Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	epistle_n	paul_n	timothy_n	2,910	5	10.4803	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10190	Lord bishops, none of the Lords bishops. Or A short discourse, wherin is proved that prelaticall jurisdiction, is not of divine institution, but forbidden by Christ himselfe, as heathenish, and branded by his apostles for antichristian wherin also sundry notable passages of the Arch-Prelate of Canterbury in his late booke, intituled, A relation of a conference, &c. are by the way met withall.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1640 (1640)	STC 20467; ESTC S115311	76,101	90

as there is a denyall of Christ in deeds But what it is to deny that Iesus is the Christ This is a point indeed very considerable To deny that Iesus is the Christ is to deny that Iesus is the Auointed King Priest and Prophet So as never any were anointed to all these 3 Offices And therefore Christ was said to be â€¡ anointed above his fellows And for that cause he is called here o' KristÃ²s The Anointed Now then to deny that Iesus is the Christ is to deny that Iesus is the onely King the onely High Priest and the onely Prophet of his Church But to apply this doth the Pope and so our Prelates deny that Iesus is thus the Christ Yes they do First for the Pope it is manifest that he denyes Iesus to be the only King of his Church because himselfe takes upon him to be King over the Church sitting as God in the Temple of God shewing himselfe that he is God as before is shewed Secondly he not onely sets up other High-Priests in heaven as whom he makes Mediators of Intercâ—ssion and so he denyes Christs High priesthood in heaven whose Office alone it is to make Intercession within the vâ—ile as was typed by the High Priest Heb. 9. but the Pope also makes himselfe the High Priest on Earth in forgiving of Sins and in Sacrificing and offering up a Breaden Christ for a propitiatory Sacrifice wherein also every Masse-Priest usurps Christs Priesthood on the Crosse And Thirdly he denyeth Iesus to be the onely Prophet to teach his Church taking upon him to be the Sole Oracle and unerring Iudge in matters of Faith These might be inlarged but I hasten And a word in things so cleare is sufficient Now for our Prelates Do not they too deny that Iesus is the Christ Doe not they deny him to be the only King of his Church by their usurping of his throne and dominion over the Consciences of Gods people in matters of faith and Religion by imposing their manifold Canons and Ceremonies as before is shewed And Secondly do they not deny that Iesus is the onely High Priest while themselves with the Pope and their false Priesthood take upon them to forgive Sins Yea and doe they not labour to come home to Rome in setting up their Altars with their Priests which must needs have a sutable Sacrifice some Host so as thereby Christ is denyed to be the onely High Priest who offered up himselfe on the Crosse once for all Thirdly and Lastly doe they not deny Iesus to be the onely Prophet of his Church while themselves usurpe the Office of being Iudges of the Sâ—ripture and of the Controversies of Faith making their Dictates to be received for Doctrines and their determinations though in things erronious in the Faith to bind all men to peace and obedience Which being so the Conclusion is that as the Pope is the grand Antichrist so Prelates are so many Antichrists For saith the Apostle Who is a lyer but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ He is Antichrist And thus we see how these hypocrites who are so Superstitiously and Idolatrously devout in their worshiping of the Name JESUS prove themselves notorious Antichrists in denying Iesus to be the Christ to be the only King Priest and Prophet of his Church CHAP. IX Wherein the Prelates usuall Allegations out of the Scriptures by them perverted or other by them pretended are answered AS there hath been no Heresie nor Hereticke so grosse but he could alledge some Scripture or other for the maintenance of his Heresie if his own carnall sense might be the Intepreter and Iudge So our Prelates though their pretended Title of Iurisdiction be in some cleare Scriptures so expresly condemned both by Christ and his Apostles as hath been shewed as were sufficient to confound them and put them to perpetuall silence yet they leave no Stone unturned under which they might find but some worme for a baite to deceive the Simple Fish And therfore where they find but the least shadow or appearance or resemblance which may present to their fancy and imagination some aÃ«ry Image of their Hierarchie that they set up for all men to adore Now let us see what starting holes they find out for themselves in the holy Scripture First they alledge those Postscripts in the end of Pauls Second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be first Bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians These say they were Diocesan Bishops ordained by the Apostle And here say they we have Scripture for it Ergo we Bishops have our Authority Iure Divinâ— To both which places I answere First That those two Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture or of the holy Text For as the learned Beza hath well observed they were not found in the most ancient Greek Copies nor yet in the vulgar Latin Translation no not to this day These were additions of some Monks that were made some hundred yeares after the Apostles So as in Ieromes time they were not extant as the Translation that