Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	divine_a	faith_n	infallible_a	2,020	5	9.1150	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31771	Basiliká the works of King Charles the martyr : with a collection of declarations, treaties, and other papers concerning the differences betwixt His said Majesty and his two houses of Parliament : with the history of his life : as also of his tryal and martyrdome.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Fulman, William, 1632-1688.; Perrinchief, Richard, 1623?-1673.; Gauden, John, 1605-1662.; England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I)	1687 (1687)	Wing C2076; ESTC R6734	1,129,244	750

Doctor Reynolds against Hart and by other Writers 4. You affirm but upon very weak proofs that they were from Ephesus and Crete removed to other places Some that have exactly out of Scripture compared the times and orders of the several journeys and stations of Paul and Timothy have demonstrated the contrary concerning this particular 5. Whereas you say it is manifest from the 2. Tim. iv 9. and Tit. iii. 12. that they were called away from these places it doth no more conclude that they were not Bishops there or that they might as well be called Bishops of other Churches than it may be concluded from the attendance of the Divines at Westminster that they are no longer Parsons or Vicars of their several Parishes Lastly for the Postscripts of these Epistles though His Majesty lay no great weight upon them yet He holdeth them to be of great antiquity and therefore such as in question of fact where there appears no strong evidence to weaken their belief ought not to be lightly rejected Neither doth His Majesty lay any weight at all upon the Allegory or Mystery of the denomination in the next point concerning the Angels of the Churches as you mistake in your Answer thereunto wherein His Majesty finds as little satisfaction as in the last point before The strength of His Majesties instance lay in this That in the Judgement of all the Ancient and the best Modern Modern Writers and by many probabilities in the Text it self the Angels of the Seven Churches were personoe Singulares and such as had a Prelacy as well over Pastors as People within their Churches and that is in a word Bishops And you bring nothing of moment in your Answer to infirm this You say truly indeed That those Epistles were written in Epistolary style and so as Letters to collective or representative Bodies use to be directed to one but intended to the Body Which when you have proved you are so far from weakning that you rather strengthen the Argument to prove those Angels to have been single persons as when His Majesty sendeth a Message to His two Houses and directs it to the Speaker of the House of Peers His intending it to the whole House doth not hinder but that the Speaker to whom it is directed is one single person still Yet His Majesty cannot but observe in this as in some parts of your Answer how willing you are versari in generalibus and how unwillingly to speak out and to declare plainly and directly what your opinion is concerning those Angels who they were whether they were as the great Antagonist of Episcopacy Salmasius very peremptorily sit ergo hoc fixum c. affirmeth the whole Churches or so many individual Pastors of the gathered Churches in those Cities or the whole College of Presbyters in the respective Churches or the singular and individual Presidents of these Colleges for into so many several Opinions are those few divided among themselves who have divided themselves from the common and received judgement of the Christian Church In the following discourse you deny that the Apostles were to have any Successors in their Office and affirm that there were to be onely two Orders of ordinary and standing Officers in the Church wiz Presbyters and Deacons What His Majesty conceiveth concerning the Successors of the Apostles is in part already declared viz. That they have no Successors in eundem gradum in respect of those things that were extraordinary in them as namely the measure of their Gifts the extent of their Charge the infallibility of their Doctrine and which is sundry times mentioned as a special Character of an Apostle properly so called the having seen Christ in the flesh But in those things that were not extraordinary and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times as the Office of Teaching and the power of Governing are they were to have and had Successors and therefore the Learned and Godly Fathers and Councils of old times did usually style Bishops the Successors of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat And as to the standing Offices of the Church although in the places by you cited Phil. i. 1. i Tim. iii. 8. there be no mention of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters but of the two Orders only of Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons yet it is not thereby proved that there is no other standing Office in the Church besides For there appear two other manifest reasons why that of Bishops might not be so proper to be mentioned in those places the one because in the Churches which the Apostles themselves planted they placed Presbyters under them for the Office of