Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56148
|
A catalogue of such testimonies in all ages as plainly evidence bishops and presbyters to be both one, equall and the same ... with a briefe answer to the objections out of antiquity, that seeme to the contrary.
|
Prynne, William, 1600-1669.
|
1641
(1641)
|
Wing P3922; ESTC S122412
|
42,609
|
43
|
tâ—e manner of Ordination without any Bishops assistance which power of Ordination and imposition of hands hath ever since been prâ—ctised by Ministers in all reformed Chuâ—ches which have abandoned Bishops such as ours are and maâ—e themselves as contrary to Gods word â—atrick Adamsoâ— Arâ—h-Bishop of St. Andrews in Scotland in his recantation publickly made in the Synod of Fiâ—â—e Aprill 8 1591 conâ—esâ—eth that this office of a Diocesan Bishop Omne â—uthoritate verbi dei destituituâ— solo politico hâ—minum câ—nâ—mento â—uâ—datur is destitute of of all authority from Gods word and is onely â—ounded in the politicke figment of men out of which the primacy of the â—ope or Antichrist â—ath sprung and is worthily to be condemned becâ—use the asâ—embly of the â—â—esbytery penes quâ—m est jâ—risdictio inspectioâ—â—m in visitationibus tum in ordinationibus which having the jurisdiction and inspection both in visitations and in Ordinations will performe all these things with greater authority piety and zeale then any Bishop whatsoever whose caâ—e is for tâ—e most part intent not upon â—od or his â—â—â—ction but tâ—e world which he especially serves A 〈◊〉 blâ—w to our prelates Hieâ—achie For iâ— Bishops be not Iure divino and have no â—oundation in the word of â—od theâ— the power of OrdinatioÌ„ beloÌ„gs not â—to them Iure divino as they aâ—e Bishops neither can do or â—ught they to conâ—eâ—â—e Orders as Bishops but â—rely as they are Ministers And if so as is most certaine Then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as Bisâ—ops but only as Ministers and every Minister as he is a Minister â—ath as much right and authority to give oâ—ders as any Bishop whatsoever the true reason why even among us at this day Ministers ought to joyn with the Bishop in the imposition of hands neither can our Bishops ordaine any one a Minister unlesse 3 or 4 Ministers at least joyne with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands This being an apparent â—â—uth I shal hence from the Bishops owne principles prove Presbyters Superior and greater then Bishops in jurisdiction dignity and degâ—ee These say they to whom the power of Ordination belongs of Right are â—â—eater in jurisdiction dignity â—â—d degree then those who have not this power and the Ordainer higher in all these then the ordained But the power of Ordination belongs onely jure divino to â—resbyters as presbyters not to Bishops as to Bishops themselves not as Bishops but Presbyters and Bishops when they ordaine in a lawfull manner do it onely as Presbyters not as Bishops Therefore Presbyters are Superior to Bishops in jurisdiction Order and degree and Bishops themselves â—arre greater in all theseâ— as they aâ—e Presbyters an office of divine â—â—nction then as they are Lordly Prelates or Diocesan Bishops a meer humane institution Thus are our great Lord Bishops who vaunt of the weaknesse of puriâ—â—ne principles whereas their Episcopall are farre more feeble and absurâ— wounded to death with their own weapons and all their Domiâ—eering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle and foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverbe being here truly verified vis â—â—nsilij â—â—pâ—rs â—olâ— ruit sâ—â— I shall close â—p this with the words of acute Aâ—tâ—â—ius Sâ—dâ—â—l who after a large proof of Biâ—â—ops and presbyterâ— to be both â—ne and the same by divine institution winds up all in this mâ—nner We couclude therefore seeing that Superior Episcopall dignity is to be avouched onely humane institution Tantum essâ— hâ—mâ—ni iuris that it is only of humâ—ne right On the contrary since it is evident by the expressâ— testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbyters jurâ— diuinâ— pâ—tâ—stâ—tâ—â— ordinandi noâ— minus presbytâ—riâ— quâ—m Episcâ—pis convenirâ— that by Godâ— law and divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to preâ—biters as to Bishops I have now I hopâ— sufficiently maâ—ifested our Lordly prelates Arch-â—ishops Diocesâ—n Bishops distinct from presbyters to be none of Gods institution being therefore none of Gods Bishopâ— as they vainly pretend whose then must they be not the kingsâ— for thâ—n they are onely Iurâ— humanâ— which they have publikely