Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	epistle_n	paul_n	timothy_n	1,469	5	10.7239	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52063	A vindication of the answer to the humble remonstrance from the unjust imputation of frivolousnesse and falshood Wherein, the cause of liturgy and episcopacy is further debated. By the same Smectymnuus.	Smectymnuus.; Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655. aut; Calamy, Edmund, 1600-1666. aut; Young, Thomas, 1587-1655. aut; Newcomen, Matthew, 1610?-1669. aut; Spurstowe, William, 1605?-1666. aut	1654 (1654)	Wing M799; ESTC R217369	134,306	232

may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him That Christ wrote not onely to Polycarpus if hee were Angell of Smyrna but to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna appeares by what we said before out of Revelation 2. 10. Thirdly you know sir that by your owne confession Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles daies and long after even in Irenaeus his time And therfore what though Polycarpus be called the Bishop of Smyrna and Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus still the question remaines whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificiâ Whether Bishops Antonomasticè and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether Bishops in a generall sence as all Presbyters are called Bishops And suppose they were Bishops properly so called which we beleeve not yet still it lies upon you to prove that these were Hierarchicall Bishops That they had such power as our Bishops assume to themselves That they were a distinct order superior to Presbyters And that they had sole power of ordination and jurisdiction We are confident that you are so farre from being able to prove that they had a sole power as that you cannot prove they had any superiority of power over their fellow Angels For ought of any thing said by you in this large discourse This individuall Angell may be nothing else then a Moderator of a company of Presbyters having onely a superiority of order and this also mutable and changeable according as Paraeus and Beza hold whom you follow in this interpretation In the shutting up of this discourse concerning the Angels the Remonstrant as if he were very angry spits out nothing but scorne and contempt against his adversaries We bring one example and two testimonies to prove that the Angels of the seven Churches were not superior one to another and he cries out as one much displeased Away then with these your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies which you as destitute of all antiquity shut up the Scene withall But though you fling them away in your anger and fury yet we trust the ingenious Reader will gather them up and consider also that this Remonstrant that like another Champion against Doctor Whitaker bragges that all the Fathers and all the Councels are of his side and yet he brings neither Fathers nor Councels for to prove that these Angels are to be understood vidually and so wee take our leave of this discourse In the next place we come to the two postscripts which indeed were post-scripta after the booke was made and inserted to avoyd an hiatus which all the defenders of Hierarchy cite for the averring of Episcopacy by divine right To this you reply First That you are no waies ingaged to defend these postscripts It is true not as you are a Remonstrant but as you are juratus in verba Magistri sworne to maintaine any thing that may uphold Hierarchicall Episcopacy Secondly you confesse ingeniously they are not canonicall yet you say they are of great antiquity but you durst not set downe how ancient For wee have good reason and authority to thinke that they are not ancienter then Theodoret who lived 435. yeeres after Christ. We brought many arguments to prove not onely the Apocryphalnes but the falsenesse of these subscriptions To all which you subscribe by your silence Onely you would faine if you could justifie that clause in the subscription to Titus written from Nicopolis and the rather because you finde it so in that famous ancient Manuscript of Tecla sent by the late Patriarch of Constantinople It seemes then you have seene that Manuscript And if so why doe you not deale faithfully with your Reader and discover what you finde in it for we are credibly informed in that copy there is no mention of Titus his being Bishop of Creet or of Timothy his being Bishop of Ephesus But this is your constant course to conceale whatsoever makes against you and to magnifie whatsoever hath but a shadow of appearance for you that all men may perceive you seeke victory rather then truth But before we leave the Postscripts we will answer to your two questions First you would faine see any pretence of so much age against the matter of these subscriptions the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus For reply we referre you to what is said before at large in answer to this demand Onely we will put you in minde of a speech of Bishop Barlows We are not unwilling to be judged by antiquity so it be such an antiquitie to which Ignatius appeales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing more acceptable to us then Histories if such as are written by him who stiles himselfe The ancient of daies And for the Fathers none more welcome to us then him whom Iustin Martyr cals Pater Patriae and that is Saint Paul Now Saint Paul when he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy and purposely undertooke in his third Chapter to set out the Office of a Bishop mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter including it in the Office of a Bishop which hee would never have done if hee had at the same time made Timothy an Hierarchicall Bishop with a power to doe that formally which was unlawfull for a Presbyter to doe And besides we have proved that this Epistle was written before Pauls first being at Rome and so before the time that you say Paul made him Bishop As for his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the Offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Chapter 1. Verses 5 6 7. Which he certainely would not have done if he had made them at that time distinct Orders with distinct Offices The ancient Fathers indeed some of them call Timothy and Titus Bishops in an improper sense because they staid longer in Ephesus and Creet then Evangelists ordinarily did And did preach and ordaine and doe those things which Bishops in their time used to doe which notwithstanding they did not formally doe as Bishops but virtually and eminently as Officers of an higher degree Hence Salmeron himselfe saith in his first disputation upon Timothy Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusquam Episcopus eti●●si ad tempus in ea civitate ut pastor praedicaverit sacros ordines promoverit Vnde quidam vocant eum Episcopum Ambrose saith one while he was a Deacon another while a Prethyter Others a Primate and others a Bishop Lyra proveth him to have beene an Archbishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle Aquinas thinkes that Titus was Bishop of Dalmatia because when Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy hee was at Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. Thus you see the Fathers agree not amongst themselves and therefore helpe you little in this point Your second question is Whether ever we have beene urged to subscribe to any other cerem●nies then

