Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	presbyter_n	3,386	5	10.4987	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67807	A vindication of my Lord Bishop of Worcester's letter touching Mr. Baxter from the animadversions of D. E.	Yelverton, Henry, Sir, 1566-1629.	1662 (1662)	Wing Y30; ESTC R34109	13,719	17

them feed the Church of God over which not he himself by his sole Authority as Bishop of the Diocese but the Spirit of God had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers I will not here dispute what these Elders of the Church were though St. Hierome tells me they were the Bishops of Asia who I suppose might better know than any that lives in our age I would here ask our Animadvertor whether St. Paul did not constitute these several Elders over the several Churches by laying hands on them and appointing them to their work I hope he doth not believe that the Spirit of God did in some visible and extraordinary manner appoint these Overseers but that St. Paul being filled with the Spirit of God did appoint them to such a work If so what makes this to his purpose and why should not he believe that our Bishops though not in so extraordinary manner are assisted and directed by the Spirit of God to constitute inferiour Priests over the several Parishes and to hinder those that are erroneous from infecting them I am confident our Animadvertor doth believe that the Ministers of his party are assisted by the Spirit in their preaching why not our Bishops in their governing Now that this must be the meaning of the place I think may very probably be educed out of St. Paul's summoning them to him to Miletus in his charging them to perform their duty in his freeing himself from the guilt of the blood of any of them if they miscarried which he needed not have done if he had not constituted them there 2. His second Proof is out of St. Peter wherein he commands his fellow Elders to feed the Flock which was amongst them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oversfeeing them acting like Bishops and not like the Bishop of Worcester as lording over Gods Heritage but as Patterns of the Flock So he What is gathered from this Ergo the Bishop of Worcester is not chief Pastor of all the Parishes in his Diocese I confesse I am not quick sighted enough to see this consequence Nay I think it is quite contrary he bids them feed and oversee the Flock therefore they were chief Pastors of their Dioceses for if it be evidently clear as I think the Learned Dr. Hammond in his exquisite Dissertations hath made sufficiently appear that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles then there is no question but that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Bishops he speaks to And this were it now necessary to shew is further evinced both because the Apostle bids them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two phrases which are generally both in Scripture and ancient Fathers used particularly to Bishops in our sence Neither yet am I satisfied why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify lording over the Clergy and I believe my Animadvertor can hardly render it better but this is not now my business But to go on his Inference is as infirm as his Argument for it doth not follow that because a Bishop and a Presbyter are names sometimes given to one person therefore as he would seem to intimate that in the Scripture sence they are one But with his pardon though he will find a Bishop sometimes called a Presbyter as our Earls are called Lords yet let him shew me a Presbyter called a Bishop either in Scripture or in antient Fathers I am very confident he cannot till then he hath done nothing 3. His third Exception is still worse when he sayes it seems to be a light and to say no more unseemly trifling with Sacred Scripture to affirm these words of our Saviour concerning such as come not in by the Door and therefore are Thieves and Robbers ought to be understood of such as Preach to Congregations without the Bishops Licence Thus he And I desire the Reader to judge whether our Animadvertor deals ingenuously Where doth my Lord Worcester say that he is a Thief and a Robber that Preacheth without the Bishops Licence His words are these That Mr. Baxter was neither Parson Vicar nor Curate of Kederminster or any where in my Diocesse For he never came in by the Door that is by any legal right or Lawfull Admission but climed up some other way namely by violence and intrusion and therefore by Christs own inference is a Thief and a Robber c. And I desire our Animadvertor to tell me whether he that by an unjust and usurped Authority comes into another mans freehold receives the profits thereof and robs the Owner of his reputation there is not more a Thief than he that Robs a Purse on the High-way I believe if D. E. had been put out of his Estate for his honesty and loyalty he would have counted the Possessors of it worse than many that suffer publiquely for filching and stealing But besides where doth the Bishop say that he forbad Mr. Baxter to Preach because he did it without his Licence but because he sowed the seeds of Schism sedition there For which cause I thought in my duty as being their Pastor in Chief not onely to forbid Mr. Baxter to Preach any more which by the way he had done without my License but and these are my Lords words now how strangely doth he report what my Lord sayes He never sayes he was a Thief and Robber because he came not in by his License but because he came in by violence and intrusion But further allowing the Bishop did say so which he doth not Can he be said to be come in at the Door that comes in illegally I can imagine but two wayes of coming in either by the Door or over the Pales Joh. 10. which our Saviour mentions and certainly if he that comes legally in comes in by the Door he that comes illegally in comes over Pale let our Animadvertor understand it either according to the Municipal Law of the Land or the Law of the Church which pleaseth him best But let us see his Arguments why he that Preacheth without the Bishops License doth come in by the Door His first Argument is because then he knows not what Ordination signifies Yes certainly you do know it gives him Authority to Preach but not to another mans flock nor in a Diocese where he hath no charge committed to him And this was my Lord's Reason though he sayes the principal reason was because he Preached without his License and very dis-ingenuously leaves out the following words having no cure of souls of his own to Preach to Besides had he had a flock my Animadvertor by the last words of his Arguments doth sufficiently justifie the Bishops proceeding when he sayes that moral and notoriously vitious misdemeanors may be a sufficient cause and this certainly Mr. Baxter was guilty of that Preached Sedition Rebellion and Schism and that hath done what he could to make the King Odious to his people His second Reason is more strange for one Minister of the Gospel