goes in his Name can testifie which hath no such Postscrips Secondy our former and ancienter English Translations though they have those Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the Text that all men may take notice they are no part of the Text Although our All-Innovating Prelates of late have in the newer Impressions inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the Text that the Simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture Thirdly Timothy and Titus are no where in Scripture called Bishops Fourthly Suppose they were such Bishops as the Scriptures approve of as before is shewed doth it therefore follow that they were Diocesan Bishops Lording over the Presbyters as our Lord Prelates doe Let them shew us that But fiftly it is cleare by Scripture that Timothy and Titus were neither Dioceâ—an Bishops nor yet Bishops of a particular Congregation such as the Scripture commends unto us Not Diocesan Bishops for first as yet there was no distribution of Diocese that came in afterward And secondly they were not tyed to any Residence either Diocesan or Parochiall And neither as yet was the Church divided into Parishes Now the reason why Timothy and Titus were no such Bishops is because they were * Euangelists whose Office was to attend upon the Apostles and to be sent by them now to one Church now to another and that in remote Countries and farre distant one from another where they stayed no longer then the Apostles thought expedient having occasion to imploy them in other places as we may read Tit. 1. 5. and 3. 12. Phil. 2. 19. 23. 2 Cor. 8. 16. 18 19. and 12. 17 18. Col. 4. 7 8 1 Thess. 3. 2. 5 and in sundry other places So as Timothy and Titus and other Euangelists

their Office was to water those Churches which the Apostles had planted to comfort confirme establish the hearts of Christians newly converted to the faith of Christ So as if Timothy and Titus had been Bishops either Diocesan or Parochiall then the Apostle in sending them to this and that Countrey to this and that Church in farre distant Countries should have been an Author of Non-residence a thing much controverted in the â€¡ Councel of Trent and the best learned did maintaine that Residence of Bishops was de jure divino They were no Bishops therefore but Euangelists And thus the Scripture it selfe shews plainly that those foresaid Postscripts are meere forgeries and counterfeit stuffe though our Prelates are glad of any shred to patch up their Pyde Motley Coat withall But they alledge againe for themselves that Titus was left in Creet to ordaine Bishops in every City Ergo Ordination of Ministers belongs properly and solely to Bishops For Answere Is this a good Argument Titus Ordained Ministers in Creet Ergo Ordination of Ministers pertaines to the Office of every Diocesan Bishop But they must bring better proofe that Titus was a Diocesan Bishop otherwise I deny their Argument Secondly Suppose that Titus did alone ordaine yet this being a case of necessity and in the infancy of the Church is it therfore to be made a Generall Rule Thirdly if they were Diocesan Bishops whom Titus ordained in every City in Creta then Titus was an Arch-bishop at least and no small one neither for there being an hundred Cities in Creet called therefore e katÃ³mpolis the hundred-City-Ile But for Arch-bishops our Arch-prelate confesseth they are not Iure Divino Or els for Titus to ordaine such Bishops as the Prelate meaneth he could according to ancient Canons of Councels have had 2 or 3 other Bishops joyned with him But if they had been Bishops whom he is sayd to Ordaine the word should rather have been teleiosai or so to Consecrate then katastesai to ordaine because a Diocesan Bishop is not ordained but consecrated as they call it so as such a Bishop is not an Order or Calling as before is shewed But to shut up this Titus was no Bishop and therfore our Prelates Argument from Titus his Ordaining of Ministers is too weake a foundation to build their high Towring Hierarchie upon Againe they alledge the power that Timothy and Titus had to Censure delinquents Ergo Prelates Courts are Iure Divino This Argument is like the former and concluds nothing for them Nor had Timothy and Titus their Courts and Consistories their Apparitors and Pursuivants their dumb Priests to sit in Court to Excommunicate and the like Nor were their Censures like to those of our Prelates as before we have shewed about Excommunication either for the matter or manner or end But Titus had a Commission tÃ leÃponta epidiorthosai to set in order the things that are wanting What then Ergo it is an Office of Prelates to set the Church in Order by adding such Ceremenies or Canons as are wanting As the Prelate saith in his said Booke that he had * taken all that paines for an Orderly Settlement in the Church But besides the reasons aforesaid that Titus was no Diocesan Bishop for our Prelates to make their pattern by they must consider that the full latitude of the sense of epidiorthosaâ— which our English turnes to set in Order is to set those things in Order or in integrum restituere to restore and reduce them to their former estate wherein at the first they were ordered Now Titus had received his rule from the Apostle for whatsoever he was to set in Order which rule comprehended such things as were wanting The Apostle left it not to Titus to doe what he would but o'â— ego soi dietaxamen as I had appointed thee Thus nothing will frame well the Scripture will not speak one good word for our Prelates But they take their wings and flie to the Revelation where the Bishops are called Angels as Rev. 1. 