we alledged Obiter Tindals translating the seven Churches seven Congregations All you answer is onely to shew that in other places of the Scripture by Congregation in Tindals sence cannot be meant a parishionall meeting But what if it be not so in other places how doe you make it appeare that it is not so in this place We are sure it is so taken in twenty other places of Tindals translation and may very properly be taken here also We alledge also that in Ephesus which was one of these Candlestickes there was but one flocke You demand whether this flocke were Nationall Provinciall or Diocesan And why doe you not demand whether it were not Oecumenicall also that so the Pope may in time come to challenge his flocke universall But you are sure you say that this flocke was not a parochiall flocke because it cannot be proved that all the Elders to whom Paul spake were onely belonging to Ephesus But can this Remonstant prove that there were more Elders or Bishops then those of Ephesus This is to answer Socratically and in answering not to answer Howsoever it is not so much materiall You your selfe confesse that the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus had but one flocke And if divers Bishops were over one flocke in the Apostles daies where is your individuall Bishops over divers flockes in the Apostles daies Our second argument is also drawne from the Church of Ephesus which was one of the seven Candlestickes in which we are sure in Saint Pauls daies there were many Angels and those called Bishops Acts 20. 28. And to one of those in all likelyhood was the Epistle to Ephesus directed if the direction be meant individually But yet wee read not a word of any superiority or superintendency of one Bishop over another To them the Church in generall is committed without any respect to Timothy who stood at his elbow But to all this ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quideu● onely he tels us it is answered in answering the first But how true this is let any Reader judge At the end of this reason wee produce Epiphanlus affirming that in ancient time it was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop whereas other Cities had two Here our Remonstrant takes a great deale of paines not to confute us but to confute Epiphanius All that we will reply is this to desire the Reader to consider that this Epiphanius was the first that out of his owne private opinion accused Aerius of madnesse and as this Authour saith of heresie for denying the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters And if this Remonstrant thinke it no disparagement to himselfe to be a confuter of Epiphanius why should we be cryed downe so heavily for not agreeing with Epiphanius in his judgement concerning Aerius The third argument the Remonstrant cuts off in the midst For whereas wee say that there is nothing sayd in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority or majority of rule or power that those Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches the answerer makes it runne thus That there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implies a superiority which indeed is to spoile the argument For wee grant there is something said to imply a superiority of the Ministers over the people but the question is of a superiority of power of one Angell over the other Angels which were joyned with him in his Church But this he conceales because hee knew it was unanswerable Onely he tels us First that the Epistles are superscribed to the Angell not Angels This is crambe millies cocta But what is this to a majority of rule or power Secondly he tels us it will appeare from the matter of the severall Epistles For hee askes Why should an ordinary Presbyter be taxed for that which hee hath no power to redresse That the Angell of Pergamus should be blamed for having those which hold the doctrine of Balaam or the Nicola●tans when he had no power to proceed against them Or the Angell of the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman Iezebel if it must be so read to teach and seduce when he had no power of publique censure to restraine her This discourse is very loose and wild Vt nihil pejus dicamus Doth not the Remonstrant plead here for sole power of jurisdiction which hee doth so much disclaime in other places of his booke when hee would have the singular Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira to have power to proceed against offendors either he doth this or nothing For our parts we answer without lisping That it was in the power not of one Angell but of all the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira to proceed against those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans To restraine that woman Iezebel or the Bishop of Thyatira his wife if it must needs be so read wee doe not thinke that one ordinary Presbyter as you call him was to exercise censures alone nor one extraordinary Bishop neither We find the contrary Matth. 8. 1 Corinth 5. And therefore we referre it to the Minister or Ministers of each Congregation with the advice and consent of the Presbyters adjoyning which we are sure is more consonant to the word then to leave it to the Hierarchicall Bishop and his Chancellor Commissary or Officiall In the next paragraph wee challenge you to shew us what kind of superiority this Angell had if he had any at all We require you to prove that he had any more then a superiority in parts and abilities or of order Where is it said that the Angell was a superiour degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters Or that he had solepower of ordination and jurisdiction But you flie from those questions as farre as from a Snake that would sting you and disdaining all that we say which is your accustomed way of answering you tell us that you are able to sh●w who were the parties to whom some of these Epistles were directed and to evince the high degree of their superiority Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus Alas sir you tell us but what we told you before and what others have ingeminated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You say That Ignatius and Tertullian tell us that Onesimus was now the Angell or Bishop of Ephesus and Polycarpus of Smyrna But marke what we answer First we doubt of the truth of the story For others tell us that Timothy was Bishop as they call him of Ephesus when Christ wrote this Epistle and this opinion Ribera Lyra and Pererius follow Others leave it in medio and say it is uncertaine But suppose the story were true we answer Secondly it doth not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in Saint Iohns daies that therefore he was the onely party to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For Saint Paul tels us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides Onesimus and he