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	day_n	king_n	4,175	5	3.7569	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04026	Informations, or a protestation, and a treatise from Scotland Seconded with D. Reignoldes his letter to Sir Francis Knollis. And Sir Francis Knollis his speach in Parliament. All suggesting the vsurpation of papal bishops.	Knollys, Francis, Sir, d. 1643.; Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.; Simson, Patrick, 1556-1618.	1608 (1608)	STC 14084; ESTC S107421	32,696	102

Bishop least equality should breed dissention yet saith he the Bishop was not aboue them in ho nor and dignity that he had rule over them but looke what is the Consuls duety in the Senate to propose matters to aske their opinions to direct others by giving them advise by admonishing by exhorting to guide the whole action by his authority and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent that charge had the Bishop in the assembly of Ministers And having declared that S. Ierom sheweth this to haue ben brought in by the consent of men vpon the first of Titus he addeth that the same S. Ierom other where sheweth how ancient an order of the Church it was even from S. Marks time to Hereclas and Dionysius at Alexandria In which words of Calvin seeing that the order of the Church he mentioneth hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had sayd the Bishop was not so aboue the rest in honor that he had rule over them It followeth that M. Calvin doth not so much as seeme to confesse of Ieroms reporte that ever since S. Marks time Bishops haue had a ruling superiority over the Cleargie Wherefore to use no more profes in a thing manifest which else might easily be proved more at large out of S. Ierom and M. Calvin both It is certaine that nether of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time haue had such superiority as D. Bancroft seemeth to father vpon them Thus haue I signified mine opinion of the points that your Honor specified in D. Bancrofts Sermon Which yet if he or any doe proue that I haue erred in or take him otherwise thā I ought I shall be very willing by Gods grace to correct remembring the Apostles lesson that The spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets 19. Sept 1598. SIR FRANCIS KNOLLIS HIS SPEACH IN PARLIAment related by himselfe to the late worthy Lo Treasurer Sir William Cicil. To the end I may informe your Lordship of my dealing in this Parliamēt time a gaīst the undue claīed superiority of the Bb. over their inferiour brethren Thus it was Because I was in the Parliament in the 25 yeare of King Henry the 8. In which time First all the Cleargie as well Bishops as others made an humble submission to King Henry 8. acknowledging his Supremacie and detesting the vsurpation of the Bishop of Romes authority Vpon which submission of the Cleargie the King gaue unto the sayd Bishops the same ample rule that before they had under the Pope over their inferiour brethren saving that the same rule was abridged by statute by this parenthesis following that is to say without offending the prerogatiue Royall of the Crowne of England and the lawes customes of the Realme In the latter end of the statute it was added That whofoever offendeth in any one parte of that statute and their aiders counsellors and abettours they did all fall into the penaltie of the Premunire And after I had recited the statute in the Parliament house I declared that in K. Henry 8. his dayes after this there was no Bishop that did practise superiority over their inferiour brethren And in King Edwards dayes the sayd Bishops obteyned a statute whereby they were authorized to keep their Courtes in the Kings name The which statute was repealed in Q. Maries dayes and is not revived in her Maiesties time that now is Wherupon it was doubtfull to me by what authority the Bishops doe keep their Courtes now in their owne names Because it is against the prerogatiue of the Crowne of England that any shou'd keep a Courte without a sufficiēt warrant frō the Crowne Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops doe keep their Courtes now by prescription and it is true that the Bishops may prescribe that K Henry 8. gaue them authority by the Statute of the 25 of his reigne to haue authority rule over their inferiour brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time But this was no special warrāt for thē to keep their courts by that in their owne names And yet they haue no other warrant to keep their courts as they do now in their owne