Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	church_n	year_n	4,537	5	4.8354	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87009	An ansvver to the animadversions on the dissertations touching Ignatius's epistles, and the episcopacie in them asserted. By H. Hammond, D.D.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.; Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1654 (1654)	Wing H514; Thomason E814_13; ESTC R202518	185,935	227

Elders or Presbyters here mention'd were properly those whom he calls Bishops Diocesans men of a third order and rank above Dea●ons and Presbyters in the Church Administrations and Government And for those who are properly called Presbyters there were then none in the Church To give colour to this misrable evasion Diss 4. c. 10 11. He discourseth about the government and ordering of Church affairs by Bishops and Deacons In some Churches that were small not yet formed or compleated nor come to perfection at the first planting of them how well this is accommodated to the Church of Corinth which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which himself would have to be a Metropolitical Church being confessedly great numerous furnished with great and large gifts and abilities is seen with half an eye How ill also this sh●ft is accommodated to help in the case for whose service it was first invented is no lesse evident It was to save the sword of Phil. 1. 1. from the throat of Episcopacie he contendeth for That Epistle is directed to the Saints or Church at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Two things doe here trouble our Doctor 1. The mention of more Bishops than one at Philippi 2. The knitting together of Bishops and Deacons as the onely two orders in the Church bringing down●… Episcopacie one degree at least from that height whereto he would exalt it For the first of these he tells you that Philippi was the Metropolitane Church of the Province of Macedonia that the rest of the Churches which had every one their severall Bishops Diocesan we must suppose were all comprised in the mentioning of Philippi so that though the Epistle be precisely●… directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Bishops that were with them must be supposed to be the Bishops of the whole Province of Macedonia because the Church of Philippi was the Metropolitane The whole Countrey must have been supposed to be converted and who that knowes any thing of Antiquity will dispute that and so divided with Diocesans as England of late was the arch-Arch-Bishops so being at Philippi but how came it then to p●sse that here is mention made of Bishops and Deacons onely without any word of a third order or ranke of men distinct from them called Presbyters or Elders To this he answers secondly that when the Church was first planted before any great number were converted or any sit to be made Presbyters there was onely those two orders instituted Bishops and Deacons and so that this Church of Philippi seems to have been a Metropoliticall Infant The truth is if ever the Doctor be put upon reconciling the contradictions of his answers one to another not onely in this but almost in every particular he deals withall an intanglemen which he is throwne into by his bold and groundlesse conjectures he will finde it to be as endlesse as fruitlesse but it is not my present businesse to interpose in his quarrells either with himselfe or Presbyterie As to the matter under consideration I desire onely to be resolved in these few Queries 1. If there were in the time of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches not in so great and fl●urishing a Church as that of Corinth and if all the places in Scripture where there is mention of Elders doe precisely inten Bishops in a distinction from them who are Deacons and not Bishops also as he asserts when by whom by what Authority were Elders who are only so inferiour to Bishops peculiarly so termed instituted and appointed in the Churches And how comes it passe that there is such expresse mention made of the office of Deacons and the continuance of it none at all of Elders who are acknowledged to be superiour to them and on whose shoulders in all their own Churches lies the great weight and burthen of all Ecclesiasticall administration As we say of their Bishops so shall we of any Presbyter not instituted and appointed by the authority of Jesus Christ in the Church let them goe to the place from whence they came 2. I desire the Doctor to informe me in what sense he would have me to understand him Diss 2. cap. 20 21 22. Where he disputes that these words of Hicrome Antequam ●ludia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Cepbae communi Presbyterorum consensu Ecclesia 〈…〉 be understood of the times of the Apostles when 〈…〉 Church of Corinth when it seems that neither 〈…〉 such thing as Presbyters in the 〈…〉 we can 〈…〉 As 〈…〉 Presbyters were Bishops properly so 〈…〉 who are they so 〈◊〉 of whom 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to be a 〈…〉 so called To 〈…〉 I 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the Scripture we 〈…〉 of Church 〈…〉 This 〈…〉 