20. and 2. 1 c. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus say they was the Bishop to wit the Diocesan Bishop But first they must prove that Ephesus had a Diocesan Bishop before they can conclude he was that Angel For every Angel is not a Diocesan Bishop For then All Ministers being called Angels because Gods Messengers should be Diocesan Bishops which our Prelates cry out against but if they be false Ministers or counterfeit Bishops though they be Angels yet they are of those Angels of darknesse which transforme themselves into Angels of light as the Apostle speakes and which we mentioned before But hath Ephesus now gotten a Diocesâ—n Bishop What 's then become of all those Bishops of Ephâ—sus whom the Apostle called together ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 20. 17. 28 Of which we spake before How come they now all to be moulded up into one Angel one Diocesan Bishop But our Prelates must bring us better proofe from Scripture then so for their Diocesan Bishop unlesse they will have him some Angel dropt from the Clowds And saith the Apostle if an Angel from heaven preach otherwise then what the Scripture teacheth let him be accursed But they imagine this Angel is the Diocesan Lord Bishop because he stands single and alone To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus not To the Angels as many But doe theâ— noâ— know that it is familiar with the Scripture to use the singular number for the plural Doth not every one of the ten Commandements run thus Thou shalt not c. when every Mothers Sonne is meant And why not so here Nay it is so here for though he write as to one v. 1. yet v. 7. he concludes the Epistle thus He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches And such is the style and manner of every one of those 7. Epistles to the seven Churches so as under one is meant every one yea all the Churches Now will our Prelates hence conclude that because an Angel herd is named and that which is written particularly to one concerneth all the Churches that therefore this Angel was the Diocesan Bishop Surely then he must be an Arch-bishop as comprehending all the Churches And so also must every one of the other Angels of the Churches which would make a confusion But if the Prelates were not selfe-blinded they might discerne the reason why the Holy-Ghost puts an Angel for many For thus it holds proportion with the Vision shewed to Iohn Chap. 1. 12. 20. This Vision of the Seven Starres and Seven Candlesticks and Seven Angels and Seven Churches is called a Mystery And a Mystery is a Secret which comprehends more then is expressed And so here when one Angel is named we are to understand all the Angels of that Church to whom in the name of one the Epistle is written nor â—onely to all the Angels but to the Churches under the name of one Angel So as in one

good as the former and no better For what Laws of the Realme doth he account just Those that crosse any Prelaticall practises and Antichristian lawlesse courses of his Spirituall Courts Surely those are not to be ranked among the just Laws of the Realme those must needs be unjust Laws which are made to restraine the Infolencie and Lawlesse proceedings of Prelaticall Courts Which is the reason that now of late under this Archprelate Prohibitions out of the Kings bench to the High-Commission are so gueason so well Schooled are both Lawyers to move and Judges to grant any such thing Thus the Prelates practises are a sufficient Commentary of his owne words So as the Summe of this his whole passage is That his Church of England must submit her beliefe to her Arch Bishops and Bishops as visible Iudges left by Christ to governe and to determine all matters of difference in point of Faith and Religion and that according to Scripture too so farre as they crosse not her own Canons and those of the Catholicke Church wherein England and Rome are one and the Same one Church of one Faith of one Religion And all this if we may beleeve her Metropolitan the Church of England beleeves O miserable Church CHAP. IIII. Wherein some other Passages of the Prelate in his Booke touching the Authority of his Hierarchie are met withall and confuted by evidence of Scripture IN his * Epistle Dedicatory he hath these words She the Church of England practises Church-Government as it hath been in use in all Ages and all Places where the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting both in and ever since the Apostles times and yet the Seperatist condemnes her for Antichristianisme in her Discipline So he A bold Speech and the more bold because most false and hath nothing but his bare Ipse dixit his naked affirmation as Authority sufficient Whence I note sundry particulars First that he calleth the Hierarchie or Ecclesiasticall Government therof the Church of England A thing familiar with Prelates to make themselves the Church And such a Church as that of Rome the Pope and his Priests or Prelates are the Church as themselves affirme Whereas indeed as Iunius hath well distinguished â— they are not the Body it selfe of the Church but â—â—ennes or swellings grown up and so incorporated into the Body as overspreading it like a Leprosie it assumes the denomination of the Body And such are Prelates who in the Church of England are Strumae great swellings like the Kings Evill which are commonly next the Head or about the necke in the most principall parts