Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	authority_n	church_n	person_n	1,479	5	5.0691	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87575	The angel of the Church of Ephesus no bishop of Ephesus, distinguished in order from, and superior in power to a presbyter. As it was lately delivered in a collation before the Reverend Assembly of divines. By Constant Jessop Minister of the Word at Fifeild in Essex. Imprimatur Charles Herle.	Jessop, Constantine, 1601 or 2-1658.	1644 (1644)	Wing J699; Thomason E42_22; ESTC R11787	72,800	73

169. edit Paris an 1558. Canons of Coleine in their Enchiridion of Christian Religion And were it needfull I could shew out of sundry c Mat. Park Antiq. Brit. p. 5. Paggit in his Christianogr and Fitzberbert the Ies Divines that this forme of Church Government was here erected at first in England in imitation of the Heathenish Hierarchie by Lucius the first Christian King that embraced the faith Among those many and pregnant testimonies which might be produced in confirmation of this truth against the Divine Institution of the Majority of Bishops above Presbyters I shall trouble your patience but with one remarkable passage in the Councell of Trent d HIstor●e of the Councell of Trent lib 7. p. 619. When in the Congregation Oct. 8. All the Spaniards with some others made a new instance that the Institution and Superiority of Bishops de Jure divino might be defined unto the Legates chamber the next morning came three Patriarches sixe Archbishops and eleven Bishops with a request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is De Jure divino And marke I beseech you the reasons for in themselves but especially proceeding from the mouthes of such and so many persons they carry a great deale of weight with them in regard that 1. It savoured of ambition 2. It was unseemly themselves should give sentence in their own cause 3. Because the greater part would not have it put in And whosoever shall peruse that history and diligently observe the managing of this businesse in the Councell shall finde that the opinion of the Spaniards against which the fore-mentioned Patriarks Archbishops and Bishops did produce their reasons which I doe not finde were ever answered or refuted was inserted into the Canon meerly on these two grounds 1. In opposition to the Lutherans this was the reason given by the Archbishops of e Ib. p. 604. Granata in the Congregation held Oct. 13.1562 and of d P. 606. Zara as also by the f Pa. 607. Bishop of Segovia in the following Congregations 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine institution and superiority of Bishops were denyed or the Prelates honour did decay the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his head This made the Bishop of Segovia in plain termes confesse g Pa. 607. If the power of the Bishops be weakned that of the Pope is weakned also and when the Secretary of the Marquesse of Pescara dealt with the Archbishop of Granata for his stiffenesse in urging the divine Institution of Bishops advising him not to touch any thing in prejudice to the holy See Granata answered h Ib pa 629. He never meant to say any thing against the Pope but thought that whatsoever was spoken for the authority of Bishops was for the benefit of his Holinesse being assured that if their authority were diminished the Obedience to the holy See would decrease also though by reason of his old age he knew it would not happen in his time Thus much of the first argument taken from the testimonies of Scripture 2. The writings of those which immediately succeeded the Apostles and lived in the next age after them shew that in their dayes Bishops and Presbyters were all one in name and office not one preferred above the other in Order and Superiority of power Polycarpe was as is confessed the Disciple of St John the i Epis part 2. p. 156. Angel of the Church of Smyrna saith Bishop Hall following therein as in most others Dr Downham Now whether there were any such Order of Bishops superior to Presbyters in the Church of Christ in his dayes let the world judge from his own words in his Epistle to the Philippians I will not spend lines much lesse leaves in the praise of the author or his Epistle I leave that to others who make good the Poets saying Laudat venales cupiens extrudere merces Mercator Nor will I insist on the Inscription of the Epistle wherein he doth conjoyne with himselfe the Presbyters of the Church of Smyrna though from thence k Dissert de presb episc cap 4. p. 232. Salmasius doth prove that he was not a Bishop in that restrained sense wherein the word was used in after ages for saith he there is no example of an Epistle written by a Bishop wherein when once a Bishop came to be advanced above the Presbyters he doth conjoyne them in his Inscription as his Companions and Equals But take his plaine and positive command or counsell to the Philippians how they must behave themselves Hee requires them to be l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as unto God and to Christ. By which it is cleare