Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	bishop_n	church_n	ephesus_n	1,251	5	11.4920	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20770	A treatise of the true nature and definition of justifying faith together with a defence of the same, against the answere of N. Baxter. By Iohn Downe B. in Divinity, and sometime fellow of Emanuel C. in Cambridge.; Selections	Downe, John, 1570?-1631.; Baxter, Nathaniel, fl. 1606.; Bayly, Mr., fl. 1635.; Muret, Marc-Antoine, 1526-1585. Institutio puerilis. English.	1635 (1635)	STC 7153; ESTC S109816	240,136	421

notwithstanding Papists haue abused it to signifie a Sacrificer yet properly it doth not so being originally deriued from Presbyter neither among vs is it now so vnderstood To say nothing that the anciēt Fathers who I presume were not Antichristian vsually call the Ministers of the Gospell Sacerdotes Priests As therefore you cannot without great absurdity reason from the name to the thing thus your Ministers are called Priests Ergo your Ministrie is Antichristian so neither can you without greater absurdity separate your selfe from the thing because of the name and because our Ministers are called Priests withdraw your selfe from our Ministrie Secondly Arch-bishops and Bishops if they be not of diuine institution yet were they some Centuries of yeeres before euer Antichrist appeared in the world as all antiquity and Ecclesiasticall Story testifieth That most famous first generall Councell of Nice assembled by Constantin the Great about the yeere of our Lord 327 not onely approueth them but also affirmeth that the Church anciently and long before that time had been gouerned by them Epiphanius Augustin both reckon Aerius among the number of Hereticks for denying the then-receiued and allowed distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter But to speake my mind plainely I am for my part perswaded that the superiority of Bishops ouer the Ministers was of Apostolicall institution Those Angels to whom Saint Iohn in the second and third of the Reuelation is commanded to write what other were they then the Bishops of those Churches of Asia In Ephesus one of those seuen Churches it is reported by S. Luke that there were many Presbyters and I doubt not but it was so in other of the Churches also howbeit the Apostle writeth vnto one onely whom hee calleth the Angell as being singular and eminent aboue the rest And the ancient story of the Church recordeth the particular Bishops of euery one of those Churches together with their successors for a long time So that Bishops being in the Apostles time and successiuely continued in the Primitiue Church without any contradiction either of the Apostles themselues or any other yea rather with their approbation and allowance as appeareth by those seuen Epistles vnto the seuen Angels and all the writings of the ancient Fathers how can it bee imagined but that Bishops and their superiority ouer others was of Apostolicall institution Now if Priests or Pastors for as wee haue sayd in substance they be all one were ordained by God himselfe and Bishops deriue their pedigree also from the holy Apostles of God it followeth by necessary consequence that as our Ministery is not from Antichrist so neither is it against Christ Were it against Christ it would be either because he hath forbidden it or for that it destroyeth rather then edifieth the Church But it is no where forbidden If it bee shew the place and wee yeeld Neither doth it hinder the edification of the Church For first it is the office both of Bishops Priests to preach the Gospell of Christ and to administer his holy Sacraments Secondly the aduancement of one Presbyter aboue the rest was for the preuention of Schisme For when Factions began to arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul others I am of Apollos I am of Cephas then sayth Hierom was it decreed through the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest Who being so preferred his duty is to ouersee the rest of his brethren that they carefully discharge the office imposed vpon them and frame their liues according to the worthines of their calling All which I am sure furthereth the building of the Church so farre is it from destroying so that nor Priests nor Bishops whether yee regard their offices or the end of their ordination can be sayd to be against Christ Peraduenture for I would willingly let nothing passe vnanswered there lies a mistery in the word Lord-Bishops and you intend that they are the more Antichristian for that they are so called Surely if they