Selected quad for the lemma: rest_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
rest_n	bishop_n	church_n	presbyter_n	2,348	5	10.4986	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53956	The good old way, or, A discourse offer'd to all true-hearted Protestants concerning the ancient way of the Church and the conformity of the Church of England thereunto, as to its government, manner of worship, rites, and customs / by Edward Pelling.	Pelling, Edward, d. 1718.	1680 (1680)	Wing P1082; ESTC R24452	117,268	146

Age we find Pothinus to have been Bishop of Lyons and Clement of Rome and Denys the Areopagite of Athens and another Denys of Corinth who mentions Philippus Bishop of Gortina and Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus I say though the Names of these and other Primitive Bishops in the very next Century to the Apostles do still stand upon good Record yet 't is not modest ingenuous or reasonable for any Man to require us either to nominate every one of the Apostles Successors in all parts of the World or to lay down our pretensions of a setled Episcopacy in the Ages next to them especially since Ireneus hath told us that he was able though Iren. ubi suprà Idem affirmat Tertullianus de Praesc Adv. Her we are not to reckon up the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches Were there no exact List of the former Prelates of England yet I hope it would not follow that these Churches have not been all along under the Government of Episcopacy It will trouble the best Antiquary to tell us all the old Bishops among the ancient Britains and Scots and yet we know that they had Bishops before the Saxons came in hither which was about Anno 450 and many Ages before the Bishops of Rome claimed any Jurisdiction in this Island 3. But then supposing a Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches nevertheless it is Objected Thirdly that Antiquity is no sufficient witness of a setled Episcopacy in the first Ages because the Ancients speak ambiguously and doubtfully of those Bishops calling them sometimes Presbyters so that we have no certain account whether those Men were superiour to Presbyters in Order Power and Authority or whether they were above them only in a Degree of Honour like the Chair-men in Assemblies or like the Archontes at Athens and the Ephori at Sparta who had an equal power but gave a deference of Honour and Dignity to one above the rest Now I cannot but wonder that Men should invent doubts where there are none for nothing is more clear then that the Bishops thus succeeding the Apostles had a Superiority of Power over the rest of the Clergy not only to ordain but also to judge and censure them without any Authority given them by a Bench of Presbyters though not always without their Aid and Advice For the removing of this third Scruple then these five things are to be noted 1. That in many of the writers of the first and second Age after Apostles we find a plain distinction between Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct Orders 2. That in not one of these writers can we find that this Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters was thought then what ever was imagined in after-times to be founded on any act vote or consent of the Church as bestowing this Power upon them 3. But on the contrary that the care of all Ecclesiastical Can. Ap. 39. matters was acknowledged then to belong to the Bishops that Presbyters were charged to obey the Bishops in all things and to do nothing without them or contrary to their Sentence is plain and evident out of Ignatius and other writers of that Age and all this was grounded upon the Sacredness and Superiority of their Power which they all owned to have been derived to them not from the Presbytery but from God and Christ by Divine appointment and institution and through the hands of the Apostles who left them for their Successors Suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes as Ireneus said delivering to Iren. l. 3. c. 3. them their own Office Power and Authority 4. Therefore whereas it is alleaged that a Father or two of that Age do sometimes comprehend Bishops under the general Name of Presbyters it is granted that the Prelates were so humble and modest as upon occasion to stile themselves Presbyters thereby giving a deference of Honour to those as were such only But yet they looked upon the Offices to be distinct and saith St. Clemens Ep. ad Cor. pag 57. the Apostles fore-seeing that a contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy for that reason they appointed the Orders aforesaid and divided their parts and Offices among them meaning to the Bishop his Office and to the Presbyter his that they being dead other fit Men might succeed them in their Ministry Office or Apostolic function Now how all this can consist with that novel pretence that Presbyters had an equall Power with Bishops and that Bishops had only an Honorary Dignity above Presbyters seemeth to me to be altogether unimaginable 5. But fifthly to put all out of doubt we are beholding to a very Learned Prelate of our Church for Two useful and choice Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Observations which we may