names to my knowledge And this was the cause that made them obteyne a statute in King Edwards dayes to keep their courtes by in the Kings name Now it is a straunge allegation that the Bishops should claime authority at this present to keep Courtes in their owne names as they doe by prescription Because the statute of 25. H. 8. doth restreigne them generally from offending of the prerogatiue royall of the Crowne of England and the lawes and customes of the Realme And no man may iustly keep a court without a speciall warrant from the Crowne of Englād as is a foresayd And the generall liberty given by King Hen. 8. to the Bishops to rule and governe as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient warrant to the Bishops to keep their Courtes in their owne names by prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a warrant by statute to keep their Courtes in the Queenes name as the Bishops did in king Edwardes dayes In which time Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into the Realme to be placed in the two Vniverfities for the better instruction of the Vniversities in the word of God And B Cranmer did humbly prefer these learned men without any challenge to himselfe of any superiour rule in this behalfe over his inferiour brethren And the time hath been that no man Could cary away any graunt from the Crowne of England by generall wordes but he must haue speciall wordes to cary the same by Therefore how the Bishops are warranted to cary away the keeping of their Courts in their owne names by prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship sayd vnto me that the Bishops haue for saken their claime of superiority over their inferiour brethren lately to be by Gods ordinance that now they do only claime superioritie from Her Maiestie Supreame Governement if this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my L of Caunter bury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his booke of the great volume against M. Cartwright where he saith in playne words by the name of Doct. Whitgift That the superiority of Bishopps is Gods owne institution Which saying doth impugne Her Maiesties supreame government directly and therefore it is to bere tracted and truely For Christ plainely truely confesseth Ioh 18. 36. That his kingdom is not of this world And ther fore he gaue no worldly rule or preheminence to his Apostles but the heavenly rule which was to Preach the Gospell saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum quicunpue crediderit et baptizatus fuerit falvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world

whosoever shall beleiue be baptized shal be saved But he that will not beleiue shall be condemned Mark 16. 15. 16. But the Bishops doe crie out saying That Cartwright and his fel lowes would haue no Governement etc. So belike the Bishops care for no governmēt but for worldly and forcible governement over their brethren the which Christ ne ver gaue to his Disciples nor Apostles but made thē subiect to the rule of Princes who ought not to be resisted saving that they might answer unto Princes That they must rather obey God than men Act. 5. 29. and yet in no wise to resist the Prince but to take up the crosse follow Christ. To the Reader IF this Honorable man were now aliue he would wonder more than ever he did at the resolutenes of our Bishops In holding their Courtes in their owne names For bv M. Yelvertons speach at a committee of both houses in the second Session of this Parliament it was made so playne that the Bishops were in the Kings mercy for having seales of jurisdiction bearing their owne and not the Kings armes and holding Courtes in their owne names and not the Kings that S. Iohn Popham then Lord cheife Iustice of England and S. Edward Cooke then the Kings Atturney generall acknowledged the same to be true The reason was this In the first Session of this Parliament cap. 25. that Statute of Q. Mary which this worthy Counsailour of State mentioneth is repealed By which repeale the Statute of Edw. 6. likewise by him mentioned is restored to life But more hereof perhappes hereafter In meane while Quaere Whether those subjectes which haue taken the oath of supremacy be not forsworne If being cited by a processe which hath the seale of a Bishop not of the King they appeare to the Ordinaries Court held in the Bishops name and not the Kings Seeing such a processe and Court so held be by that Statute of Ed. 6. now in force sayd to be against the Kings prerogatiue therefore both must be by none other than forreigne power If so Quaere 2. VVhether his Majesties subiects being so cited to such a Court be bound in law to make their appearance Ierm 36. 