Teaching but took upon themselves the care and reserved in their own hands the power of Governing in those Churches for a longer or shorter time as they saw it expedient for the propagating of the Gospel before they set Bishops over them and so it may be probable that there was as yet no Bishop set over the Church of Philippi when Saint Paul writ his Epistle to them The other because in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus the persons to whom he wrote being themselves Bishops there was no need to write any thing concerning the choice or qualification of any other sort of Officers than such as belonged to their ordination or inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons only and not Bishops Concerning the Ages succeeding the Apostles 1. His Majesty believeth that altho Faith as it is an assent unto Truth supernatural or of Divine revelation reacheth no further than the Scriptures yet in matters of fact humane Testimonies may beget a Faith though humane yet certain and infallible as by the credit of Histories we have an infallible Faith that Aristotle was a Greek Philosopher and Cicero a Roman Orator 2. The darkness of those times in respect of the History of the Church is a very strong Argument for Episcopacy which notwithstanding the darkness of the times hath found so full and clear a proof by the unquestioned Catalogues extant in ancient Writers of the Bishops of sundry famous Cities as Jerusalem Antioch Alexandria Rome Ephesus c. in a continued succession from the Apostles as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like 3. In Clement's Testimony cited by you His Majesty conceiveth you make use of your old fallacy from the promiscuous use of the words to infer the indistinction of the things for who can doubt of Clement's Opinion concerning the distinct Offices of Bishops and Presbyters who either readeth his whole Epistle or considereth that he himself was a Bishop in that sense even by the confession of Videlius himself a man never yet suspected to favour Bishops who saith that after the death of Linus and Cletus Clemens solus Episcopi nomen retinuit quia jam invaluerat distinctio Episcopi Presbyteri And for Ignatius Epistles though some of late out of their partial

Witnesses cross-examined though they attended above twelve months to do it and if some men had not believed that their general and violent expressions affirming this to be a Plot equal to that of the Gun-powder-Treason would sooner be believed if it were not publickly discussed but left to every mans fancy to heighten according to his own Inclinations and had not feared that if the whole Examinations taken and not such only as they pleased to select had come to light it would have appeared by the Examination of Master Goring purposely supprest with what intention that mention of bringing up the Army was made with what earnestness it was opposed and with what suddenness it was deserted and many extenuations of and many other contradictions to what is now published would have appeared and this impossible Stratagem with which they have so much disturbed Our Subjects and reproached Us could never have been made so much use of After all this readiness in Us to do whatsoever they desired of Us and patience in suffering them to do whatsoever they pleased to Us We gave them warning that if there were any more good Bills which they desired might pass for the benefit of Our Subjects We wished they might be made ready against such a time when We resolved according to Our Promise to Our Scots Subjects with which they were well acquainted to repair into Our Kingdom of Scotland to settle the unhappy Differences there Upon this We were earnestly desired by both Our Houses of Parliament to deferr Our Journey thither as well upon pretence of the Danger if both Armies were not first disbanded as that they had many good Laws in readiness for the settling the Differences here We were by their entreaty perswaded to deferr Our Journey to a day agreed on by themselves assuring Our Self that they would think themselves obliged against that time not only to disband Our Armies but so to prepare and digest the business of Parliament that We might have made a Session before Our going But that Malignant Faction was so prevalent that the debate of the Bishops Bill took up most of their time so that neither any care was taken for the disbanding the Army nor any thing done that had any reference to the publick benefit and when the time of Our stay was expired and even the day come themselves had appointed a new Address was made unto Us for a longer stay of fourteen days because the Treaty was not concluded nor the Armies disbanded which was the main ground of Our deferring it before This Suit which was the first We denied them We could not grant there being that necessity with reference to Our Promise and to the expectation of Our Subjects of Scotland that it was not in Our power to satisfie them as We informed both Houses Our self at a Conference and according to that necessity We undertook that Journey not doubting but that when We should have dispatched the Affairs of that Kingdom which We hoped speedily to do and both Our Houses of Parliament should have refreshed themselves in the Visitation of those for