there were then no other orders then these two none above a Presbyter to which they must be in subjection Here is not the least mention of a Bishop as m Omissa nescie quamebrem Episcopis mentione ●sp digress in 4. Tim. lib. 1. ca. 1. p. 133. Espencaeus doth acknowledge though being prepossessed with some fancies of his owne de ordine Principante as he cals the order of Bishops for which he doth contend he wondreth why they are omitted Let us proceed and see what power and authority these Presbyters had in the Church of Philippi This we shall learne from his Injunction unto them for he commands them to provide things honest in the sight of God and men abstaining from all anger respect of persons and unjust judgement He wils them farther to flee all covetousnesse not suddenly giving credit to accusations against any one nor be harsh in judgement These passages I owe to n Loc. cit p. 235. Salmasius by which it is evident that these Presbyters of Philippi to whom he gives this in charge had then Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictive power in their hands and none was superior unto them therein in the Church of Philippi in those dayes Before I proceed I must remove one rubbe that is cast in the way by the o Archbishop of Armagh Orig. of Epis Patrons of Episcopacie it is this Polycarpe was himselfe a Bishop of the Church of Smyrrna as is proved amongst other evidences by the testimonie of Ignatius who in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna p Epist ad Symrn. salutes him under that name as a person distinct from the Presbytery and exhorteth all the people to follow their Bishop as Christ Jesus did his Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles telling them that no man ought either to administer the Sacraments or doe any thing appertaining to the Church without the consent of the Bishop and of q Li. 3. adv baer cap. 3. in epist ad Florin Irenaeus who so stiles him and witnesseth that he himselfe was present when Polycarpe himselfe did discourse of his conversation with St John From all which it is inferred that he was the Angel or President of the

it hath been an Episcopall thunderbolt that is to say brutum fulmen a thunderbolt which doth neither fright nor hurt any the denuntiation of this sentence being much corrupted that I say not quite altered from the practice of the Apostles and the Church in former dayes when no punishment was imposed without great lamentation of the multitude and greater of the better sort saith the a Lib. 4. p. 330. Author of the History of the Councell of Trent which he doth prove from those expressions of the Apostle b 1 Cor. 5. Ye have not lamented to separate such an one from among you And x 2 Cor. 12. I feare that at my coming I shall lament many of those who have sinned before But as for those amongst us which have challenged this power and taken it into their hands they have rather carried themselves like Salomons foole or mad-man which casteth arrowes firebrands and death and yet saith Am I not in sport Concerning this you are not ignorant what Hierome said of old y Presbytero licet si peccavero tradere me Satanae in Ep. ad Heliod A Presbyter may deliver me to Satan if I offend However this power hath been by the Prelates wrested out of the hands of Presbyters yet there have not been wanting those who when Prelates were in the height of all their pride and darted out their thunderbolts as it pleased them have maintained that the power of denouncing and executing that sentence did belong to the Presbyters I will only produce a witnesse or two in this and proceed z Defensor pacis part 2. cap. 15. pag. 256. Marsilius Patavinus disputing concerning the order of Priesthood or of a Presbyter for they are all one and the power of the Keyes to binde and loose observeth out of the forementioned Father the Church hath these Keyes in the Presbyters and Bishops and gives this reason why Hierome speaking of this power of the Keyes doth mention Presbyters before the Bishops a Preponens in boc pretbyteros quoniam authoritas baec d●betur presbytero in quantum presbyter primò secundum quod ipsum because this authoritie belongs to a Presbyter as a Presbyter primarily and properly From the same Authour I first tooke notice of this b Cap 6 pag. 165 in init albeit Timothy a Bishop as our Hierarchists say was then at Corinth when the Apostle gives charge to excommunicate the incestuous person yet we heare not a word of command to the Bishop to doe it but a mandate unto others When ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one unto Satan The charge is given to the Presbyters of Corinth it was not the act of one but of c 2 Cor 2.6 many who did denounce and execute the sentence on him Had it been proper to a Bishop St Paul would not have so much forgotten himself as to lay the blame and burthen upon others and omit the mention of him I finde also that d Glos in caus 2 q. 1. ca. 11. verbo Excommunicet Ecclesiarum praelati de jure communi possunt excommunicare licet episcopi jam praescripserint contra multos