26 1 Peter 2. 13 14. 1 king 22 7 Iudg. 6. 31. Exod. 25 Hebrew ● 5 Heb 12 25 28 29. Isai 49. 23. Psalm 100. 3 Thes 2. 8 2. Kin 16 34 Act. 20 17. 28. Phil. 1 1 1. Tim 3 1. 2 Titus 1 5. 7 1 Pet 5. 1 2 1 Sam 5 2 3. 4 2. Kin 16. 10 2 Chro 29. 16 18 19. Can 1 3. Math 17 5. Iohn 10 3. 4 29 Iames 1. 20 Isai 61 1. Iames 1. 17. Psalm 43 3. Psalm 103. 4 Isai 9. 2 Zach. 11. 7 Plal 122 7 Iob. 1 19 Gal. 3. 1 3. Heb 12. 1 Eph 1. 17 Col 1. 11. Philip 2. 2 Heb 13 21. a Deut 33 9 b pag 18. c pag 19. d pag 69 e Act 23. 8. f 1 Tim. 6. 3 Titus 3. 10. 2 Peter 1. 19 21. g The defence of the Apologie part 1. 7. devision 2 answ to the Rhem. Titus 3. 10 h pag 18. i p. 19. 69 k Tom 1. cont 5. lib. 1 ca 15. l Heresy 15. m in epist ad Titum 1 et Epist 85. ad Evagrium n cap 53. o In Argu. pre fix lib. 3 Tom 2 p de heref ad quodvnit deū in prefatione q Epist. 19 r def of the Apol. part 2 ca 9 divis 1 page 198 s De sacrif hom orig et con●●● lib 1 ca 5 t in 1 Tim ● v in Epist ad Tirum x Collect. can li. 7. ca 87. e● 1●7 y Poliear li. 2 Tit 19. et 39. z ca legimus dist 39 ca olimp dill 95. a Author gloss in ca dist citat ho doricus caol Ave lat in concil Basil. Daaren de sacra Eccle mimst lib 1 cap 7 b page 19 c page 69 e ●ess 23 c. 4 Can 6 7 f anot marg ad cap legimus dist 43. g Tom. 1 Contro 5 lib 1 cap h Aeneas Silvius histo Bohem cap 35 et Pigh hierarch ecclef lib. 2. ca 10. i Defens pacis part 2 ca 15 k Tho Walden Doct fidei Tom 1 lib 2 cap 60 et Tom 2 cap ●7 l Aeneas Sil vius loco citato m adversus falso nominat ordin epist et adver Papat Rom n in epist ad Philip 1 et Titus 1 o Apol Consest Wittenb cap 21 p Decad. 5 serm 3 q Loc. Com. T it de minist verbi r Iewell lo●●citat et Pilkington in the Trearise of burning Paules Church s D Humphrey in Cāp et in Duraeū Iesuitas-part 2 rat 3 D Whit ad rat Cāpiani 6. et Confuta Duraei Iesuitae lib 6 t M Braford Lambert others M Fox Acts c D Fulke against Bristow motiue 40 Answer to the Remists Tit 1. 5. v v part 2 x lib 4 y Harmony sect 11 in Helvet post Galia Belgia Anglia c z pa. 14 69 a Epist. ad Evagrum b Hom 11 in 1 Tim. c Concil 4 Ca● 3 d In 1 Tim 4 14 e In I nstit lib. 4 cap 4. sect 2 f 1 Cor 14 3●

one Kirk alone but over many in one or moe Dioceses quhilk injquity hath flowed also frō the Antichrist of Rome and thence is derived to the Orders of his Cleargie Archbishopes Bishops Arch-Deanes Deanes c. setting up by the devise of Satan ane Hierarchie that is a Spirituall principalitie in the Kirke of God overthrowing altogither the Ordināce of Christ Iesus in ordering his Kirke officers whairof hath bene spoken more at large in the first Treatise and in place thereof intruding upon the Kirk Satanicall and Antichristian devises and Traditions whereupon this conclusion groweth like unto the former Whosoever leaving the Institution of Christ expressed in his word vsurpe spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction togither with civil power in the Kirk They communicate with Antichrist and their usurpation is Antichristian But Papal Bishops and Prelates practise this Antichristian iniquitie against the Institution of Christ his word Therefore they communicate with the Antichrist and the practise and usurpation is Antichristian The Assumption we haue to proue Quhilk is playne by scripture expresly condemning in Ministers of the word both civil power as we heard before and spirituall authority or power aboue the rest of the Ministers and disposers of the word as inferiors to thē Quhilk we proue as followes 1. Christ comming into the world taking upō him the shape or forme of ane servant Philip. 2. 7. witnesseth that he as Minister of the Gospell cam not to be served but to serue Math 20 28. and no servant is aboue his Master Math 10. 24. 2. Christ recommending to his Disciples humilitie with Paritie and equa litie expresly forbiddeth among them Superioritie or Domination Math 20. 25. etc. and 23. 8. 11. Marke 10. 43. etc. Luc. 22. 25. etc. 3. Christ giveth unto his Apostles Disciples alike the Keyes of the kingdome of heaven and they resaue alike power Math 18. 18. Ioh 20. 23. 4. The Disciples and Apostles observing their Masters command equall themselues not one clayming superioritie or Primacie aboue the rest but all professing equalitie call them selfe servantes 2. Cor 4. 5. Ministers and Dispensators 1 Cor 4. ver 1. 5. Messengers 2 Cor 5. 