whom they had so well provided by Our Favour We should meet again with mutual Confidence one in another and that it would be Our turn then to receive such Testimonies of that Confidence and Affection as We had deserved But the mischievous and indefatigable industry of that Malignant party which had before Our going interrupted that Correspondence which We deserved from Our People had with no less Malice provided for Our reception at Our Return instead of reducing business to that head that the Distractions of the Kingdom might be composed by the due observation and execution of the Laws We found things far more out of order than We left them and Our good Subjects more puzzled to know their Duties Orders had been made in the House of Commons and published in derogation of the Book of Common-Prayer and for suspension of those Laws in force which concerned the Government of the Church and though another Order of the Lords was likewise published according to Law for the due observation of the Laws established and for suppressing those Disorders which were every day breaking out by the faction of mean loose persons against the Divine Service appointed by Law the House of Commons took upon them publickly to declare against that Order because it was only made with the consent of eleven Lords and that nine other Lords did then dissent from it whereas in truth the said Order was made in a full House in January before and only Ordered then by that difference of number to be printed after the House of Commons had made in a very thin House and after it had been rejected by Vote that illegal Order for such alteration in the Church and if in truth it had been then made and but by the odds of two Voices being in pursuance of the Law all men will think it of much more validity than any Order of the House of Commons against the Law which in truth hath no Authority to make any Orders in business of that nature And therefore the publishing of that Order and Declaration of the ninth of September must be confessed by all men to be such a breach and violation of the Privilege of the Peers House besides the Affront offered to Us and injury to Our good Subjects and to the Law by it that before this Parliament was never heard of and was an apparent evidence that they meant the whole Managery of the Kingdom and the Legislative power should be undertaken by the House of Commons without the Consent either of Us or Our Nobility Yet the Execution of this Order was with great Diligence and Animosity pressed upon Our good Subjects and many troubled and imprisoned for not submitting thereunto When they had made this breach upon the Ecclesiastical State they took care under pretence of encouragement of Preaching to erect Lectures in several Parishes and to commend such Lecturers as best suited with their Designs men of no learning no Conscience but furious Promoters of the most dangerous Innovations which were ever induced into any State many of them having taken no Orders yet recommended by Members of either House to Parishes as at Leusham in Kent and many other places And when Mechanick persons have been brought before them for Preaching in Churches and confessed the same the power of these Grand Reformers hath been so great that they have been dismissed without Punishment hardly with Reprehension All persons of Learning and eminency in Preaching of sober and vertuous Conversations and great Examples in their Lives even such as amongst these Men had been of greatest estimation and suffered somewhat for them were discountenanced and such Men principally cherished who boldly and seditiously preached against the Government of the Church against the Book of Common-Prayer against Our Kingly lawful Power and against Our Person many of which were commended to if not imposed upon

call upon us to be particular though we cannot name the Angels nor are satisfied in our judgment that those whom some do undertake to name were intended by the name of Angels in those Epistles yet we say First that these Epistles were sent unto the Churches and that under the expression of this thou dost or this thou hast and the like the Churches are respectively intended for the Sins reproved the Repentance commanded the Punishments threatned ate to be referred to the Churches and not to the singular Angels only and yet we do not think that Salmasius did intend nor do we that in formal denomination the Angels and Candlesticks were the same Secondly The Angels of these Churches or Rulers were a Collective body which we endeavoured to prove by such probabilities as Your Majesty takes no notice of namely the instance of the Church of Ephesus where there were many Bishops to whom the charge of that Church was by St. Paul at his final departure from them committed as also by that expression Rev. xi 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira Which distinction makes it very probable that the Angel is explained under that plurality to you The like to which many expressions may be found in these Epistles which to interpret according to the consentient Evidence of other Scriptures of the New Testament is not Safe only but Solid and Evidential Thirdly These Writings are directed as Epistolary Letters to Collective Bodies usually are that is