of the Body Onely in this they will not be called the Kings Evill because they claime their Originall from Christ as before is noted and therfore though they be but certaine Abscessus or Apostemes and so indeed Apostatâ—s from the true Church of Christ which not onely deforme the Body but greatly in danger the life thereof yet the name of Church they challenge in peculiar to themselves But surely the true Church of Christ in England disclaimes communion with such a false Church as the Hierarchie calls it selfe Secondly he saith that his Church or Prelaticall Government hath been in all Times and Places where the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting Here he finely excludes all the Protestant Reformed Churches as no Churches of Christ because they have weeded out those * bittet roots whereby many are defiled and rooted up those plants â€¡ which our heavenly Father hath not planted to wit all Prelates with their Hierarâ—hicall Government which being rooted out of those Churches the Gospell blessed be God and so the true Church of Christ hath taken the deeper and firmer rooting and brought forth the more abundant â€¡ fruits of holinâ—sse But the Prelate in thus unchurching all true Reformists is as good as his word which he openly spake at Dr. Bastwicks Censure in High-Commission saying The Protestant Churches beyond the Seas were no Churches as having no Bishops calling Calvin a plaine Rascall But so long as those Churches have the true Bishops namely Orthodox and Sound Pastors to feed their severall â—locks it is not the Arch-prelate that can so easily degrade them from being Christs true Churches as he can deprive those Ministers both of Ministry and Meanes who are obnoxious to his Church-Goâ—ernment Thirdly where he saith that his Church-Government hath been in use in all Ages and in all Places where the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting both In and ever since the Apostles times although this be most false yet were it true it would not therupon follow that this his Church-Government is either Apostolicall or jure divino or from Christ For first every thing that hath been in use in the Apostles times and in the true Church of Christ is not therfore Apostolicke or such as the true Church of Christ alloweth of For we read that the Mistery of Iniquity began to worke in the Apostles times and even then there were Â§ many Antichrists and that in the very midst of the Church in those dayes â€ And if Prelates shall prove to be those Antichrists which the Apostles detected and described by their qualities as will appeare anonâ— then because such Antichrists were extant and their Church-Government in use in the Apostles times will the Prelate therfore conclude such were Apostolicke and had their Originall jure divino Secondly neither can the Prelate ever prove that his Prelaticall Government as now of later and of long time it hath been is any thing like to the Church-Government exercised by those who took upon them to be the first Diocesan or Provinciall Bishops in those ages succeeding the Apostles He that shall read the Centuries Catâ—lagus Testiunâ— veritatis and other true Church Stories shall find as vast a difference between those poore ancient Bishops both in their manner of life and Church-Government and the moderne Prelotes since Antichrist mounted aloft in his Pontificalibus as the * Poet makes between the Silver Age and the Iron Age or as the â€¡ Prophet shews between the brazen brest of the Image of the Babylonish Empire and the feet mixt of iron and clay And that Image may well resemble the State of the Spirituall Babylon or Hierarchy which had its rise of simple and small beginnings but by degrees Successively it grew and got strength and both height and bredth and so became at length of a blind Brooke a goodly navigable River so as the Church turned a City of Traffique and Trade in all worldly pleasures and riches as Babylon is described Revel. 18. and so the more worldly it grew the more wicked proud tyrannicall lordly and imperious and of a Militant Church turned Triumphant as the Prelate himselfe saith of Rome so as now the Church Government of the Prelates in regard of their great Courts and Consistories and doing all things without the Presbyteryâ— is as much unlike that ancient

are comprehended many for it is a Mystery yet one is mentioned Chap. 2. 1. because I say it holds proportion with the vision Againe if by the Angel here they would have to be understood a Diocesan Bishop then they must prove that this Diocesan hath a lawfull Calling as Sent of God Otherwise he is no Angel that is no Messenger no Angel sent of God Or if they say This Angel was sent of God let them prove him to be a Diocesan Bishop And thus they are brought into a Circle and cannot find the way out But they alledge againe That one here notes unity which cannot be without a Diocesan Bishop And therefore a Diocesan Bishop was set up for that end to be a Head of unity for the conservation of Order and Peace in Schismatis remedium for a remedy of Schisme Insomuch as our Arch-prelate as is before noted holds a necessity of one Ordine Primus for the unity and peace of his Catholicke Church Now for answere briefly this being partly touched before true it is that one here is a mysticall note of unity so as in the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is comprehended the whole Church of Ephesus both Ministers and People But one here doth not signifie one Diocesan Bishop Neither is one