should ambitiously affect the title of Lord Mat. 23. as the Pharisees somtimes did the title of Rabbi it were great pride and vanity in them and if they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord it and as it were domineere ouer the flock of Christ as if the inheritance were theirs it would be intollerable presumption tyranny But that a title of honour may be giuen vnto Bishops in regard of their honorable place and calling as there is no reason to the contrary so it must needs proceed from much enuie or frowardnesse to deny Gen. 31.35 1 King 18.7.13 Let it not bee displeasing in the eyes of my Lord saith Rahel to her Father Art not thou my Lord Elias And againe Was it not told my Lord what I did when Iezebel flew the Prophets of the Lord said good Obadiah vnto the Prophet If Laban because he was a naturall Father vnto Rahel and Eliah because hee was a Prophet might iustly bee so stiled why may not Bishops also who are the spirituall Fathers and Prophets yea and Angels of the Church Luc. 22.25.26 you will say our Sauiour expresly forbiddeth them to bee called Gratious Lords I deny it For although it pleased the translator so to render the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because anciently it was a title of honour giuen vnto Princes yet doth it not properly signify so but Benefactors or Wel-doers Neuerthelesse suppose it so signified yet is it not simply the title but the ambitious affectation of the title which Christ disliketh Act. 10.38 If a man imitating Iesus Christ should goe about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing good were it a sinne trow you to giue him his deserued name and to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wel-doer Had it been simply vnlawfull for a Minister to be called Lord would Paul and Silas haue admitted it and not rather haue reprehended the keeper of the prison saying vnto them My Lords Act. 16.30 what ought I to doe that I may bee saued Our Sauiour Christ saith vnto his disciples Bee not yee called Masters Bee not yee called Doctors Mat. 23.8.10 and yet among you some Ministers are called Doctors and all Masters So that it appeareth by your owne practice that the name of Lord maketh not Bishops Antichristian but as wee haue said it is the affecting of the name which is forbidden And thus you see your Minor is no way true Notwithstanding you endeauour to proue it thus Because the Churches of Antichrist cannot be compleate without this Prelacy as appeareth you say by the Popes Canons and Pontificall and by their Church-constitutions A seely and sory argument For first the Ministrie of the Church of England is so farre from being a complement of the Churches of Antichrist that the Church of Rome doth Anathematize and accurse it esteeming vs right as you doe to bee no Church at all because wee want their Ministry

sinne of their owne Neither doth God thinke it agreeable with his iustice to exact of them a proper and particular Faith of their owne Infants then are holpen by anothers Faith Whose Faith will you say The Faith of the Parents as also of the Church who is the common mother of vs all and in whose wombe as it were they are conceiued borne This of old was Saint Augustins sentence and this all sound Diuines haue agreeably with the Scripture euer held Onely it may be demanded how and in what sort the Parents Faith auaileth them Whereunto I answer not by particular applying of Christs merits and obedience vnto them for this is done onely by a mans owne Faith vnto himselfe but by bringing them within the compasse of the Couenant of Grace Thus The Couenant was made not with Abraham onely Gen. 17.19 Act. 2.39 but with his seed also and the Promise saith Saint Peter was giuen both to the Parents and to the Children The Parents therefore by Faith apprehending this Promise and Couenant by their Faith interest their Children also thereunto For as it is in ciuill negotiations the bargaine that the Father maketh for himselfe his Children is firme and good although the Children bee not present at the bargaine-making nor vnderstand what is done euen so in this spirituall Couenant and contract with God the Parents Act is sufficient force to confederate their Children also and to giue them a right vnto all the benefits of the Couenant And as I conceiue this is imputed vnto them in lieu of all those Acts and Habits which otherwise are required in those that are Adulti How farther the Holy Ghost worketh in them is a deepe and inscrutable secret Et de occultis non iudicat Ecclesia the Church is no iudge of things that are hidden