to One but intended to the Body which Your Majesty illustrateth by Your sending a Message to Your Two Houses and directing it to the Speaker of the House of Peers which as it doth not hinder we confess but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is always the same person or if he were that therefore because Your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least And so Your Majesty hath given clear instance that tho these Letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetual Moderators For the several opinions specified in Your Majesties Paper three of them by easy and fair accommodation as we declared before are soon reduced and united amongst themselves and may be holden without recess from the received Judgment of the Christian Church by such as are far from meriting that Aspersion which is cast upon the Reformed Divines by Popish Writers that they have divided themselves from the Common and received Judgment of the Christian Church which Imputation we hope was not in Your Majesties intention to lay upon us until it be made clear that it is the common and received Judgment of the Christian Church that now is or of that in former Ages that the Angels of the Churches were Bishops having Prelacy as well over Pastors as People within their Churches In the following Discourse we did deny that the Apostles were to have any Successors in their Office and affirmed only Two Orders of ordinary and standing Officers in the Church viz. Presbyters and Deacons Concerning the former of which Your Majesty refers to what you had in part already declared That in those things which were extraordinary in the Apostles as namely the Measure of their Gifts c. They had no Successors in eundem gradum but in those things which were not extraordinary as the Office of Teaching and Power of Governing which are necessary for the Service of the Church in all times they were to have and had Successors Where Your Majesty delivers a Doctrine new to us namely that the Apostles had Successors into their Offices not into their Abilities For besides that Succession is not properly into Abilities but into Office we cannot say that one succeeds another in his Learning or Wit or Parts but into his Room and Function we conceive that the Office Apostolical was extraordinary in whole because their Mission and Commission was so and the service or work of Teaching and Governing being to continue in all times doth not render their Office Ordinary as the Office of Moses was not rendered Ordinary because many works of Government exercised by him were re-committed to the standing Elders of Israel And if they have Successors it must be either into their whole Office or into some parts Their Successors into the whole however differing from them in measure of Gifts and peculiar Qualifications must be called Apostles the same Office gives the same Denomination and then we shall confess that Bishops if they be their Successors in Office are of Divine Institution because the Apostolical Office was so If their Successors come into part of their Office only the Presbyters may as well be called their Successors as the Bishops and so indeed they are called by some of the ancient Fathers Irenoeus Origen Hierome and others Whereas in truth the Apostles have not properly Successors into Office but the ordinary Power of Teaching and Governing which is setled in the Church for continuance is instituted and settled in the hands of ordinary Officers by a New Warrant and Commission according to the rules of Ordination and Calling in the Word which the Bishop hath not yet produced for himself and without which he cannot challenge it upon the general allusive Speeches used by the Fathers without scruple And whereas Your Majesty numbers the extent of their work amongst those things which were extraordinary in the Apostles we could wish that You had declared whether it belong to their Mission or Vnction for we humbly conceive that their Authoritative Power to do their Work in all places of the World did properly belong to their Mission and consequently that their Office as well as their Abilities was extraordinary and so by Your Majesties own Concession not to be succeeded into by the Bishops As to the Orders of standing Officers of the Church Your Majesty doth reply That although in the places cited Phil. i. 1. i Tim. iii. 8. there be no mention but of the two Orders only of Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons yet it is not thereby proved that there is no other standing Office in the Church besides Which we humbly conceive is justly proved not only because there are no other named but because there is no rule of Ordaining any third no Warrant or way of Mission and so Argument is as good as can be made a non causa ad non effectum for we do not yet apprehend that the Bishops pretending to the Apostolick Office do also pretend to the same manner of Mission nor do we know that those very many Divines that have asserted two Orders only have concluded it from any other grounds than the Scriptures cited There appear as your Majesty saith two other manifest Reasons why the Office of Bishops might not be so proper to be mentioned in those places And we humbly conceive there is a third more manifest than those two