well take upon his Credit First that no writer of that Age next to the Apostles did so promiscuously use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as to give the Name of Bishop to one who was only a Presbyter of the second Order Though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters the greater Office including the less yet that a bare Presbyter was ever then called a Bishop is not to be proved by any one instance out of the Monuments of those times Secondly that no writer of that Age did ever give the Name of Presbyter to a Bishop when he reckoned up the Degrees and Orders of Church-men and where he spake of some single Minister then living So that as you shall never find a Presbyer called Bishop so you shall rarely find Bishops called Presbyters and where they are so the writer mentioneth things in a lump not counting up the Degrees orderly nor speaking of one single person of his time With these two positive Assertions I shall rest 'till I see some body to have either the confidence to contradict or the Learning to confute them By what has been briefly said it may appear to any unprejudiced person that in the earliest and first times when Christianity was but green in the World the Churches were under the Government of Bishops We find innumerable instances of it in those Churches planted by St. Paul St. Peter St. John and other Apostles We find in undoubted Monuments of the best Antiquity the very Names mentioned of several Primitive Bishops who presided over some Apostolical Churches and a certain Succession avowed of other Bishops in other Churches whose particular Names do not occur We find that these Bishops were then looked upon as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy sometimes called Bishops in contra-distinction to Presbyters and always own'd as Superiour unto them not by any Ecclesiastical consent or grant for the avoiding of confusion only but by an Antecedent Charter derived to them from the Apostles All which do abundantly satisfie me of the Truth of that declaration of the Church of England that it is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Pref. to the form of

the one hand many Bishops besides the first Twelve were called Apostles so Timothy Titus V. Bovii Scholia in constit Apost And Dr. Hammonds Praef. to St. James Clement and abundance more had the Title given them which is the ground of that conjecture of Albaspinaeus and others that the Canones Constitutiones Apostolorum were the Canons and Constitutions virorum Apostolicorum or of these Secundary Apostles so on the other hand the Primary or Twelve Apostles were looked upon to have been Bishops I am sure when St. Peter moved that one should be chosen to succeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. 20. in the Apostolate of Judas he look'd upon it as a Succession into his Bishoprick or Episcopal Office that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the part of Apostleship which each of the Twelve had namely a Function and Power Episcopal And accordingly were the Epiph. lib. 1. cont Carpocr Ancients wont to style the Apostles Bishops So Epiphanius saith of Peter and Paul that they were Apostles in respect of their Mission and Bishops in respect of their charge And St. Cyprian bids Deacons to remember that our Lord chose Apostles Cypr. ep 65. ad Rogatianum id est Episcopos Praepositos that is Bishops and Governours and tells them moreover that the Apostles ordained Deacons to be Ministers to the Church and to them in the discharge of their Episcopal Office Episcopatûs sui Ecclesiae ministros And St. Austin is positive that when our Lord laid his hands Quaest in vet Nov. Test q. 97. upon the Apostles ordinavit eos Episcopos he ordained them Bishops Besides many more Testimonies to this purpose which are ready at hand and which yet I omit because this was evidently the Sence of the Ancients because they frequently affirm that Bishops are the Apostles successors that they hold their Place and are of their Degree and come after them in their Office and Function and the like which they would not have said had they not judged the Apostles themselves to have been I mean in their ordinary capacity no more and no less than Bishops 2. Which thing had it been well heeded might have prevented some Learned Tracts which have been written against the Divine Right of Episcopacy For to determin that Christ ordained not Episcopacy seemeth to me to be an Affirmation that He ordained not Apostles for they were invested with that Episcopal power which God be blessed hath continued in the Church hitherto notwithstanding all the gainsayings of Core Now this consideration leadeth us on to the next viz. That as the Apostles received this power themselves so it is proveable out of their Writings that they imparted it to others and invested them with their Apostolick or Episcopal Authority To shew this I shall make choice of three special Instances and they are these 1. First though the Scripture doth not expresly totidem verbis tell us that St. James was Bishop of V. Grot. in ep Ja. Jerusalem yet that he was so we are as certain as the most Ancient Records can make us And indeed St. Luke in his History of the Apostles Acts doth yield us such fair probabilities of this thing that the Testimonies of succeeding times seem to be unquestionably True For in Act. 21. 