Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	discipline_n	government_n	3,314	5	6.9877	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39994	The differences of the time, in three dialogues the first, anent episcopacy, the second, anent the obligation of the covenants against episcopacy, the third, anent separation : intended for the quieting the minds of people, and settling them in more peace and unity.	Forrester, David, fl. 1679.	1679 (1679)	Wing F1589; ESTC R10780	86,473	238

Apostolical warrant at least and if so then the Covenant against Episcopacy suppone it were there abjured is null from the beginning But passing this to what you say of the Assembly of Glasgow's expounding the Popes Hierarchy to be meant of all Episcopacy I answer that was more than they could do For 1. How could the Assembly put a sense upon that Oath that was taken 58. years before and few or none of the first takers of it were than alive or if alive few or none were Members of that Assembly How then could the Assembly come to know certainly that their exposition of the word Hierarchy was according to the mind of the first imposers 2. All that the Assembly 1638. produces in their Act Sess 16. to prove Episcopacy to be abjured in the National Covenant amounts only to this That the Church about the time of the first taking of that Covenant and after was labouring against Bishops but proves not that Episcopacy was abjured in it or in any words of it 3. By what warrant could the Assembly impose upon others that sense of the Covenant in which they took it themselves they might declare their own sense of it which might not be the sense of the first imposers when all is done but how could they oblige others to their sense who had taken it before The first imposers gave the Assembly no power to do so D. Yet those who took that Covenant after the Assembly 1638. had put their sense on it have thereby abjured Episcopacy for the Assembly explaineth it so I. I suppose it was not the Assemblies intention that any should take that Covenant in the sense they put on it unless it were agreeable to the sense of the first imposers and takers to whom the Assembly thought themselves subservient i● what they did Now that the first imposers and takers never meant it against all Episcopacy is shewed and therefore the Assemblies ground failing that which they built thereupon must fail also For it were absurd to say that the Assembly putting a meaning on that Oath no way agreeable with the meaning of the first imposers that yet this posterior meaning should oblige also though much differing from the former this is to make of an Oath what we please D. In that Covenant we are sworn that we shall joyn our selves to this Church of Scotland in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline and that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline thereof Where by Discipline is meant Presbyterian Government So then we are sworn to maintain it by the National Covenant I. By Discipline cannot be meant Presbyterian Government because at the time of the first imposing of that Covenant there was no such Government in Scotland nor for a considerable time after Whatever essays Ministers in those times made to introduce it yet the King who imposed that Covenant owned Episcopacy Therefore 2. If by Discipline some one particular mode of Government be meant it 's more then probable that it must be Episcopacy because it was the Government then practised in this Church And the very year after the King and Council ratified the Treaty that had been concluded at Leith in favours of Episcopacy Anno 1571. But by Dicipline is not meant any one particular form of Government but the substantials of it or the essential and utterly necessary policy of the Church as it is expressed in the first Book of Discipline Cap. 9. And this is indeed unalterable though as some think there may be a change of particular Forms of Government D. Yet in the second Article of the League Bishops are expresly abjured and I hope you will confess that Protestant Bishops are there meant I. Although Protestant Bishops be there meant yet I question if every kind o●… Protestant Bishops Timorcus Epist dedicat Sect. 25. and pag. 14. 16. Doubteth not to say that all kind of Prelacy is no●… there abjured but that notwithstanding the said Article they the English Presbyterians could freely submit to the Primitive Episcopacy that is the precedency of one over the rest without whom ordinarily nothing is to be done in Jurisdiction or Ordination and asserts that it was only the English kind of Prelacy that was meant in the second Article of the League as also appears from the explanation of that Article inclosed in the body of it by a Parenthesis Which kind we have not in Scotland nor had before although many of you think there is no difference Mr. Vines and Mr. Baxter two great men of the Presbyterian way in England say that that second Article was not intended against all kind of Episcopacy but only against that complex frame that consists of all the Officers mentioned in the Article And Mr. Gataker that the most part of the Assembly of Divines was reconcileable to a Moderat Episcopacy And further Timoreus That the English Parliament with the Commissioners from Scotland never intended the extirpation of all kind of Episcopacy but only of that in England pag. 16. 