the sole power of Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical which is now pleaded for so boldly and openly by their Advocates and such as asspire to the same Office and Dignity that it is now made though very groundlesly an Essential part of Episcopacy by Divine Right witness among other the Author of an Answer to a Letter sent to Doctor Turner to Oxford who alledgeth several Scriptures viz. 1 Tim. 5.19 Tit. 1.5 to prove that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is in Bishops onely To the same effect the Author of another Book intituled Church-Lands not to be sold So others But seeing Bishops can exercise no Jurisdiction in England but what is allowed by the Laws of the Land as we shall after make it manifest to every eye we shall not much trouble our selves at this time with their claim by Divine Right Howbeit lest they should think there is nothing to be said against it we desire it may be considered which is known to all that have seriously consulted Antiquity that in the Primitive Ages of the Church there was no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction exercised but by the Bishops and their Consistory of Presbyters together Even in Rome it self there was even in Cyprians time a number of the Clergy who acted with the Bishop as well as elsewhere Thence grew by Corruption their Conclave of Cardinals And from the same Original here in England first Monks afterwards Deans and Chapters were joyned with the Bishops to assist both in Ordination and Jurisdiction although of late times they joyned with them in neither Such was the Pride of the one and the Idleness of the other Which last his late Majesty was content to part withal They being of no use but onely to confirm Grants of the Bishop as he confirmed theirs keeping sundry Benefices of Cure in their hands and seldome or never residing on them under pretence of residence near the Bishop whereas the Canons of 1603. require them to reside on their Benefices with Cure all but the space of one moneth in the year * Can. 44. unless he be a Dean Master Warden or chief Governour of a Cathedral or Church who by Can. 42. is to reside there ninety days Conjunctim or Divisim This is spoken not to justifie the Continuation of Deans and Chapters or to move for reducing them to the ancient course of corrupt times in making them alone to be the Adjutors of Bishops for Jurisdiction is as proper to all the Presbytery as to those Cathedral Presbyters But we urge it meerly and onely to demonstrate the falshood of that upstart Assertion that Bishops have sole power of Jurisdiction And that we may contract our selves within necessary brevity considering to whom we make our Address we shall give but one instance more and that shall be out of the Book of Ordination in the Ordering of Priests Where among other Questions propounded by the Bishop to him that is to be ordained Priest this is one Will you reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you following with a glad mind and will their godly Admonition and submitting your self to their godly Judgements To this each of them that are to be ordained answereth I will so do the Lord being my helper By this it is evident that more beside Bishops have power of Jurisdiction If it be said this may be meant of ARchdeacons Deans c. that have it under the Bishop what is this to the intituling of all Ministers thereunto It is answered out of the Rubrick before the Communion whereby every Curate is authorized to keep off from that Sacrament every open and notorious Liver by whom the Congregation is offended until he have openly declared himself to have truely repented and amended his former wicked life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied Yea where he finds hatred and variance he is to suspend from the Sacrament the party refusing to be reconciled to the other and be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath transgressed against him and to make amends for that he himself hath offended What is this but as much and as high Jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular If this suffice not take one passage more In the same Book of Ordination in the Ordering of Priests The Bishop asketh every person whom he ordaineth a Priest this Question Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the DISCIPLINE of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same c. To which each Priest is to answer I will so do by the help of the Lord. What can be a more clear evidence of the intention of our Church in the first Reformation then to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and in the Administration of it How long Bishops and others under them have had Ecclesiastical Consistories to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to us is not certain Yet it appeareth by Sir Edw. Cook ● Instit ca. 53. p. 2259. that William the Conqueror was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln did prohibit Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts wherein before-time all Ecclesiastical matters were heard and determined to intermedle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them to the Bishops Thence some conclude that Bishops have held Courts ever since William 1. Others finding no