18. we read that when St. Paul was returned from his Circuit to Jerusalem the next day he and his company went in unto James and all the Elders were present Now certainly James would not have been named distinctly and by himself had he not had a preheminence over the College of Elders that were assembled with him St. Luke singles him out as the Person to whom St. Paul did after a particular manner address himself though all the Elders were there present yet they went in unto James intimating plainly that he was the President over that venerable Society And to confirm this it is likewise observable what is related of this St. James at the famous Convention at Jerusalem Act. 15. The occasion of that Synod was a Controversie about the Necessity and Use of Circumcision and great disputes there were about it at the Council But at last when Peter and the rest had given their Opinions of the matter St. James determins it and puts an end to the debate by his decisive Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I determine Judge and give Sentence saith he vers 19. and in his Judgement and Determination all did acquiesce This is a plain Argument that St. James was then Bishop of Jerusalem For otherwise why did St. Paul so particularly apply himself to St. James and why did the other Apostles and even Peter himself rest in the Determination of St. James Nay why should St. James take upon him to decide the Controversie For it is certain that this James was not one of the Twelve Apostles All do agree that he had been a Disciple and some think he was our Lords Cousin others do conceive that he was our Lords Brother in Law the Son of Joseph by his former Wife He is called by way of distinction James the Just And if he was not Bishop of Jerusalem how is it imaginable Euseb l. 2. c. 1. that he should have had at those meetings of the Apostles such Eminence Precedency and Authority The Truth is Eusebius tells that the Apostles declined the Honour of being in the Chair and See of Jerusalem and gave it unto this James as for other Reasons so for this Because he was our Saviours near Relation and so he took the Government of the Church with the Apostles saith Eusebius which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some do understand as if he was only taken into the number of the Apostles having been a bare Disciple before but this is a palpable mistake touching the sence of Eusebius for saith he this James the Just was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of Jerusalem and a World of Testimonies more there are to confirm it Secondly my next instance is in Timothy who was ordained by St. Paul himself the Presbytery concurring as Approvers of his Ordination That he was an Apostolical Prelate we have the Joint Testimonies of all the Primitive Authors which speak of him some affirming him to have been Metropolitan of Asia and all confessing him to have been Bishop of Ephesus Out of those two Epistles which St. Paul sent him it appears that he himself constituted and sixt him at Ephesus requiring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide and settle there 1 Tim. 1. 3. Ephesus was the place of his Residence unless happily the necessities of the Church did oblige him to consult St. Paul for himself was young or the necessities of St. Paul required his attendance for he was his Convert 2. We find that he was to restrain Preachers within the boundaries of c. 1. 3. Truth and to charge some that they should teach no other c. 2. 1. 2. 10. 11. Doctrine He was

Bishop and Presbyter indifferently and promiscuously to those of both Orders There is no necessity for us to admit of a community of Names because those places which seem to infer this Community may be fairly understood though we do appropriate the name of Bishop to a Bishop and the name of Presbyter to a Presbyter This will appear from a particular view of the several Texts which if we can understand without being obliged to confound Names then farwell that grand Principle which the Classical Divines have taken for granted and which is the main and sole Argument to prove a parity and equality of power among all Church Officers above the Degree of Deacons One famous place alleaged is Acts 20. 17. there S. Paul sends to Ephesus and calls the Elders or Presbyters of the Church to him at Miletus and then he saith ver 28. Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 overseers or as it should be rendered Bishops Here say they the Names of Presbyters and Bishops is given to the same men and so the Office and Power of these men was the same But I pray my Masters why so What necessity is there for this positive Assertion Were none with S. Paul at this time but Presbyters Yes Irenaeus who lived near the Apostles time will tell you Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 14. that S. Paul called together both Bishops and Presbyters Were none there but the Clergy of the City of Ephesus Yes the same ancient Writer tells you that the Clergy of all the Cities round about were there too In Mileto convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civit atibus The Bishops and Presbyters were called from Ephesus and from other neighbouring Cities And indeed S. Pauls words do intimate thus much for saith he ver 18. Ye know from the first day I tame into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons Now S. Paul had been with the Bishops and Presbyters of other Cities in Asia besides Ephesus and S. Paul's speaking to them and appealing to their Knowledge of his Behaviour doth plainly argue that they were with him now and that this Convention did consist of very many of the Asiatic Bishops and Presbyters There is then neither necessity nor reason to imagine that onely the inferiour sort of Clergy appeared at the Apostle's Summons much less that he should call them Bishops Rather it is presumable that as he spake to all in general so that he directed his speech chiefly to the most honourable and principal part of that Reverend Assembly and that he called them Bishops who were so in truth and told them that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops over their respective Charges so addressing himself immediately and more particularly to them whose Office it was to superintend the Flock of Christ and to obviate the Incursion of Wolves And thus this place may be fairly understood without confounding of Names without offering violence to History or without robbing the Bishops to give their Title and Honour unto Presbyters because it is reasonable to conceive that the Apostle convened Bishops and Presbyters too and spake directly and immediately to the Prelates of whom 't is likely that Timothy was the chief and to the rest accommodating himself collaterally secundarily and by Grot. in loc way of reflexion Another place which has been hotly urged in this Controversie is that mentioned before in Tit. 1. 5 6 7. where Titus is left in Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might constitute Presbyters city by city if any were blameless the husband of one wife for a bishop must be blameless saith the Apostle Now they who accuse Bishops as Corah did Moses and Aaron for taking too much upon them triumph mightily Num. 16. from this Text as if the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were clearly synonimous But upon due examination we find that the Apostle's Sence doth not at all carry it this way much less is there a necessity for us to understand him after this manner For all that S. Paul requires of Titus here seemeth to be this that he would advance the Presbyters which were under him and ordain them Bishops and dispose of them into Cities fixing each of them to a certain Cure that is such of them as were approved men for a Bishop must be blameless This Sence is easie and the thing is probable For questionless there were many Presbyters now in Crete whether ordain'd by S. Paul before his departure or by Titus himself afterwards I will not dispute but many Presbyters there were it being impossible for Titus to take a due care of so considerable an Island without Assistants 'T is likely therefore that when S. Paul was going away either he left Presbyters behind him or appointed Titus to ordain some to take part of his burthen and advised him not to prefer them hastily but to prove them first and then to ordain them Bishops having made sufficient experiment of their Abilities and Fitness for so great a Trust And in this Epistle sent to him from Nicopolis he minds him of that which he order'd him before viz. that upon proof and tryal made of his Presbyters he should promote them and set them over Cities over every City one for saith he a Bishop must be blameless So that according to this easie and fair Construction there can be no pretence of any confusion of Names because the Apostle doth not mean that Titus should take Deacons or Laymen into the Order of Presbyters but that he should advance such as were Presbyters already into the superiour Order of Bishops and having first consecrated and ordained them to assign each of them his Diocese and City that they might be invested with their Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction too And this seems to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Constitution or Promotion of Presbyters which the Apostle requireth here Other places there are where St. Paul speaketh of Bishops and Deacons only without taking notice of an intermediate rank of Clergy as 1 Tim. 3. he gives instructions for the Ordination of Bishops and Deacons And in Phil. 1. 1. he saluteth the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Whence the Adversaries of Episcopacy do conclude that by Bishops there Presbyters are intended otherwise we must suppose them to be past over wholly which is not to be conceived the Apostle would do But by their good leave I do assert that where the Apostle mentioneth Bishops he ever meaneth such as are truly and properly Bishops not including Presbyters under that Notion And for the clearing of the Objection three things are observable 1. First that when Churches began to be gathered many Epiph. haeres 68. times it happened that two Churches were in one and the same City the one consisting of believing Jews the other