Diocesan Bishop in a Diocese nor one Metropolitan in a Province or Kingdome nor one Ordine Primus in the whole Catholicke Church of necessity to preserve unity in the Church 'T is true indeed that the Prelates new Catholicke-Church which is Prelaticall may need such a Head as one Ordine Primus to preserve it in unity and peace this being also very usefull for the inlarging of the Tower of Babel for which the Prelate hath so laboured for Peace in the Church of England under the Headship of his Primacy so as had he none to oppose or contradict his wicked practises for the setting up of Popery but all did quietly submit and conforme to his Canon his Babylon would goe up apace and prosper even as * when the old world was all of one language the Tower of Babel went up a maine till God confounded their worke in the division of tongues but the true Catholicke Church of Iesus Christ hath one Bishop of there Soules which is Christ who is that Ordine Primus that â€¡ unites the whole body every joynt and every member that is not onely every particular beleever but every particular Christian Congregation is knit to the whole in and under that one Head And so this Body groweth and this building goeth up notwithstanding all the mouths of contradiction and of malicious Sandballets that seek to hinder it Whereas it is not so with the building of Babel For one small breath of the mouth of God in his word breathed by one poore Minister is able to blast the building and therefore the builders cry out against such Fellows as troublers of the State and movers of Sedition And they cannot be in quiet nor their building goe up untill such make-bates be silenced or made our of the way And therefore they labour with the Prince when themselves want power and Law to dâ—e with such as Constantine did with Athanasius Athanasius was the onely man that refused to hold Communion with a sort of Arian Bishops which caused a great gappe in that unity and peace in the Church which Constantine so much desired Well what 's the remedy He thereupon was easily moved to send Athanasius away into banishment and then he thought all would be quiet and in peace But by the way Truth must be looked unto in the first place otherwise what peace For that a false peace and the moeher of farther discord for the which truth is lost And even our Prelate himselfe in his said Booke doth often harpe upon these two strings together Truth and Peace a good harmony were they rightly meant and that his Truth were not made of a Wolfes gut which will never agree with a string made of a Sheeps gut as he pretends his Peace to be But this by the way And whereas they alledge the Prelacie to be a remedy of Schisme Heare Ã´ heavens and hearken Ã´ earth is not the Prelacy the grand Schismaticke I mean not onely in being the most busie and usuall make-bate in all Civil States dividing Prince and People but in setting up a new and false Catholicke Church altogether seperate from and holding no communion with yea excluding all Reformed Churches not Prelaticall as no members of the Catholicke as indeed they be not of the false Catholicke all Prelacie drawing to one Head of the Papacy and that by a necessity of one Ordine Primus as before is noted But to draw to a Conclusion The last Allegation which I note they make is that S. Marke was Bishop of Alexandria Ergo Episcopall Iurisdiction is an Apostolicall Tradition and so jure divino And for this they alledge the Testimony of Ierome where he saith At Alexandria from Marke the Evangelist the Presbyters alwayes chusing one from among them and placing him in a more eminent degree called him Bishop Whereupon the Prelate thus inferres So even according to S. Jerome Bishops had a very ancient and honourable Discent in the Church from St. Marke the Euangelist and this saith Ierome was a Tradition Apostolicke So the Prelate But first for Ierome we noted his words before of such Bishops saying They were set up by humane presumption and not by divine Institution and consequently not by Apostolike Tradition For Apostolicke Tradition is farre from â—umâ—ne presumption So as it is humane presumption to make that Apostolicke Tradition And for S. Marke * Ecclesiasticall Story tells us that Marke was the first that preached the Gospell which also he writ at Alexandria But the Story saith not that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria And the Prelate must marke that he was an Euangelist as also Iereme saith for he wrote the Gospel And the History saith he was â€¡ a follower of Peter the Apostle Which if true it makes it more probable that it was that Babylon in Egypt whence Peter wrote his Epistle where he saith The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you and so doth Marcus my Son then that Peter was then at Rome which the Papists to make Peter to have been at Rome are content should be that Babylon from whence he writ And if they will needs have it so let them have it with the whore of Babylon to boot But this by the way But be it that Marke was at Alexandria he was there onely as an Euangelist and to doe the Office of an Euangelist of which we have Spoken before Bishop he was not as the Prelates would have him for that we have already proved to be in their sense condemned both by Christ and by his Apostles and therfore is neither an Institution of Christ nor a Tradition Apostolicke And therefore what ever the Presbyters at Alexandria began to

Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Text snippets containing the quad