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
A77490	The unlavvfulnesse and danger of limited episcopacie· VVhereunto is subioyned a short reply to the modest advertiser and calme examinator of that treatise. As also the question of episcopacie discussed from Scripture and fathers. / By Robert Bailly pastor of Killwunning in Scotland.	Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662.	1641 (1641)	Wing B470; Thomason E174_4; ESTC R11030	25,095	50

for what you say nor to answere any of the proofes whereby the Author confirmed his assertion Then you deny the ground whereupon the argument is builded The Principle which before in the proper place you durst not deny but rather did insinuate your granting of it however the Authours Probation of that Principle stands as yet untouched While you tell us here that Tradition is a sufficient ground for Episcopacie though Scripture were lacking you but joine with your Brethren the Canterburians who upon this ground presse upon us already their Altars Crosses Images the primacie of the Pope and much more and shew their minde by this doore to let in upon us the whole flood of Antichristian abominations when they find their season especially as your self here does professe any matter of practice of discipline of government This your popish errour of tradition is a very generall and catholike one which shakes not one or two but all the ground-stones of Protestant reformations The Authours second Argument is The second you answere by a nonsense and childish toy That no inferiour officer in the new testament carries the name of any superiour but so it is that a Presbyter every where carries the name of a Bishop Therefore a Presbyter is not an inferiour officer to a Bishop What here you bring is so far from the shew of any answere that it is like you have not conceived the drift of the Argument only the non sense of your reply is compensed with your extraordinary quicknesse to take your adversarie twice in his own argument in his owne net first you will put him to a non plus by an Interrogatory where then are ruling Elders by their names distinguished you have read I believe the 1. Timothy 5.17 there you may see ruling Elders by their name and surname cleerly distinguished from Preachers of the word you know also that there are a number of passages of the Fathers for these ruling Elders in the booke of Gersombucerus which the boldest of your party for all their big words and exclamations in the eares of silly people durst never yet after twenty two yeeres advisement so much as offer to answere Thereafter you triumph as if you had drawn from your Adversaries own pen by an ocular demōstration the ful proof of your whol cōclusion The superiority of a Bishop to a Presbyter by divine right because forsooth the author says That Bishop and Pastor which are all one are made by the Apostle superiour to a Presbyter Wee did not believe that any man of the least acquaintance with these controversies had beene ignorant of that common and triviall homonomie of the word Presbyter and Elder sometimes taken for a preaching Elder sometimes for a ruling Elder and sometimes for both The Author with the Scriptures makes a Pastor a Bishop a preaching elder to be altogether one and in nothing to differ but as three synonimous names of one and the same officer which by divine right is indeed superiour to a ruling Elder or Presbyter this no man ever did question but no way superiour to a preaching Elder of whom alone is all the present question The Authors third and fourth Argument confirmed strongly by a number of pregnant Scriptures are all utterly mispent To the third and fourth argument no syllable of answere appears and not one word of answere made to either of them His fifth Argument The fifth is in shew granted That by Christs institution the constant practice of the Apostles the power of ordination and jurisdiction is never committed to one Bishop but ever to a number of Preachers and others as is cleared by a multitude of manifest Scriptures This you cannot deny yet your heart will not permit you freely to grant it You are content that in ordination and jurisdiction Bishops should be assisted by Presbyters but the argument infers much more to wit that your Bishops in usurping to thēselvs the power of jurisdiction transferring of it to their carnal courts that their assuming by vertue of their office the power of ordinatiō though for the form they admit some Presbyters to be their assistāts in giving of orders that both these faculties which make not the abuse but the two main limbs and integrall parts of the office it selfe are wicked practices against Christs ordinance not to be reformed but presently abolished with a great remorse that with a high hand for so long a time these tyrannous usurpations have bin maintained The sixt Argument was from the 22. The sixt is absurdly answered Luke 25. where Christ forbids all Pastors to accept any Majority or preheminence over their brethren This the Author proves from Scripture Reason and Antiquitie to evert the office of Bishops All that you answere is that this place does not forbid the Apostles to accept any degree of Honour above their brethren wherein they may govern them for their profit It follows then that by this place Bishops are not hindered to assume as great authority over the Church as the greatest Emperours ever had over the bodies or Christ himselfe as you confesse here over the soules of men Having evinced the unlawfulnesse of Episcopacie it selfe by the former Arguments The Authors first reason against all limitation of Episcopacie is but slighted nothing enervate by all your Opposition in the rest of the treatise the Author reasons against the lawfulnesse of the least degrees and best limitations of that evill his first argument is well confirmed with Scripture and reason you answere but to one piece casting by the first and strongest parts of it to wit all parts all degrees all meanes all appearances of the discharged evill you had good reason to cut off all these portions from the Argument for you saw that your distinction was not applicable to these for you will be loath to deny that Episcopacie howsoever limitate is some degree some part some mean some appearance not by accident but of its own nature of that Episcopacie which now stands in England The part of the Argument which you take in hand is not sufficiently answered for you clear your distinction with no more then your own simple assertion That limited Episcopacie is not in it selfe but alone by Satans malice either a cause or a beginning or a provocation to Episcopacie as now it stands Surely that effect which has followed limited Episcopacie in all places where ever it has dwelt may not well be denyed to be naturall unto it however you dare not apply your distinction for it will sound harshlie in the eares of your Neighbours that limited Episcopacie should be a beginning a provocation by the malice and craft of the Devill of that Episcopacie which now in Rome and England has place The Author in the next place by cleer Scriptures does prove The second is unwittingly granted That the reformation of Episcopacie must be taken not from the times of the posteriour Fathers but from