23. See also Mr. Croston Pag. 70 78. So that the most judicious of the English Presbyterians who knew the mind of the Imposers and the circumstances of that business you see would not cry out upon us as guilty of breach of that Article as ye do D. What was the Parliament of England or the Assembly of Divines their sense of that Article I know not nor think I my self much concerned to enquire but the Kirk and State of Scotland who imposed that Oath on us meant it against all sort of Bishops I. I pray you consider we are now speaking of the League which was not a meer National Covenant of this Kingdom alone but a common League of all the three Kingdoms and therefore behoved to be sensed by the Representatives of all the three So it is not the sense that any one of the Kingdoms puts on it you or I are to stand to but that meaning and sense which all the three imposed on it And what was the Parliament of England's sense was as Timorcus tells us with the joynt concurrence of Commissioners from Scotland D. In the first Article the preservation of the Government of the Kirk of Scotland is sworn to be maintained which was Presbytrie and therefore in the second we swear against all kind of Prelacy because Prelacy and Presbytrie are inconsistent I. If you think in the first Article Presbytrie is sworn to be maintain'd and ye● that there is a liberty left in the second Article for some kind of Prelacy which I told you the English Divines confess and if withal you think there is an inconsistency betwixt Presbytrie and any kind of Episcopacy then it will follow that we have sworn things contradicto●y viz. In the first Article that we shall admit of no kind of Prelacy and in the second that we may admit of some kind of Prelacy 2. It 's much doubted by learned men whither in the first Article there be any

Obligation to maintain Presbyterial Government in Scotland For 1. There is no express mention there at all of Prosbyterial Government The words are We shall endevour the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland In Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government 2. Many known Independents took that Covenant and yet never thought themselves bound thereby to maintain Presbytrie in any of the Kingdoms because they thought it no part of the reformed Government and no question the Independents had a hand in wording that Article so that the words might not necessarily import the maintaining of any one form of Government in particular contrary to what themselves conceived to be right and indeed the words do not express any one form nor yet necessarily import any one form but with this general proviso in so far as reformed now they did not think Presbyterial Government such D. Yet the body of the English Parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that Oath did by the Reformed Government in this Kirk mean Presbytrie which was then settled here and therefore we were to take an● did take that first Article in the sense of th●… imposers whatever were the thoughts of few Independents I. We are indeed to take an Oath in the sense of the Imposers but that the English Parliament sensed the first Article as if Presbyterial Government were there sworn to be maintained may justly be doubted because had that Parliament looked on Presbytery as the Reformed Government sworn to be maintained in this Kirk they consequently would have acknowledged themselves bound to reform England according to our pattern but they thought themselves not bound to do so for Anno 1647. in their Declaration to the Scots Commissioners they profess they could never find that Presbytrie is necessary by any Divine Right and charges them for thinking there is no other lawful Church Covernment but that which they call Church Government And also charges them with mis-interpreting the Article of the Covenant concerning Church Government D. It seems then that England and Scotland did not understand that Article in one and the same sense yet since our State and Church understood it of Presbytrie we are bound to it in that sense I. It seems indeed England did not understand it in our sense but that therefore we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and State will not follow but rather that it is an Article as to that part of it that speaks of Government without sense since the Imposers who only could give the binding sense are not agreed about it for to say that we are bound to that sense which our State and Church too if you will had of it is irrational because they were but a part of the Imposers and the lesser part too in respect of England and Ireland And further suppose it were granted to you that in that first Article Presbytrie is meant yet that therefore there can be no room left for any kind of Episcopacy in the second Article will be denyed for if you think there is an inconsistency betwixt Presbytrie and any kind of Episcopacy either you are mistaken or Beza And others were who notwithstanding their writing for Presbytrie yet confess there is a kind of Prelacy as ancient as the Apostles beside what I cited to you from Blondel Chamier Moulin at our last meeting see Beza apud Saravium pag. 207 233 235 240 242 251. c. D. I perceive you bear off all you can from acknowledging the Episcopacy now settled in this Church to be meant either in the National Covenant or in the League For if that were once granted then ye could not but confess your selves guilty of Perjury I. My