Doct●… is that of 〈…〉 give us 〈…〉 of Christ give us in every Church Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 than we 〈…〉 let those Bishops attend the 〈…〉 over which they ●…ching the 〈◊〉 and administ●… O 〈…〉 in and to their 〈…〉 And I 〈◊〉 〈…〉 all the Comenders for Presbytery in this N●●ion and much 〈…〉 the Independents that there shall be a ●end of this quarrel that they will 〈…〉 with the Doctor not any living for the ●…duction of any 〈◊〉 so●t of persons though they should be 〈…〉 Presbyters into Church office and Government Onely this I must 〈…〉 this second sort of men 〈…〉 Presbyters than it doth Bishops and that word having been 〈…〉 third 〈…〉 we desire leave of the D●ctor and his 〈…〉 if we also most frequently call them so no wayes declining the other application of Bishops so that it be applyed to signifie the second and not third 〈◊〉 of men But of this 〈◊〉 businesse with the nature con●… and frame of the first Churches and the 〈◊〉 m●st●k 〈…〉 men have be their owne prejudices been ingaged into in this d●… of them a 〈…〉 opportunity if God will may 〈◊〉 long be a●…ded 3. Here first I shall demand whence it appeares that I accommodated a double answer to the multiplication of Elders in Clemens c. Truly I doe not yet know or remember that I did This certainly was all and this can amount if to any but to one answer that which we have vindicated already that the Elders in the Epistle of Clemens were all the Bishops of Achaia This indeed when it was proposed was more distinctly set down by 4. steps or degrees but then again those are no more two than foure answers 1. that the Epistle was addrest to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to the whole Province Secondly that to make it capable of that title Corinth was knowne to be the Metropolis of Achaia Thirdly that Saint Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians belonged to all the Churches of Achaia not onely to Corinth and so in any probability Clements was to doe also being written to the same and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore Fourthly that these many Elders were the singular Bishops in the severall Cities

the Church at Corinth and through Achaia might be numerous both Paul and Peter having labour'd there succesfully yet for some t●me there were not any where so many but that the Bishop and his Deacon or Deacons might be sufficient for them 13. So likewise the being a Metropolis is no argument that there should be Presbyters by this time constituted there for supposing as I doe and my grounds have been largely set down that the Apostles conformed their models to the Governments and forms among the Nations where they came at their first planting the Faith in any region it must follow that the Church of Corinth as soon as it was formed into a Church with a Bishop over it was also a Metropolitan Church in relation to all other Cities of Greece which either then did or should after believe as Jerusalem was to all the Cities of Judea or as Philippi being a prime Citie or Metropolis of Macedonia and the first where Paul planted the Faith was straightway a Metropolitical Church how few or how many Christians there were in it it matters not 14. And therefore for his change of the scene from Corinth and Clement's to Philippi and St. Paul's Epistle it will bring him no advantage The case between them is exactly parallel There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province of Macedonia saith St. Luke of which Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Metropolis just as Corinth was of Achaia and this Citie being the first in that region wherein St. Paul planted the Faith it was certainly a Metropolitical Church and Epaphroditus was the Metropolitan of that Province the first day he was Bishop of it The truth of which is so evident that the jeere of the Metropolitical Infant might seasonably have been controverted into a more serious and decent expression there being no reason imaginable why if the Apostles did institute Metropolitical Churches as here is not one serious word of objection against all that hath been said to assert it those Churches should not at their first institution call it their infancie if you will be Metropolitical Churches For as to that of the whole countries being supposed to be converted and divided into Dioceses that is not consequent or necessary to my assertion for as Clement saith of the Bi●hop and Deacon in each City at the first planting of the Faith that they were constituted in relation to them not onely which did but expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who should afterward believe so the Church and Bishop in the Metropolis when that was first converted might very well be Metropolitical in respect of the other Cities of that Province which should afterward receive the Faith 15. As we know when Augustin came first over into England and preacht the Faith and converted Christians first at Ethelbert's seat and the Metropolis of that Province he was by being made Bishop there made Metropolitan also That sure was Bede's meaning when he saith of it lib. 1 c. 27. Venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem civitatis Eth●rio Archiepiscopus Gen●i Anglorum ordinatus est He came to Arles in France and by Etherius Archbishop of that Citie was ordained Archbishop to the Nation of the English and if as a learned Antiquarie thinkes Bede spake after the use of his own time and that the word Archiepiscopus was not in use here then at Augustine's coming hither yet for the substance of the thing wherein I make the instance and all that I contend from thence there can be no doubt but that he being at first made Bishop of the Metropolis was thereby made also Metropolitan 16. As for the divisions into Dioceses how little force that hath against all that I have said or thought in this businesse whether of Bishops or Metropolitans I have spoken enough to that in the Vindication to the London Ministers c. 1. sect 19. and to that I refer the Prefacer 17. And so still I am free enough from quarrelling with my self in the least or from being ingaged in any endlesse labour to reconcile the contradictions of my answers which as farre as my weak understanding can reach are perfectly at agreement with one another If the labour of shewing they are so prove fruitlesse I know to whom I am beholding for it even the Task-master whom I have undertaken to observe and in that guise of obedience shall now proceed briefly to answer every of his questions and I hope there cannot now need many words to doe it 18. To the first concerning the Institution of the second order that of Presbyters for the when I answer I know not the yeare but evidently before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles in Trajan's time and in all probability after the writing all the Bookes of Scripture and for ought I can discerne of Clement's Epistle as farre as concerns either Rome or Corinth 19. For the by whom and by what authority I answer I think they were first instituted by St. John in Asia before his death and shall adde to my reasons elswhere given for it this farther consideration that Ignatius in all his Epistles to the Churches of Asia Ephesus Smyrna Trallis Magnesia Philadelphia makes mention of them within few years after John's death though in his Epistle to the Romans he doth not And if this be so then also it appears by what authority viz. such as John's was Apostolical Or if this should not be firmly grounded as to the person of St. John yet the reason why they were not at first instituted as well as Deacons being but this because there was no need of them yet and the power given by the Apostles to the first Bishops being a plenarie power so far that they might communicate to others what was committed to them either in whole or in part and those accordingly in the force thereof constituting Presbyters in partem officii the authority still by which they were instituted will be Apostolical and so if as this Prefacer gives order they be let goe to the place from whence they came they will not be much hurt they are but remitted to the society of the Apostles and Apostolical persons by this 20. To the second concerning the meaning of my words Diss 2. c. 29 21. when I say that Hierom's words of Churches being governed by common consent of Presbyters are to be understood of the times of the Apostles and whether all those Presbyters were Bishops properly so called I answer that my meaning was that if Hierome be reconcileable to himself that must be his meaning that in the Apostles times the Churches were first governed by common consent of Presbyters and after in the Apostles times too upon the rising of Schismes a Bishop was every where set over them that according in Hierome's notion all those Presbyters were not Bishops but such as out of whom after one was chosen in every Church to be a Bishop 21. That this was the truth of the fact I no where

2. cap. 10. de Episc Antioch at primum de Ignatio Lectori pio attento considerandum relinquimus quantum sit illis Epistolis tribuendum Non enim dubitamus quin in lectione earum cuilibet ista in mentem veniant primùm quod ferè in omnibus Epistolis licèt satis copiosis occasio scribendi prete●mittitur nec vel divinare licet quare potissimum ad hanc vel illam Ecclesiam literas voluerit mittere Deinde ipsius poregrinationis ratio non parvum injicit scrupulum considerantibus quod multo rectiore breviore itinere Roman potuerit navigare ut testatur vel ipsius Pauli exemplum Expende quam longum sit iter Antiochiâ ad litus Ae gei pelagi se recipere thique recta rursum versus septentrionem ascendere praecipuas civitates in litore ●itas usque ad Troadem perlustrare cum tamen Romanum iter sit destinatum versus occasum Tertio res ejusmodi in istas literas inspersae sunt ut ad eas propemodum obstupescat Lector c. Haec cum alias non somnolento Lectori incidant nos existimaverimus c. Thus they at the worlds first awaking as to the consideration of things of this kind To them adde the learned Whittaker contra prima de perfect Script Quest sexta c. 12. Where after he hath disputed against the credit of these Epistles jointly and severally wi●h sundry arguments at length he concludes Sed de his Epistolis satis multa de hoc Ignatio quid judicandum fit