praelatos Bartholomaeus Brixniensis and Johannes Semeca both Glossators of the Canon Law doe maintaine and prove even out of it that by right Presbyters may excommunicate though the Bishops by custome and Prescription have taken the power out of their hands The same Interpreters of the Canon Law agree in this also e Non debet Episcopus revocare sententias excommunicationis justè lat as ab eorum praelatis sine corum consensit Gloss in dist 50. cap 64. verb. injungere A Bishop ought not to revoke the sentence of excommunication which a Priest hath on just ground pronounced without the Priests consent which did pronounce it By this which hath been spoken it is evident I hope that though there were a Primacy granted yet at first the Bishop had no Superioritie of power much lesse was the power of Ordination or Jurisdiction put into his hands alone you are not ignorant that Calvin Bucer Bullinger and Zanchie have maintained that the Bishop was at first no other then a President of the Presbytery his Act and Office in their meeting as of the Consul in the Senate to propound matters to gather votes and declare the resolutions of the Presbyterie With what scorn this is rejected by our Episcopall Monarches you all know as if they were the meere fancies of Calvins braine and the testimonie of the rest which confirme their assertions by pregnant passages out of antiquitie slighted because they are Disciplinarians of the Geneva cut If Protestant Divines be not regarded let us see whether the judgement of a Fryer and consent of a Jesuite will be of more weight with our Prelates there is good reason to expect it considering that Papists and Prelates were so linked together in their votes whilest they had any Jesuites and Bishops are at this day as all the world seeth so neerly conjoyned in their designes The Fryer is Petrus Suavis that Historian of note who discoursing at large touching the Originall of Episcopall power and Church censures as they were anciently administred tels us f Hist of the Councell of Trent lib. 4. p. ●3● The judgement of the Church as is necessary in every multitude was to be conducted by one who should preside and guide the action propose the matters and collect the points to be consulted on This care due to the more principall and worthy person was alwayes committed to the Bishop Judge now I pray you Fathers and Brethren whether this be any more then to be a President of the Presbyterie or Senate Ecclesiasticall How the Bishops power came afterwards to be ampliated you shall there finde set forth to the full the passages are all of them too large for me to repeat or transcribe they are worth his reading that shall take paines to peruse them I shall only mention one g Ibid. pa. 331. The goodnesse and charity of the Bishops mark this I pray you he doth not say the Superioritie and power but the goodnesse and charity of the Bishops made their opinion for the most part to be followed and by little and little was the cause that the Church charity waxing cold and not regarding the charge laid upon them by Christ did leave the care to the Bishop and ambition a witty passion which doth insinuate it selfe in the shew of vertue did cause it to be readily embraced This and much more that Fryer in the same place The Jesuite is Salmeron who expounding the words of the Apostle to Titus I left thee in Creete to ordain Elders in every City positively affirmeth h Nec hoc loco permisit Paulus Tito ut praefi●iat omnibus ecclesiis ministros baec enim regia esset potestas ju● eligendi tolleretur ecclesiis

multis scanlalum id ibid. Because the Presbyters which followed were found unworthy to hold that Primacy the manner of prelation was purposely changed that worth not order should make a Bishop being appointed by the judgement of many Presbyters lest an unworthy person should rashly usurpe the place and honour and so prove scandalous to many Yet did he that was named the Bishop remain still a Presbyter as the same u Post Episcopum diaconi ordinationem subjicit Quare nisi quia Episcopi diaconi una ordinatio est uterque enim est sacerdes sed Episcopus primus ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteres primus Ambr. in ● Tim. cap. 3. Ambrose testifieth though he was accounted the Bishop who was the first of the Presbyters and in that respect the chiefest As for the Bishops of Alexandria they had no other Ordination then the free election of their Presbyters as is evident from the formerly alleadged passages of * In Epist ad Evagr. Hierome Whence our learned and laborious Willet doth acknowledge x Syn. Papis cont 5. q. 3. p. 177. the speciall consecration of Bishops was ordained only for the dignitie of that calling So that what was in the first institution of it devised and ordained meerly for the dignitie and honour of that Episcopall function that is y Episc by div light pag. 105. now made use of as an argument to prove from thence a distinction of order In a word z De Invent. ver l. 4. cap. 6. p. 276. Polydore Virgil doth confesse that anciently in the consecrating of a