â—â—sâ—lâ—imed iâ— Courtâ— therefore certainly eitheâ— the Popes or the â—evils or both as many of the recited writers stile theÌ„ for I know no other that can claime or own them wherfore being neither Gods nor the Kings but the Popeâ— or Devillsâ— or bothâ— what remaines but that now at last they should be spâ—red out of our Churchâ— as no members at all of Christs Church or bodyâ— but of the Devill Pope or Antichrist of Rome whose limbs and creatures in tâ—uth they are as Mauritius dâ— i Alâ—â—dâ— Henry k Stâ—lbridâ—â— and othersâ— expresly resolves and their actions past all dispute discover many of them to be yea as meere Individuum vaginus and meere unnaturall monsters they being neithâ—r Pastors nor members of any particular Church or congregation as all other Christians are besideâ— themselves I read in the l great Dutch Chronicle written by an Augustinâ— Frier that in the year of our Lord 1033 beyond Poland there was a strange Fisâ— taken of the quantity length and breadth and shape of a living man adorned with a Bishopâ— Miterâ— a pastorall Staff a Cassock a white Surplesse a Chessible Sandalsâ— Glovesâ— and all othes Robesâ— and ornaments requisite to the Dignity of â— Prelate like a Bishop solemnly attired and prepared to say divine Serviceâ— his Cassocke might be well lifted up before and behind from the feet to the knees but not higherâ— and he permitted himselfe to bee sufficiently â—andled and touched by manyâ— but especiâ—lly of the Bishops of that Countryâ— which Fish being presented to the King and demanded in the Language of that Countryâ— and of divers otherâ— nations who hee was and answering â—othing albeit he had opened hiâ— mouth giving reverence and honoâ—r to the Bishopâ— that were there in the Kings presence one Monster and dumbe unpreaching beastâ— saluting and respecting another the King being aâ—gry when hee had determined to commit him to prisoÌ„â— or shut him up iâ— soÌ„e stroÌ„g towâ—r the Fisâ— being very sorrowfull at this newes thereupon closed his eyes and would by no meanes open them untill the Bishops of that Kingdome m kneeling downe before the king in the fishâ—s preseâ—ce had with many prayers intreated and obtained of the King that he should be sent backe againe alive to the Seashoreâ— where hee had been takenâ— that God whose workes are incomprehensible might shew his nature and Acts least otherwise a plague should there ensue both to the King and his Subjects which their suit the King had no sooner granted but presently the â—oresaid Monster opened his eyes giving great thankes as it were to the King and especially to those Bishops After with a Chariot being prepared to carry the Fish backe againe the Fish in presence of an infinite
in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâ—ing it theÌ„selves as a truth Wherefore no ancient Counsell or Author whatsoever but Epiphanius branding it either for an heresie or Error I see not well how it should be so esteemed Secondly this hath been the constant received Doctrine both of Christ and his Apostles of all the Fathers and learned Orthodoxe writers in all ages as the precedent Catalogue witnesseth therefore no Heresie or Error as Epiphanius and some few of late out of him alone have rashly deemed it Thirdly it cannot properly be called an Heresie because the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers by a dâ—vine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâ—e it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâ—ius there condemnes Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring Prayer for the dead as for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall But this our Prelates must confesse unlesse they renounce this Doctrine of our Church was no Error or Heresie in Aerius but rather in Epiphanius why not therefore the other Fifthly Epiphanius himselfe doth not condeâ—ne Aâ—rius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ— quod tota res stuâ—titiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ— Naziaâ—zen Basill Sedulius Ambrose Chrisostome and Augustine taught the same Doctrine that Aerius did at or about the same time but they were never taxed of Heresie or Error for it either then or since why then should Aâ—rius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâ—ipture to prove his assertion as Hieromâ— hath done in his Epistle to Evagrius on Tit. 1. Seventhly Epiphanius his refutations of Aerius his Arguments and opinion is very ridiculous false and absurd For first he saith that Presbiters then had not the power of ordination neither did they use to lay on