satis ●x iis constare potest quae diximus Ista Papistae non audent t●eri To whom sundry others m●ght be added convincing Salmasius and Bloud●llus not to have been mortalium primi that called them into question 2. What is here brought out of Calvin the Centuriators and Whitaker must still be remembred to be by the Prefacer produced to prove the falseness and ungrounded confidence of my assertion that Salmasius and Blondel were mortalium omnium primi the first of men that called them into question And my answer must certainly be the same which in the last Section it was that it must be remembred what Copy of the Epistles it was which Salmasius and Blondel rejected and of which I spake when I affirmed them to be the first that did so viz this Laurentian Manuscript Copy set out after by Vossius agreeing with our two antient barbarous translations which the Lord Primate had met with in England that very Copy which Blondel acknowledged to be the same which Eusebius 1300 years agoe and the other antient Fathers had used and gave belief unto and by that means was forced to cast off the Fathers with a Quid tum What then to say that they were deceived and imposed upon in that belief and without doing so had no possibility of doubting the genuinenesse of this Copy 3. So that the plain result and summe of my affirmation must evidently be this that the Laurentian Copie of these Epistles according with all that the ancients cited from the genuine Epistles of Ignatius and by Blondel's collating them found to do so i. e. in effect the Eusebian Copy of Ignatius and as such acknowledged by Blondel was never rejected by any before Salmasius and Blondel rejected it 4. This being the onely true setting of the case between me and my Adversaries I shall now need adde no more but this one question whether the Author of these Animadversions can now think that this was the Copy of Epistles which either Mr. Calvin or the Centuriators or Dr. Whitaker rejected in the places by him transcribed from them I might make my question a little more difficult to be answered by him in the affirmative whether in case such a purged Copy of those Epistles had been brought to any of them which they had been forced to acknowledge to be the same or exactly agreeable to that which the Fathers all that could be consulted and gave testimony in this matter received as authentick Ignatius whether I say on that supposition they would in any probability have rejected it with a nil naeniis istis putidius and larvae c But the question will be sooner at an end if we consider the matter of fact as it lies before us and therefore in that form he must apply the answer which he shall return either to me or to his own conscience whether Mr. Calvin ever saw this Copy or any other the like of which it may be said what of this appears in relation to Blondel that he acknowledged it to be the same that Eusebius and the Fathers used and own'd and if he never did see that or any the like whether he can be produced as an instance against my affirmation an example of those that rejected these before either I or my Antagonists were born 5. Another Copy I acknowledge he rejected and in compliance with that judgement of his Vedelius that long after followed him at Geneva and trod in his foetsteps endeavoured to purge that volume of Epistles meaning I suppose to make it such as if Mr. Calvin had lived he would not have rejected To which purpose it may now be remembred that Vedelius being prest with Calvins authority for the rejecting these Epistles he answers that they are mistaken who think Calvin spake against the Epistles and cites Rivet's Critica sacra c. 1. to prove Calvinum non in Ignatium sed in quisquillias naenias depravatorum Ignatii invectum esse that Calvin inveighed not against Ignatius but against the trash that the depravers of Ignatius had imposed upon him This I have recovered by consulting Vedelius about the vir doctissimus And this he that sent me thither might have seen if he had pleased But beyond what Vedelius could attempt the providence of God hath favoured this age and afforded it better commodity to reduce these Epistles to the antient genuine form and of that onely it was that I spake and of that Mr. Calvin could not divine to speak and so there is an end of that instance 6. The same answer evidently absolves me from the other two Instances of the Centuriators and Dr. Whitaker for 1. both those as Vedelius saith doe not reject but onely doubt of them 2. They are again the corrupt copies those that by me are acknowledged to be such of which their doubt is made viz. the Copyes which were out in their dayes long before Vedelius undertook to cleanse the Augaean stable and much longer before Vossius and the Lord Primate more dextrously and succesfully performed it And so there is nothing behind which may assume to make good the least part of the charge against me whether of confidence or oscitancy or what else was thought fit to be laid upon me I may again be able to look Scholars or sober men in the face till I make forfeiture of my credit by some future miscarriage 7. Yet because in the Instances here produced