Onely I affirme that by the Faith of the Parents the Children are made a holy seed and members of Christs body But what if one of the Parents bee an Infidell What if either of them or both be notorious hypocrites or openly sinnefull hauing not in them true Iustifying Faith are the Children therefore without the compasse of the Couenant and vniustified before God I answer No For first if but one of the Parents belieue yet are the Children holy 1. Cor. 7.14 So saith Saint Paul The vnbelieuing husband is sanctified by the belieuing wife and the vnbelieuing wife is sanctified by the husband else were your Children vncleane but now are they holy Againe though neither of the Parents belieue with iustifying Faith yet being in the Church by the profession of Christian Religion their Children are within the Couenant For first the Soule that sinneth it shall die Ezech. 18.20 the sonne shall not beare the iniquity of the Father neither shall the Father beare the iniquity of the Sonne So that the impiety of the Parents preiudiceth not the Child that is borne in the Church Secondly by Parents are to bee vnderstood not those alone of whom Children are immediatly begotten and borne but their Progenitors and Ancestors also who feared God and liued in the Church though many generations before For God made not his Couenant with Abraham and his immediate seed onely but with all his seed after them in their generations Gen. 17.7 Ex. 20. and promiseth to shew mercy to the thousandth generation of them that loue him and keep his Commandments Whence it followeth that these are as it were a root vnto all their posterity borne in the Church and therefore Rom. 11.16 if the root be holy so are the branches also saith Saint Paul Lastly bee the next Parents whatsoeuer they will bee yet their Children being borne in the Church the Church is their Mother and the Faith and piety of the Church interesteth all such as are borne in her vnto the Couenant And thus you see how Children are iustified and Saued by anothers Faith If Children may not those that are Adulti so bee iustified and saued also No verily For as the Prophet saith The iust man shall liue suâ fide not by anothers Hab. 2.4 but by his owne Faith And hence is it that in the Lords prayer we are taught to say Our Father but in the Creed I belieue because Prayer is an Act of Charity extending it selfe vnto the good of others also but Belieuing is an Act of Faith onely benefiting a mans selfe Can the cloths that another weares warme mee or the meat another eates nourish mee or the potion another receiues cure mee or the soule that is in another man quicken mee Nor more can the Faith of another man iustify or saue mee As one man shall not beare anothers fault sed anima quae peccat ipsa morietur the soule that sinneth it shall die so shall not one man bee acquitted for anothers Faith sed anima quae credit ipsa saluabitur the soule that belieueth it shall bee saued Saluation euery where in Scripture is promised to him who himselfe belieueth and damnation is euery where threatned to him that belieueth not so And he belieueth not so who hath not a Faith of his owne Yea but if Adams sinne bee imputed vnto vs for Condemnation and the Obedience of Christ for Iustification why may not anothers Faith also bee imputed for Saluation The case is not alike for they were publicke persons and stood in our steed but so doe not others In the Couenant of works Adam was our Head and therefore his sinne is counted the common act of all those that were in his loines In the Couenant of Grace Christ is our Head and therefore his Obedience is esteemed the common Obedience of all those who are vnited vnto him by Faith Others are not our Heads nor represent our persons in regard whereof neither can their Act bee accounted ours It will further bee obiected that Christ forgaue the palsie-sicke man his sinnes for the Faith of them that brought him Luc. 5.20 and so as Thomas saith both Ambrose and one Iohn a Bishop vnderstand it Caten in cum loc But Saint Chrysostome otherwise and that more rightly vnderstanding it both of the sicke mans Faith and theirs who brought him For our Sauiour intending to bestow a double benefit vpon him namely the cure both of body and soule this could not bee effected but by the interuention of his owne Faith but the other might by the Faith of those that presented him So wee read that the Centurions seruant Mat. 8.13 15.28 and the woman of Canaans daughter were healed the one for his Masters the other for her Mothers Faith And who knowes not that vnbelieuers oftentimes temporally fare the better for the sake of the Faithfull Saint Ambrose therefore imputing the remission of sinnes vnto the Faith of others must bee vnderstood with a graine of Salt as they say that one mans Faith may obtaine Faith vnto another and so consequently by the interuention thereof Iustification also as did the