hands in the election and Ordination of Ministers which is a meere falshood as Hierom in Soph. c. â— with the â—th Counsell of Carthage witnes and I have elsewhere manifested at large Secondly he saith that Presbiters had no voice in the Election of Bishops and Ministers which is (s) contrary to all Antiquities extant and a most palpable untruth Thirdly he saith that there were then more Bishops then Presbiters and men sufficient worthy enough to be made Bishops but noâ— Presbyters and therfore the Apostle writing to the Philippians and others makes mention only of Bishops not of Presbyters because they had then Bishops but not Presbyters A miserable ridiculous answer which subverts that he contends for and constitutes Bishops without any Ministers under their command or jurisdictionâ— whence it will necessarily follow That seeing the Apostles instituted Bishops without Ministers under them aâ—d more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâ—ced in every churchâ— without any Ministers under â—hem but Deacons only and more Biâ—hops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their â—iocesâ—e and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoâ—â—les first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâ—ut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâ—und them worthy which is contrary to Stâ— t Ierome and â—ll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church 〈◊〉 14â— 23 Tit. 1 5 and that they afterward elected a Bishop out of themselves Fifthly he saith that the Apostles used to write to the Bishops of one Church in the plurall number when there was but one Bishop there which is very improbâ—ble yea contrary of all other expositors on â—hil â— 1. Tit. 1 5 7 Act. 20 17 2â— Sixthly he peremptorily determines Timothy to be a Bishop which I have elsewhere proved false and fâ—om this false ground would prove Bishops and Presbiters distinct Seventhly he interprets an Elder in the 1 Tim. 5.1 to be a Presbiter which most Fathers else expound only to be an ancient man Eightly he would prove Timothy a Bishop and Bishops to be Superior too and distinct from Presbiters because Paul exhorts him not to rebuke an Elder but to exhort him as a Father and not to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses which are grosse inconsequence as I have else where manifested so that Epiphanius whilst he goes about to prove Aerius his assertion still of folly steps into many Errors follies and absurdities himselfe as Bellarmine is inforced to confesse though desirous to make the best of it In a word then as all the forecited Authors in generall â—o in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis â—acramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâ—corum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â— c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ— Ecclesia p 2â—â— to 29â— Bishop Ioâ—â—ll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâ—tat Puritanâ— Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâ—itakeâ— câ—ntr Duraum l 6. sect â—â— ad ratio 10 Campiani Resp. Contr. lib. â— qu. 5. c. 7. Doctor Fulke and Mr. Cartwright confutation of the Remish Testament Phil. 1.1 Bishop Bridges in his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. Doctor VVillâ—t Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâ—de Sacr. hom Orig. l. 1â— c. 5. Doctor Armes in his Bellarminnus enarvatus Tom. 2. l 3 c 4. to omit others do all joyntly acquit Aâ—â—ius both â—roÌ„ the guilt of Heresie or Error in thiâ— very point and taxe Epiphanius for censuring him without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church condemning his answers to Aerius his reasons as notoriously absurd impertinent yea as foolish Childisâ— worthy to be hissed and derided I shall therfore conclude as doth our learned w Whittaker in this case verily if to condemne prayers for the dead and to equâ—ll Presbitersâ— with Bishops be hereticall Nihil Catholicum esse potest Nothing can be Catholicke so farre as it from being either an Heresie or Error as oâ—r absurd Prelates and their Sycophants Pretend If they object the Authority of x Ignatius that he advanceth Bishops above Presbyters commanding them to obey the Bishops as the Apostles obeyed Christ and willing the people to be subject to their Bishops as to God and Christ and to their Elders as to Christs Apostlâ—s therfore in his daies Bishops were Superior to Presbiters To this I answer that these Epistles of Ignatius are false and spurious as many y of our learned men have proved at large therefore of no Authority Secondly it is