to be sinners Accordingly he took three Verses out of Psal 14. one out of Psal 140. another out of Psal 10. another out of Isa 59. All which the Old Translators unadvisedly thrust into the 14. Psalm as parts of that one Scripture I forbear to mention other Psalms wherein sometimes words sometimes whole verses are left out and much of the rest is very improperly and impertinently translated which in the Leiturgy provided for Scotland was redressed yet the Book for sundry other defects impertinencies and redundances was refused This makes sport for Papists and Atheists to find how much our Translations publickly used do enterfere and jar and how corrupt some of them be Thus of the differences between the old Common-prayer-books confirmed by Law and the present Common-prayer-books so much magnified and adored not only by the common sort but by too many of those who pretend to learning and skill in the Publike Offices of the Church of England but abuse the people yea Magistracy and God himself therein For still the Preface of the Book runs thus That nothing is enjoyned to be read but that which is the pure word of God or that which is evidently grounded thereupon which as our bold Masters have ordered the matter is false and a meer cheat put upon the people of God Having thus given a taste of the Differences between the Old and New Books I hold it needful to shew how unsafe it might be hereupon to conclude no more but this Then let the present Book of Common-prayer be compared with the old that was established and be reformed by it For even in the Book that was established by Parliament there are sundry incongruous and uncomely expressions unwarrantable passages and some gross mistakes of the Scripture it self especially in the Translations of the Epistles and Gospels Which Translation used in the Book of Common-prayer is as antient as the 35. of Hen. 8. and used first in private Primmars being translated out of the Mass books and other Offices of the Romish Church for want of a better Translation in the Reign of Edward the sixth For Example G●sp The old Translation on 2 Sund. after Epiph. When men be drunk But in the new When men have well drunk Epist Indeed Dr. Prideaux saith all these are amended in the Kings New Transtation of the Bible But what is this to the Service-book in which these corrupt passages are still printed and pressed to be read in Divine Service on 4 Sund. in Lent Mount Sinai is Agar in Arabia and hordereth upon the City which is now called Jerusalem a gross mistake both of Scripture and Topography The new Translation therefore renders it thus This Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Hierusalem which now is He saith not Mount Sinai is Agar for that is not so But Hagar is mount Sinai that is a representation or figure of it Nor doth the Apostle say that mount Sinai in Arabia bordered upon Hierusalem For that is false Arabia being many hundred miles distant from Hierusalem And the Mount whereof St. Paul speaks was a type of it not bordering on it Epist on Palm-Sunday He was found in his apparel as a man In the new He was found in fashion as a man The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports not apparel but the form or figure which includeth the real substance and true nature of the thing whereof it is a form Epist on 16 Sun after Trin. Which is Father of all that is called father in heaven and in earth Then the Father must needs be Father to himself The new Translation therefore renders it Of whom the whole family of heaven and earth is named So the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Much more might be added not only against the present unestablished Leiturgy but against that which was confirmed But this shall suffice For my intention neither is nor ever was to destroy or cast off all Forms but only to shew some grounds of exception against this And seeing this is so much cried up that the most place all their Devotion and Religion in it and come little short of the Israelites in abusing of the brazen Serpent which by Gods own command was erected in the Wilderness Authority may consider whether it be not honourable safe and necessary to deal with both Books as Hezekiah did with that Idolized Serpent and carefully to provide a better in the room as that good King did in reforming the whole Publick Service of God there being now far better means and fairer opportunities of so doing than in the times of compiling the Antient Leiturgy by those Reverend and Renowned Bishops and Matyrs that did compose it ROM 10.22 Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth Having reprinted the foregoing Sheet we must now go on in the same Order and Method as was before promised to observe some more incongruous and unworthy passages all which call for a New Form of Liturgy in the rest of the Kalendar Rubricks and Body of the Book it self I. In the KALENDAR THe Kalendar is either that which appoints Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy-days to speak in the Common-prayer-book Language or that which in each Month sheweth what Chapters are to be daily read on week-days according to the days of the month and is prefixed in all Editions to the Book it self In the Proper Lessons appointed for Holy-days The Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. omitteth proper Lessons for the Conversion of Paul because that was then no Holy-day but abrogated by the Act of 5.6 Edw. 6. ca. 3. Therefore in the Common Kalendar then established the first Lessons for that day being Jan. 25. as being a Common-day of the Week were Gen. 46. and Gen. 47. But in the Book of 1 Eliz. these two Chapters are laid by and Wisd 5 and 6. put in the room This however toucht upon in the printed Sheet is here again taken notice of to shew by this among other arguments that the Book then printed was not confirmed by 1. Eliz. 2. because that Act admits of no alterations of Lessons on Holy-days or other days save only on Sundays Yet is this also thrust into the New Scotish Leiturgy and that day made an Holy-day again And whereas in all the proper Lessons for Holy-days in 5.6 Edw. 6. only All Saints day had for those Lessons Wisd 3 and 5. and all other Holy-day Lessons were Lessons out of the Canonical Books the Kalendar of 1 Eliz. hath appointed 20. more Apocryphal Chapters for Holy-days and thrust out so many Canonical Chapters that by the Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. were appointed for those very days as for instance   Kalendar 5.6 Edw. Kal. of 1 Eliz. On the Purification None yet on Feb. 1 which is the Day Exod. 12. Exod. 13. Wisd 9. Wisd 12. On St. Mathias None yet on Feb. 25. which is the Day Numb 33. Numb 34. Wisd 19. Ecclus. 3. On the