denying the present Episcopacy of this Church to be meant in either of the Covenants is grounded upon reasons which I suppose can not easily be disapproven And to what you say that upon our acknowledging the present Episcopacy to be meant in both or either of the Covenants we could not but acknowledge our selves guilty of Perjury Though I see no reason to acknowledge this present Government to be meant in either of the Covenants but much reason to the contrary yet I am content to make the supposition that it is abjured giving then though not granting that this Episcopacy was abjured in one or both of the Covenants you cannot so easily conclude thence as you imagine that therefore those who took that Oath and now again submit to yea or own this re-established Episcopacy are perjured D. That seems very strange those who did swear against Bishops in the Covenant have they not by acknowledging them again done contrary to their Oath and so are perjured I. That you may receive answer to this you must consider the nature of Episcopacy which is the matter supposed to be abjured Episcopacy is either a necessary unalterable Government as having a Divine warrand or at least Apostolick which amounts to little less then Divine if to any thing less at all Or it is an unlawful sinful Government as being contrary to some other Government which hath the warrant of Christ and his Apostles Or 3. It is of an indifferent Nature neither commanded ●or forbidden but left to Christian prudence to be used in the Church or not as shall be found expedient all circumstances considered If Episcopacy be found grounded on the Word and to have been the only Government practised from the Apostles own times downward through the purest ages of the Church I hope you will not think an Oath taken against it obliges to any thing but repentance for engaging in so unwarrantable an Oath You are a people who cry out Perjury Perjury but consider what I said to you at last meeting to let you see what warrant Bishops have in the Word of God and that it is the only Government found in the first and purest times of the Church search when you will and that even those who have set themselves to maintain another Government have from evidence of reason and Light that shines to them out of Antiquity been forced by their own concessions to set Episcopacy high enough and till you be able solidly to answer what I said to you then on this head be more sober and sparing of your hard censures and take heed lest while you charge others with Perjury your selves be found doing all you can sacrilegiously to robb the Church of that Government which Christ and his Apostles left her in possession of and have bound your selves with an Oath so to do If Episcopacy be sinful then we are bound against it antecedently to our Oath and whether we had abjured it or no● And if you think Episcopacy thus unlawful you should not so much decry it upon the account of the Covenant but because it is in it self sinful as contrary to some Divine or Apostolical warrant although it's true a supervenient Oath makes an Obligation against a thing in it self sinful so much

a Bishop is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop but he is Bishop who is first among the Presbyters And Chrysostome saith That betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter there is little difference Yet both these Fathers you see acknowledge that a difference there is and they were both Bishops themselves Their opinion might be that Bishop and Presbyter differ gradu non ordine that they might be both one Order and differ only in Degree Which is still a debate in the Schools So may be said of the rest cited by Medina 4. That these Fathers were for a difference even by Divine or Apostolick warrant will appear from other places in their writings D. What For a Divine Right Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith that after distinction was made in the Church betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet was it never accounted by antiquity to be jure divino by Divine Right I. I shew you the contrary from Irenaeus Tertullian and others yea and from Jerome himself Now for those other Fathers First hear Ambrose in his Comment on 1 Cor. 12.28 Quosdam posuit apostolos he saith ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro Act. 1. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And on vers 29. Nurquid omnes apostoli verum est saith he quia in ecclesia unus est Episcopus Also on Phil. 1.1 Rather then he will allow by Bishops in that place single Presbyters to be meant he expounds those Bishops not of such as resided at Philippi because saith he in one Church there could be but one Bishop but of Bishops and Deacons who were with Paul when he wrot that Epistle as I told you before So on 1 Tim. 3. Timotheus Episcopus erat And for Augustine on Psalm 45.16 by Fathers he means the Apostles and by the Sons the Bishops who he saith succeeded to the Apostles And contra Cresconium lib. 2. Cap. 37. Ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam primus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit i. e. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem And Epist 122. he saith divina voce laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae Speaking of the Angels Revel 2.3 and contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. 