20. etc. And no place there is to be foūd whair they are called Princes Lords or by any such name soūding to superiority or dominatiō in any wise 5. The practise of the Apostles sending by like authoritie Peter and Iohn as Messengers and erand bearers to Samaria Act 8. 14. Quhilk the Apostles wald never haue cōmanded if Christ had not given them a like power neither Peter whom some make to be Prince of the Apostles would haue obeyed if Christ had given him Primacie or Superioritie aboue the rest 6. Peter himselfe disclaiming all such Primacie and Superioritie equaleth himselfe with the Ministers Elders of Kirke calling himselfe fellow Elder 1. Pet 5 1. expresly forbidding Ministers and Elders to take domination as Lords aboue the heritage of God ver 3. 7. The Apostle Iohn sharply cheeketh and rebooketh Diotrephes clayming to him prioritie or preferment aboue the rest Iohn Epist. 3. ver 9 10. 8. Against the spirituall superioritie of Papal Bischops doe serue all those places afore cited wherein the name power office properties and dueties of a Bishope are communicate with Pastors Teachers and Elders Act 20. 17. 1. Pet 5. 2. Phil 1. 1. Tit 1. 5. 7. 1 Tim 3. 2. 3. 4. c. Quhilk places are plane pithie sufficient alone to overthrowe pretended prioritie of Papal Bishopps Praelates c. With scripture agreeth learned and sinceire Antiquity in ancient Christian Kirkes wherof we shall bring a few for exemple speaking most clerely in this purpose Cyprian lib de simplicit praelat The office of a Bishop is one and vndivided parte whereof is absolutly held of every Bishop Idem Cypr lib. Epist 3. Every Bishop doth rule and governe his owne portion of the Lords flocke being to give an account of his doings to God Athanasius Epist. ad Liberium Episcop Romanum All the blessed Apostles were indued with the fellowship of equall honour and power Chrysost Hom 43. in Math What Bishop soever shall desire primacy in earth shall finde confusion in heaven and he who shall covet to be first shall not be in the nūber of Christ his servantes Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium Where soever a Bishop shall be either at Rome or Evgubium or Constantinoble or Rhegium he is of the same worth and of the same preisthood Idem ad Tit cap 1. After the age of the Apostles one of the Bishops was set aboue the rest whom they peculiarly called a Bishop But this was rather by custome than by the truth of the Lords disposing That it may further appeare even by Hierom himselfe that the usurpation of Papal Bishops prevayled by custome against the truth marke well what he writeth vpon Heb 13. 17. viz He divideth the care of the Kirke equally amongst many In saying obey them that are set over you Besides these and others a fore cited against the authority practise of Papall Bishops many mo testimonyes may be drawne out of the same Fathers and Doctors with others also of the same judgmēt quhilk are alledged be menteners of Christian Discipline against authority of Papal Bishops as out of Cyprian lib3 Epist 10. 14. 27. Tertullian de Ieiun August lib 19. cap 19. de Civitate Dei Item lib de opere Monach Hierom ad Oceanum et in Tit 1. Ambrose lib Epist 5. et 33. Chrysost hom 2 in epist ad Philip Hilar adver Constan. Nazian orat ad Maxim Bernard de consid lib 2. ad Evgenium Papam For this same purpose are alledged some testimonies of Councels as Carthage Chalcedon Constan c. Siclik against the authority and prac tise of Papal Bishops do witnes all Protestant Kirkes in France Helvetia Polonia Hungaria Bohemia c. and in any Nation truly professing the Gospel in all the world onely England excepted And among the late writers the most learned and notable professors defenders of the truth against the Romāe Antichrist all writing against the Lordly usurpation of Civil and spirituall power in Ecclesiasticall persons as may be seene by their severall writtings Lastly out of English writers evē some of them of the other side matter may be fetched against the Lordship of Papal Bishops Iewel in defen Apolog adversus Harding page 714. D Bilson in his Booke in quarto page 126. D Bridges of the Prince Supremacy page 926. M. Elmar Bishop of London in his book printed at Straesborogh See a Petition directed to Her Maiestie pa. 7. 8. 9. quhilk we bring to proue rheir consent and witnessing unto the truth Although as Cyprian sayth Humane testimonies are not to be expected when Divine suffrages goe before Cyprian Epist 5. lib 2. As for objections in the contrary what can be moved to moue any of the simplest against such cleare light of holy scripture and so many testimo nies of Divine