Bishop there were no other ceremonies then these that the people met together to give their testimonie and suffrage in the Election both Ministers and people did pray and the Presbyters gave imposition of hands Which doth manifestly prove that both Bishop and Presbyter were one order not distinct even then when there was in some respects a difference made between them And long after this distinction began a Iohannes Parisiensis in lib. depotestate reg●● Papali quem So●bona approbavit assicaat Presbyteros non esse Pontisiribus inferiores quod ad essentralem ministerii dignitatem attinet Idque consirmat ratione hac quod eorum ordinatio conslet iisdem verbis quibus Episcooporum Apostolorum viz. Accipite Sp sanctam Quodcunque tigaveritis in terra erit ligatum in c● ● Teste D. Plesseo libd● eccl ca 12. p 252. Johannes Parisiensis in a treatise of his concerning the power of the King and of the Pope which was approved by the Sorbon of Paris maintains that Presbyters are not inferior to Bishops which he doth prove by this they have one and the same ordination as that noble Frenchman Philip Morney hath observed Now admit we yeeld unto our Hierarchists that the Angel here spoken of is in the forementioned sense and kinde a Bishop the Senior of the Presbyters and President of the Presbyterie as b In locum Beza taketh it and c Conference with Hart ch 8. div 3. p. 535. Doctor Reinolds whose judgement of this place the Archbishop of Armagh hath published with some additions of his own out of antiquity yet what is all this to a Bishop in order distinguished from and superior in power to the Presbyters Our learned countryman Dr Reinolds doth not say that this Angel or President of the Presbyterie was such a Bishop nor doth the Reverend Primate of Armagh say that he was of a different order but only that the name of Bishop was limited to him that had the Presidentship Who that was hath been expressed before by the clear testimonie of Ambrose to which Austin doth agree Tom. 4. quest exutroq mixt●m cap. 101. saying Quid est episcopus nisi primus Presbyter hoc est summus sacerdos Much lesse doth Dr Reinolds affirme that he which had the President●hip had it by divine right or undertake to prove or inferre from hence a distinction in Order between a Bishop and a Presbyter by the word of God for if so he should contradict himself having expressed his judgement to the contrary and proved it both by Scriptures and by variety of other authors * In his letter to Sir Francis Knollys which was reprinted about the same time that the Archbishop of Armagh published this piece of Dr Reinolds with his own Additions Whether this be not a weak inference or rather a strange Non sequitur The Angel of Ephesus was a President of the Presbyterie of Ephesus therefore he was a Bishop differenced in order from and superior in power to the Presbyters of Ephesus let any reasonable man judge It is well known that the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament are Presidents as it were yet not by their Presidentship advanced to an higher order the one is a Peere the other a Commoner though as Speakers they are in some sort differenced from the Peeres and Commons The Prolocutor in a Convocation as it stood formerly was by order a Clarke and no more though as Prolocutor he had a Presidentship over the Clarks of the Convocation Such was the preeminence of him that was President of the Presbytery In which regard Beza though he grant the Angel here to be the President yet might justly and on good ground maintain d Hinc statui episcopalis ille gradus posteae humanltùs in ecclesiam Dei invectus certè nec potest nec debet Beza in loc that from hence that Episcopall degree which was afterwards by men brought into the Church of God neither may nor ought to be established Thus have you Fathers and Brethren some of my thoughts concerning this argument of Episcopacie contracted into as narrow a compasse as I could Wherein I have endeavoured to prove that the Angel in my text is not a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in Order Office and fixed Superiority and so to disprove their Institution de Jure divino Concerning which their pretended originall I cannot but assent unto the judgement of a learned Divine amongst us one that is well known to be a man of great reading and insight in antiquity as also to be no Puritan e M. S. deschismate They but abuse themselves and others that would perswade us that Bishops by Christs Institution have any Superioritie over other men farther then of reverence or that any Bishop is superior to another further then positive order agreed upon amongst Christians hath prescribed For we have beleeved him that taught us that in Christ Jesus there is neither high nor low and in giving honour every man should preserre another before himself which sayings most excellently cut off all claim to superiority by title of Christianity except we can think these things were spoken to poore and private men Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath an hand in this heraldry