51. Quid tibi fecit ecclesiae Romanae cathedra in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet i. e. What ill hath the Chair of Rome so he calls the Episcopal Authority done to thee in which Peter once did sit and in which Anastasius now sitteth From these and the like passages in Augustine we ma● know what his meaning is when writi●g to Jerome he saith Q●anquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit Espiscopatus Presbyterio major sit there he speaks of the use of these words what it was at that time in respect of former times Honorum vocabula clearly shews this Then hear Chrysostome on 1 Tim. 4.14 Cum impositione manuum presbyterii Non de presbyteris loquitur sed de Episcopis neque enim presbyteri Episcopum Timotheum ordinabant i. e. That place speaketh not of Presbyters but of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordain Timothy who was a Bishop Sundry Testimonies might be produced out of other Fathers deducing the original of Bishops from the Apostles or higher Cyprian is full to this purpose Epist 27. ad Lapsos he saith that Episcopacy is founded divina lege by the Divine Law and Epist 68. he calleth it Traditio divina observatio Apostolica and for this adduceth Act. 1.15 Quando in ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur i. e. Peter there speaks to the people of ordaining a Bishop in the room of Judas See also Epist 69. Epist 42. and Epist 10 11 12. c D. What antiquity saith moveth 〈◊〉 not nor resolve I in this matter to be concluded by Fathers or Councils who wer● fallible or by Apostolical Traditions There were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very infancy of it and were generally received as the millenary opinion and giving the communion to Infants I. Yet you can grip very closs to the least shadow in antiquity which seemeth any way to make for you in this controversie and can manage it to your best advantage but when you say that you resolve not to be concluded by antiquity herein by this you clearly confess that antiquity pincheth you sore and you are like to be born down by the stream of it Tertullian saith Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio id quod ab Apostolis id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerat sacro sanctum As for these corruptions you name which early crept into the Church they were not so generally and universally received as Episcopacy was nor could they ever so clearly deduce their Original from the Apostles D. Notwithstanding all you say to make Bishops as ancient as the Apostles yet the authority of those great protestant Divines who have opposed Episcopacy prevails much with one to suspect Bishops cannot lay claim so high I Suffer not your judgement to be captivated by the Name or Authority of any man without proof I fear there be too much implicite faith among us which we condemn in Papists and besides may be the opposition of the most knowing and learned Protestants to Episcopacy is not so great as you imagine D. What think you of Calvin is not he much against Episcopacy in his Writings as he was also in his practise when he lived a Minister at Geneve in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren there where Presbyterian parity as it had been in purest primitive times was again revived I. Before you take the Government of Geneve to be a reviving of primitive parity as you say It is fit you first solidly answer all I have produced to shew that from the Apostles dounward there were always Bishops over Ministers or Presbyters even in the purest times I will not insist to shew you that when Geneve reformed Religion she had no purpose to put away Episcopacy if it could have been preserved You may read Durel's view of Government from pag. 151. to 161. who will inform you in this Nor will I debate whither Calvin lived in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren only hear what Mason apologizing for the Government of Geneve defence of ordin pag. 175. speaking of Calvin and Beza saith They being chosen to a place of eminency and endued with Jurisdiction they having preeminence in every action and consequently in Ordination none can with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopal Office This he speaketh of them in respect of the rest of the Ministers at Geneve And B. Andrews Resp 3. ad Molineum speaking of Calvin and Beza says Quid attinet abolere nomen retinere rem Nam illorum uterque dum vixerunt quid erant

nisi abolito nomine re ipsa Episcopi i. e. To what purpose is it to abolish the name of Bishop and retain the thing for both these Calvin and 〈◊〉 what were they while living but indeed Bishops though without the name And was it not so even among our selves when the name of Bishop could not be endured a meer parity is hardly practicable any where unless it be in Vtopia Now since you think Calvin a great adversary to Bishops a mistake that many are under I will produce some few places out of him to undeceive you Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. speaking of the first Bishops he citeth Jerom's words ad Euagrium and then subjoyneth alibi tamen docet quam antiquum fuerit institutum dicit enim Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Dionysium c. i. e. Nevertheless in another place Jerome teacheth how ancient the institution of Bishops is for he sayeth that at Alexandria from Mark downward there was still a Bishop c. Where you see Calvin passing that place of Jerome