fo● 〈◊〉 second question I thinke you will confesse pardon ●ee if I thinke amisse that you haue not skill enough with vnderstanding to read the Greeke Fathers in their Original but are faine to trust vnto Translations But I beseech you doe not Translators many times what through ignorance or neglicence or wilfulnesse mistake and peruert the meaning of their Author L. 2. c. 1. Ruffinus translated the Ecclesiasticall history of Eusebius and in it this passage of Clemens that Peter Iames and Iohn although Christ preferred them almost before all yet they tooke not the honour of Primacy to themselues but ordained Iames who was surnamed Iust Bishop of the Apostles A shrewd testimony for the Primacy of Iames against that of Peter but the error is in the translation the Greeke Eusebius hauing not Bishop of the Apostles but Bishop of Hierusalem Yet Marianus Scotus citeth the same out of Methodius iust according to Ruffins translation from whence perhaps it was taken Hist l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius himselfe in expresse tearmes affirmeth the Epistle of S. Iames to be Spurious but your Chrystopherson renders it so as if he had meant that not himselfe but some others in the Church had so esteemed it in former times And lastly not to stand longer vpon this point that very translation of Cyrillus Alexandrinus which you haue made by Trapezuntius you haue little reason much to trust vnto For as Bonauentura Vulcanius sheweth Praef. Ann. it is a very disorderly one wherein many things are omitted much is added of his owne and much peruersly translated To conclude therefore seeing the writings of the Fathers haue so many wayes and so notoriously beene abused by addition by subtraction by alteration by misquotation by mistranslation it followeth that infallible certainty from them you can haue none and so consequently that you cannot safely build your Faith vpon them To proceed the Scriptures you say are obscure and ambiguous and therefore you may not rest vpon them saue onely as they are expounded of the Fathers If so then if the Fathers also bee obscure and ambiguous neither may you rest your Faith vpon them Now certainly the Fathers are as darke and doubtfull as the Scripture If you thinke otherwise doe but read the works of Tertullian and Arnobius and let me afterward know your minde For my part I see no reason why the Scripture should bee more subiect to diuersity of interpretations according to the difference of times as Cardinall Cusan impiously affirmeth Ep. 2. 7. Cont. Whit. l. 2. p. 45. and Duraeus the Iesuit impudently defendeth then the writings of the Fathers What doe wee not vouch the Fathers on both sides are we not as confident vpon them as you whence commeth this I beseech you if they bee so cleere that no doubt can bee made of them And why doe you professe in your Flemish Expurgatorie Index that in ancient Catholike Writers yee tolerate many errors yee extenuate and excuse them and often deny them by deuising some shift and faining a sence vnto them when they are opposed against you What need I say all these tricks and fetches if there bee no obscurity in them If literall and Grammaticall construction may cary it the Fathers are directly ours and wee suppose they ment as they wrote neither can you make any shew of answer vnlesse you fall to expound the meaning of them And so as you remoue your Faith from the letter of the Scripture vnto the exposition of the Fathers so must you of force remoue the same againe from the letter of the Fathers vnto some other tribunall to determine the sence and meaning thereof Giue mee leaue to declare this by some few examples That Faith only iustifies Origen Cyprian Eusebius Caesariensis Hilary Basil Chrysostome Ambrose Augustin Cyril Primasius Hesychius Gennadius Oecumenius in expresse tearmes affirme agreeing therein with vs whose words I will not fayle to produce whensoeuer you shall require Against hauing of Images in Churches and the Adoration of them wee haue the precise words not onely of Lactantius and Epiphanius and other Fathers seuerally Epist ad Ioh. Hicrosol but nineteene Bishops together in the Councell of Eliberis and of the whole Councell of Frankford vnder Charles the Great Against the Bishop of Romes supremacy wee haue the plaine resolution of Pope Gregory Lib. 6. ep 30. that he is the forerunner of Antichrist whosoeuer desires to bee called Vniuersall Bishop And of the Generall Councell of Chalcedon Act. 16. giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome And of two hundred seuenteene Bishops in the sixt Councell of Carthage among whom were Saint Augustin Prosper Gresians and many other worthy Fathers all decreeing that the Pope of Rome thenceforward should haue no authority ouer the African Churches Finally against Transubstantiation thus writeth Gelasius himselfe a Bishop of Rome De d●ab nat con Eu●ych The Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of CHRIST which we receiue is a diuine thing wherefore by them wee are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Thus also Theodoret Dial. 1. Hee who hath called meat and drinke that which naturally is his body and after cals himselfe a Vine he himselfe hath honoured the visible signes with the name of his Body and Bloud hauing not changed their nature but hauing added grace vnto nature And againe Dial. 10. The signes mysticall change not their nature after consecration for they remaine in their first substance figure and forme Hom. 11. Chysostom likewise if hee bee the Authour of the imperfect worke on Math. In the sacred vessels there is not the true Body of CHRIST but the mystery of his Body And Saint Augustin The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Con. Adimant c. 12. when he gaue the signe of his Body Thus the Fathers in these few points neither is it hard to shew the like consent in the rest What Will you now subscribe vnto their words yea being taken in the right sense But who shall iudge of the 〈◊〉 on vnderstand them one way we another Shall 〈◊〉 learned Rabbies of your side Fic that were too partiall and they so enterfere in their answers that they cut and hew one the other miserably Reuerend Bishop Morton hath demonstrated this at large Preamble●ng Mitigator Take one of his examples The Councell of B●●beris forbiddeth the hauing of Images in Churches Do Imagin l. 2. c. 9. and Adoration of them Of Images representing Gods nature faith Andrad●●s No saith Bellarmine for such were not then in vse For feare test Gentiles should thinke Christians warshipped them idolatrously saith Sanders But the reason of the Canon agreeth not much with this exposition saith Bellarmine Because Christians seemed to worship those Images as Gods Ibid. saith Alen Cope But this exposition is not agreeable to the Canon saith

authority of Basil surnamed the Great Blessed Athanasius Methodius and their followers for it If any shall say it was the opinion onely of Iohn B. of Thessalonica and not of the whole Councell I answer that what Iohn said Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople forthwith confirmed and the whole Synod immediatly answered So it is my Lord. And this is so cleere that Bartholmew Carranza notes it as an errour in them Epit. Conc. ad cum loc Ep. 215. De Eccl. dog c. 11. 12. and contrary vnto the Lateran Councell yet addes withall that Saint Augustin was of the same mind But leauing other their errors I come without further delay to discharge that obligation wherein I stand bound to proue that the Fathers for a time generally held it necessary for all euen young Infants to bee partakers of the Eucharist Conc. Trid. Sess 5. can 4. or they could not bee saued which you know the Church of Rome alloweth not but condemneth as an error Eccl. hier c. 2. p. 3. First your Denys hee that goeth vnder the name of Areopagita after hee hath recited other ceremonies in the administration of Baptisme at length saith hee the Priest cals the partie Baptized to the most holy Eucharist and giues the Communion vnto him And lest you should vnderstand this of them that are baptized being Adulti Id. 7. c. 3. elsewhere he speaketh more plainely thus That children who cannot yet vnderstand diuine things should bee made partakers of holy Baptisme and of the mysticall signes of the most holy Communion may perhaps seeme ridiculous to profane men De lapsis if the Auditors when Bishops teach such Heauenly things bee not fit Saint Cyprian reports a story of a certaine Infant mayde who had not yet age enough to tell what wrong another had done her how when the Deacon had offered the holy chalice vnto her and shee refused hee powred it into her mouth Ibid. And a little after Will not those Infants saith hee when the day of iudgement shall come say wee haue done nothing neither forsaking the meat and cup of the Lord haue wee of our owne accord hastned to these profane contagions the perfidiousnesse of others hath ouerthrowne vs our Parents are our murtherers Innocent the first B. of Rome Ep. ad Patr. conc Milou That which your Brotherhood saith hee affirmeth them to preach namely that little ones may obtaine the reward of eternall life without the grace of Baptisme is very foolish for vnlesse they eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood they cannot haue life in them Con. Iul. Pel. l. 1. c. 2. Of this Innocentius S. Augustin saith how hee defined that little ones vnlesse they did eat the flesh of the Sonne of man they could by no meanes haue life in them Now I beseech you durst any man at that time hold otherwise then the head of the Church for so you count the Pope to bee had defined But let vs heare Saint Augustin himselfe Verily Con. duas Ep. Pel. l. 1. c. 22. saith he Christ is the Sauiour of little ones also and vnlesse they bee redeemed by him they must perish because without his flesh and blood they cannot haue life And againe Wherefore they also as I haue said Ad vital Ep. 107. if they die in that tender age shall certainly bee iudged according to the things they haue done by the Body namely during that time while they liued in the body when by the heart and mouth of them that bare them they belieued or not belieued when they were baptized or not baptized when they ate the flesh of Christ or not ate it when also they dranke his bloud or not dranke it according to these things I say which they haue done by the body not those which they would haue done had they liued longer here shall they bee iudged And yet againe De pec mer. remiss l. 1. c. 20. Away therefore now with doubting Let vs heare the Lord and not the suspicions and coniectures of men let vs I say heare the Lord speaking this not of the Sacrament of Baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy Table to which none lawfully approcheth but hee that is Baptized Vnlesse you eat my Flesh and drinke my Blood you shall haue no life in you What seeke wee further What will they bee able to answer hereunto vnlesse obstinacy doe stretch their striuing sinewes against the constancy of euident truth Will any dare to say this also that this saying belongs not vnto little ones or that they may haue life in them without the participation of this Body and Blood because hee saith not hee that eateth not as of Baptisme hee that is not borne againe but thus If yee eat not as speaking to them who were able to heare and vnderstand which certainly little ones cannot But hee that saith so marketh not that vnlesse this saying hold all that they cannot haue life without the Body and Blood of the Sonne of Man euen the elder age also will make little reckoning of it And yet once more againe Ib. c. 24. The Carthaginian Christians excellently call Baptisme no other then Saluation and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ no other then Life Whence but from an ancient and as J thinke Apostolicall tradition by which the Churches of Christ hold as ingrafied into them that without Baptisme and the participation of the Lords Table no man can come not onely to the Kingdome of God but neither to saluation nor life eternall And this being thus proued by and by he concludes If therefore as so many and so pregnant diuine testimonies witnesse with ioint consent no man may hope either for saluation or eternall life without Baptisme and the Body and Blood of the Lord in vaine doe they promise it to little ones without them Thus Augustin where by the way obserue how hee affirmeth this his opinion to bee the Tenet of all the Churches of Christ To whom I adde lastly the eleuenth Councell of Toledo Can. 11. If any faithfull man being constrained by any ineuitable infirmity shall cast vp the Eucharist which hee hath receiued let him in no case bee subiect to Ecclesiasticall condemnation Likewise let not the censure of any condemne them who either in the time of their infancy shall doe the same or in the alienation of their mind seeming to bee ignorant of what they doe In Ioh. 6.53 In Tertull. de cor mill This error touching the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants continued in the Church a long time euen about sixe hundred yeeres as your Maldonat saith And Beatus Rhenanus obserueth out of the Rituall books called Agendae that the custome of ministring the Communion to Infants was still in vse vnto the times of Ludouicus Pius and Lotharius that is towards nine hundred yeeres after Christ Against all this I know not what can be said vnlesse perhaps that