that seemeth to make against the antiquity of Bishops he rather layeth hold on that other place that speaketh them as ancient as Mark the Evangelist And a little before Calvin saith Bishops were brought into the Church ne ex aequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur Observe this he saith equality of Ministers breedeth strifes and ut fieri solet so it useth to be And from these words of Calvin we may collect that he giveth to the first Bishops some superiority in power above the Presbyters without which saith he dissidia nascerentur Strifes would arise and so he makes them more than meer Moderators Another passage of Calvin I cited to you a little before Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 4. Si rem omisso vocabulo intueamur reperiemus c. And Institut lib. 4. Cap. 5. Sect. 11. Supersunt Episcopi Paraeciarum rectores qui utinam de retinendo officio contenderent libenter illis concederemus eos habere pium eximium munus i. e. Now we are to speak of Bishops who I wish would contend about the retaining of their Office we would willingly grant unto them He is speaking of the popish Bishops that they have a holy and excellemt Office if they would rightly discharge it Where you see he calleth the Office pium eximium munus Holy and excellent And again a little after shewing how when it is objected to the Papists that their Regnum i. e. Church Government as managed by them is antichristian tyranny they answer it is that venerable Hierarchy so much and often commended by holy and great men Which answer of theirs he repells thus Sect. 13. Quasi vero sancti Patres quum Ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam aut spirituale regimen ut ipsis per manus ab Apostolis traditum erat commendarent hoc deforme vastitatis plenum chaos somniarent ubi Episcopi vel rudes c. i. e. as if forsooth the holy Fathers when they commend that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as it was delivered or handed unto them from the Apostles did mean it of your deformed Government Where you see he saith that the ancient Episcopacy was delivered down to the Fathers per manus ab Apostolis from the Apostles hands or from the Apostles by hand to hand And on Titus 1.5 He saith We may learn from that Text that then there was not such an equality among the Ministers of the Church Quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praesset i. e. But that some one person was in authority and counsel above the rest And in a long Letter of his to an old friend who now was made a Bishop in the Church of Rome Veteri amico nunc Praesuli it is to be found in the Volume of his Opuscula pag. 72. he saith Episcoparus ipse a Deo profectus est Episcopacy it self is from God institutus and institute by God and within a few Lines after addeth In aestimando Episcopi munere neque recte neque tuto credi populo Judicium unius Dei esse audiendum Cujus authoritate est constitutum illud legibus definitum i. e. In esteeming of the Episcopal Office we must not regard the people's judgement but Gods only by whose authority it is constitute c. And sundry other clear Testimonies in that Epistle which were tedious here to recite There he speaks not one word against the Office of a Bishop but only against the abuses of it in the Romish Church In one place of it he saith omnino tibi sane quod ab Episcopo requiritur praestandum aut fedes Episcopi deserenda i. e. either do the duty of a Bishop or leave the Bishop's Seat He willeth him not to leave it on any terms no but if he minds to be faithful keep it still And in an Epistle of his to the King of Poland he approveth of all the degrees of the Hierarchy in the ancient Church even unto Patriarchs And in a long Epistle to the Duke of Somerset Protector of England in Edward the sixth his Minority as it is cited by Durel View of Govern pag. 165. Giving his advice anent reforming of many things in Religion yet never adviseth to remove Episcopacy out of the English Church which had he been of your opinion he would not have failed to have done Only he adviseth that both Bishops and Ministers be put to swear they shall deliver no other Doctrine but such as is contained in the articles of Religion And what is worthy the observing in that Letter he saith Audio esse duo seditiosorum genera quae adversus Regem Regni statum caput extulerunt alij enim cerebrosi quidem viz. sub Evangelij nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim invectam vellent alij vero in superstitionibus Antichristi obdurantur ac merentur quidem tum hi tum illi gladio ultore coerceri i. e. I hear there are two sorts of seditious persons who have gotten up the head against the King and State of the Kingdom The first a kind of heady humorous people who under pretence of the Gospel would bring in confusion and disorder every where The other are such who are hardned in their antichristian superstitions and these in authority should restrain both Now how near what he saith of the first sort may touch your selves I leave it to your consideration There is one passage more in Calvin I cannot ommit in his Treatise to the Emperour Charles the fifth and States of the Empire intituled de necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae speaking of the Popish Bishops he saith Talem nobis si Hierarchiam exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio nodo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero