Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	bishop_n	call_v	presbyter_n	3,421	5	11.0026	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13156	An ansvvere to a certaine libel supplicatorie, or rather diffamatory and also to certaine calumnious articles, and interrogatories, both printed and scattered in secret corners, to the slaunder of the ecclesiasticall state, and put forth vnder the name and title of a petition directed to her Maiestie: vvherein not onely the friuolous discourse of the petitioner is refuted, but also the accusation against the disciplinarians his clyents iustified, and the slaunderous cauils at the present gouernement disciphred by Mathew Sutcliffe.	Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629.	1592 (1592)	STC 23450; ESTC S117875	163,829	254

them worthy of hate for that hauing taught that a bishop priest is all one by Gods word they now teach that all that holde so be hereticks But he doth vs wrong for charging vs to say that a bishop priest is all one by Gods word the word Episcopus presbyter in scriptures is commonly vsed for one but we speake english call those that rule bishops and others priests which distinction we find plainly in scriptures and therefore holde the teachers of equality to be Aerians confounders of gouernment to be iustly condemned not only by Epiphanius but also by Augustine yea by the consent of all the fathers that distinguish priests into 2 sorts giuing the name of bishop to those that rule and priest to the second that are ruled And therefore most sencelesse is their reason that because they haue all one name will conclude of it aequalitie of all ministers For magistrates teachers subiectes haue all one name and yet are diuided into diuers degrees In vaine therfore doth the libeller bring proofes that the words presbyter episcopus are commonly taken for one for that notwithstāding there may be difference of degrees howsoeuer they wil answere this obiection yet is it apparant that the same ouerthroweth as I said their consistorial aldermen Away thē with the new church aldermen those heretikes that mainteine them for albeit Epiphanius erred in accompting them heretikes that prayed not for the dead yet is the same no reason to shew he erred in this which not only Augustine mainteineth but all the Fathers also not only they but the foure general counsels which this land approueth so that by the lawes of Englād they are heretiks that hold the equality of ministers what shameles dealing thē was this for the libeller to alledge the Syriake interpreter or Chrysostome or Ambrose or Theodoret whē no one speaketh for equality euery one defendeth degrees in the ministers of the word but the word cashisha saith he comprehēdeth both bishop priest what thē so doth a liuing creature comprise men beasts yet are not both equal in dignity neither doth it help him that the order of priesthood cōpriseth both bishops priests for it doth not take away the dignity of some aboue others what needed then so many names of Wicleffe Marsilius of Padua Luther Bullinger Iewel Melancthon others that speake as we do or Caluin his fellowes that speaketh against al antiquity or what needed this compagnion to muster so many names either of protestant churches seeing they were not of Caluins opiniō or of papists seing we do not follow Bellarmin Stapleton or papists but antiquity that speaketh as we doe Neither doth it follow Chrysost Hierom Augustin in 4. ad Ephes that the ecclesiasticall state is to be maliced for teaching that Pastor and Doctor are all one for so hath all antiquity taught and their interpretation by all antiquitie is confirmed Neither is it material what Caluin Beza Daneau Bertrand de loques Villiers and other say to the contrarie seing they talke contrary to antiquity reason and all practise Finally their owne practise and diuers reasons stand against Doctors which neither the libeller nor his mates make any haste to answere The exposition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. 20.25 is most absurdly forced by these compagnions to make against superior degrees in the ministery for that the apostles notwitstanding Christs prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were superiour to other degrees of ministers And very absurd it were if Christ should suffer tyrants to oppresse the people and forbid lawfull authoritie to the ministers by which also would fall the authoritie of the consistorie and ministers liue without controlment And therefore as long as these fellowes interprete against all scripture antiquitie and reason yea and themselues too it skilleth not what they say against superiour degrees Against which Luther Zuinglius Melancthon Caluin Bullinger and the rest are most peruersely alledged They say and so likewise Iewell Sadeel Bridges Bilson Whitakers and others say that bishops as bishops may not take vpon them the rule of kingdomes nor rule with force like Princes But who is so simple as to cōclude hereof that one minister may not rule another as these fellowes doe But suppose some of our learned men should interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise then Caluin hath done must all the clergie suffer for one mans not yeeelding to Caluins fancie Or because some denie that soueraigne princes may be excommunicate defending therein the soueraigntie of princes against the rebellious Papists and Puritans must therefore the Ecclesiasticall state bee dissolued nothing is more absurde for herein as the aduersaries deserue punishment so our men deserue speciall commendation in confuting the seditious doctrine of factious persons They also consent flatly with the Papists in denying the princes supremacy in making lawes iudging of ecclesiastical matters or appointing others to iudge them diuers other points neither can the libeller seuer their opinions from thē for first it is false that he saith that the Papists exempt their clergy in ciuill causes from the princes iurisdiction or that the consistorials do giue authoritie to the prince to deale with their consistories pastors in ecclesiasticall causes so long as they iudge they haue done well themselues for they take the dealing therein from the prince and giue power of deposition to their eldership And as the consistorials say that the prince may enforce their cōsistories making wicked decrees to make better which taking the iudgement of those matters from princes I see not how they can well do so the papists wil haue the prince not only to reforme ministers but the pope himselfe also Si Papa sit incorrigibilis Imperator potest procedere contra ipsum saith 1 Heruaeus de potest papae c. 13. Heruey papa potest accusaricoram Imperatore saith 2 Zabarel lib. de schism concil Zabarel The papists confesse that princes may make lawes with the aduise of the pope as these confesse he may with the aduise of the consistory They confesse that the prince may take order where the Pope is incorrigible as these say where their pastors are wicked and vngodly therfore the libeller doth nothing but fable where he would seuer the cōsistorials from papists but what should we looke for other at his hands seeing he is not ashamed to say that the consistorials wil subscribe to the apology of the church of England and the articles of religion authorised and published by parliament which deny the degrees of the ministery and oppugne them which are confirmed both by the apology and by articles of religion professed in this church Lastly they take exception against vs for that we teach that the best 1 All the ancient Fathers and of late writers Melancthon Luther and of others the best writers are against the eldership as if it were not proued by

is against all lawe all practise yea against all reason Therefore euen the malcontent disciplinarians that take away the name giue notwithstanding the authoritie of Bishops to their rulers of Synodes in whome if the same were as they say vnlawfull no reason it should bee continued any little time And further vpon the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying superioritie to Bishops ouer ministers they doe notwithstanding giue an vnbrideled and absolute authoritie to the Consistories These arguments and others which I haue set downe stand vnanswered that which is sayd against bishops may be most easily and hath often bene answered neither doth this vnlettered fellow bring either new arguments or confirme the olde nay he leaueth all arguments which his fellowes haue brought out of scriptures therein shewing good iudgement for in deede it is absurd to thinke that bishops may be ouerthrowen by scriptures vpon which their authoritie is built I wonder with what face after so many proofes brought in this cause hee durst goe about without arguments to ouerthrowe that which hath such grounde vpon scriptures lawes reasons onely for a shewe he hath brought a number of names of * Pag. 10. 11. counsels fathers Churches and late writers but when the matter shall come to triall it shall be found that they doe all forsake him in this cause and that both they and infinite more then these speake against him I answere therefore first generally that it is no good argument that in this cause is drawen from Daneau Tauergues Perot Chauneton Carpentier or other of their faction Secondly that these counsels and fathers and Churches and learned men which he quoteth haue not oppugned Bishops or their gouernement The canons of the Apostles are placed in forefront of this aray against Bishops Can. 6. c. 80. not that they speake against thē but for that it pleaseth the petitioner to make some shewe in the entrance of his matter of apostolicall authoritie in the sixt Canon there is no mention made of Episcopall iurisdiction so that it may appeare that he looked not on the place It may be he meant the seuenth Canon for there both Bishops Priestes and Deacons are forbidden to meddle with worldly affaires and in the 80 Canon Bishops Priestes are charged not to intrude themselues into publike charges But neither place maketh one word against the superioritie of Bishops ouer Ministers nor their authoritie in ordination excommunication and other Ecclesiastical matters for which they are alledged nay contrariwise they giue ordination 1 Can. 2. 36 of Ministers to Bishops and plainely distinguish 2 c. 1. 2. 40. Bishops and priestes giuing to Bishops both superioritie ouer priests and also the 3 c. 40. 41. disposing of the affaires of the Church that Bishops in the primitiue Church were excluded from ciuil charges the reason was for that the Emperors were yet heathen and therefore without danger of impietie none could deale in office vnder them and in those times the offices about collection of the Emperors rentes were 4 ff de decurionib burdensome and dishonorable and therefore no maruaile if Bishops might not beare them last of all they were subiect to accomptes yet howsoeuer it was the Canons forbid not Bishops to susteine a charge imposed vpon them but ambitiously to seeke such charges generally seculer matters were not forbidden Bishops as may appeare in the same Canons 5 c. 41. so that neither doe these places make against our bishops vnder Christian princes in common wealthes wherein they are subiectes as wel as others and by their authoritie helpe their calling yea and the whole ministerie vnder them and no way hurt it neither doe they fit the petitionners purpose For Bishops by their episcopall office doe claime no ciuil authoritie nor doeth it folowe because Bishops may not beare certeine ciuil offices that therefore they are not to exercise episcopall authoritie as the petitionner doeth insinuate Next to the Apostles Canons as they are called hee citeth the 6 counsell of Carthage 19. c. but there do not appeare any Canons to haue beene made in that counsell so wide is the man from his marke commonly his fellowes vse to alledge the 4 counsell and 18 and 19 Canon yet doe not these canons fit their turne for nothing is there spoken against the office of Bishops either in ordination or contentious iurisdiction onely Bishoppes are forbidden to take on them the execution of testaments which notwithstanding hath 1 Concil Chalced. c. 3. exceptions and to bee common quarrellers in lawe which no man thinketh conuenient neyther canon maketh any thing to the purpose were not this man without discretion he would neuer alledge this counsell against Bishops that so 2 c. 3.27 31.55.68 diuersly confirmeth the authoritie of them and condemneth such 3 c. 57 67. libellers and raylors as the authors of this petition Neyther doth the counsell of Chalcedon decree any thing against the state of Bishoppes the Canons alledged onely forbid them as the puritane Ministers whereof some are grasiers some fermers some malsters doe vse to doe to hire grounds which payd rent and tribute to the Emperor or to deale in ciuil affaires or warfare least therby they should neglect their ministerie a pregnant place against diuers of these counterfeit hypocrites that shaking of their Ministerie and disdeining the base accompt of it trade in vsurie marchandise fermes and other such like occupations giuing ouer themselues to serue mammon This counsel maketh nothing for the cause of Puritans for it establisheth the authoritie of Bishops and Archbishops and condemneth such malitious and factious persons as they are that by 1 c. 17. calumnious accusations conspire the hurt or disgrace of their bishops The Petitioner doth also alledge the 6 counsell of Constantinople yet doe we not in the bookes of counsels finde any of that number nor in any counsell holden at Constantinople any thing against the authoritie or dignitie of bishops it may be he mistooke the 6 counsell of Constantinople for the 6 synode yet doeth not that speake against bishops but rather enacteth diuers 2 Synod 6. ca. 9. 10. cannons against vsurie a practise which Th. Cartw. and W. Ch. and others might doe well not to vse and for the dignitie of bishops many 3 Synod 6. c. 31. 36. 37. places To let vs further vnderstand his ignorance hee quoteth the 3 counsell of Turon whereas there were neuer but two there in neither of them any word sounding against the authoritie of bishops perhaps he meant by names of coūsels to face downe simple men or thinketh it no sinne for the glory of the consistorie to lye I beseech him to shewe vs where this 3 counsel of Turon may be found and then he shall haue further answere Beside the new third counsel of Turon he hath deuised a new counsell also of Macra which course if he hold on I

taketh not thereby away apostolical superiority ouer ministers as these manglers of scriptures doe that to build vp one seate of the consistorie haue hewen diuerse scriptures in pieces and racked mens wordes against their meaning neyther in word nor conceit did he euer oppugne the present gouernment Bishop Elmar sometime before hee came abroad into the world supposed the liuings of bishops to bee too great hee knew not then the malice of men nor the state of things now he confesseth therein his ouersight is it not lawfull for him to amend his error especially seeing some men thinke it lawful from knowledge to fall into puritanisme and from a right course to run into error yet do we not vse the benefit of their doubling let them double as much as they wil so they double not with God The like is to be said of bishop Bollingham who if hee erred in speaking against bishops Rochets for against the state I see not where he speaketh yet did hee the same away by repentance but we stand not on mens opinions nor pamphlets nor priuate writings we would once the names of Caluin and Beza and others were laid aside and the cause were examined by scripture and antiquitie which is not partial this T. Cartw. did once professe but now he hath forgotten himselfe would he come backe againe to his old hint he should soone see his owne error if he striue against himselfe no maruell it is if hee striue with others but if he come abroad he must come better furnished with scriptures and reasons Not content to alledge some the libeller ere he passe will needes belye others and among them 1 in his defence of the princes supremacie Doctor Bridges it may bee the consistorie hath giuen him a dispensation to lye for he saith that Doctor Bridges doth iustifie Aerius opinion whereas contrariwise hee saith that albeit Hierome and others did hold that a bishop and priest was one yet was no Aerian whereby it appeareth that hee confesseth Aerius to bee an heretike and denieth others to be Aerians He shamefully likewise belyeth my lorde of Canterburie 2 Pag. 654. lin 54. whom he falsely quoteth maketh to confesse elders for such elders as these men would haue neuer entred into his cōceit only he confesseth that there were ministers in the beginning of the Church that liued in community with bishops which now that the number of Christians is so encreased were not requisite for then should there be infinite nonresidents that he neuer imagined there ought to be elders of the Geneuian making his reasons brought against them doe declare Neyther did the author of the admonition made against the drunken surfet of Martins puritanisme set downe any wordes that import that there was an Eldership vnder the lawe as the libeller affirmeth the wordes are contrary why then should hee imagine that the authors meaning was contrary to his wordes it was saith hee first so set downe admit it were must all compositers errors bee allowed for text I perceiue these fellowes are angrie when a man woulde correct a fault and therefore I feare hee will not amende his fault in lying but I haue heard saith hee that that booke was subscribed by the bishop of Canterburie Lincolne and London as if any thing were more common then vntrueth in the mouthes of puritanes and therefore no maruell if hee haue heard a leasing The author of the remonstrance without any supposall saith plainely Pag. 166. that there neuer were any Church consistorie and therefore what fondnesse is it to suppose him to say that which hee denieth but admitte hee shoulde say if it were in the lawe and Gospell that it were to bee continued yet doth it not followe that it was in the lawe or after for of supposals no direct assertion can bee made vnlesse that which is supposed bee graunted neyther can any man enforce any such conclusion as the libeller imagineth nay hee shall sooner presse the little wit hee hath out of his braynes then gayne such a conclusion for the assumption viz. that the Geneuian Aldermanshippe began vnder the lawe and was practised vnder thè Gospell is but a franticke conceyte in this discrasied mans brayne neyther my lorde of Canterburie sayth it nor any of our side that I knowe Why doeth not the man therefore proue it the reason is euident for that vntrueth cannot be proued let him therefore presse what he can out of the assertions aforesaid he shal sooner wring vergis out of a flint then wring his Consistorie out of scriptures But saith he one Mathew Sutcliffe controlleth both whereunto if he durst haue set to his name I might haue answered that one W. St. and his promptors are deceiued Now I must answere that one certaine worthlesse libeller mistaketh for neither is it true which he auoweth That I protest there was neuer any such gouernement by elders vnder the Gospel yea and such arguments haue I set downe that Th. Cartwr and all the faction haue taken terme to answere neither doe I controwle others that haue trauailed before me in the same argument for all of vs agree that there was neuer any Geneuian Eldership in the world before the erection of it at Geneua and that the Eldership that was in time past was composed of Bishops or of Priestes assistant to the Bishops which were Ministers of the word and sacraments and such as in part in our cathedrall Churches yet continue The third vntrueth is That he saith I suppose if there were Elders vnder the Gospel they were not now necessarie Pag. 213. which the author of the remonstrance affirmeth For I doe not speake of Elders but generally of gouernement conclude most strongly against the platformers That they may not haue their discipline and why forsooth because first it was neuer found in scriptures nor practise and secondly because diuers orders are founde in scripture for externall gouernement which now are out of vse so that both the antecedent being false and consequent nought it is not possible the conclusion should be good but what should I talke of antecedent and consequent with this companion that vnderstandeth neither Logicke nor termes of reason The fourth lye is that I deface forreine Churches writing against the Eldership in Latine make the rent of our Church deeper For I speake in the defence of the state to salue those wounds which these fellowes haue made to pece the rents of our church I neuer speake of forreine churches but honorably neither am I curious in other mens states neither doe I deale with Beza but as with a graue and learned man in this point mistaken destitute in this cause both of wisedomect learning although I haue bene badly requited at his hands againe which course if Beza others would haue taken these contentions that haue troubled our Church woulde neuer haue growen to this height but they would be writing talking against vs yea censuring

haue good cause to speake Bernarde 4 De consid ad Eugen. lib. 2. speaketh against the Pope for clayming soueraintie in both swordes which no bishop in England claymeth neither doth any bishop by his episcopall authoritie exercise the materiall swordes as the Pope doeth and therefore as Bernards reasons are good against the Pope so are they not to be vsed against our bishops neither was it euer Bernards meaning to condemne the prerogatiue of bishops allowing the same in so many of his epistles and writings and commending so highly the bishop of Rome notwithstanding his infinite abuses he 5 Serm. 66. in Cantic non est mirum si ordinibus ecclesie deirahunt si mandatis non obediunt bitterly inueigheth against those heretickes which for their apish imitation of the Apostles called themselues Apostolickes because they condemned prelacy and therefore calleth them Stultissimos obstinatissimos Thus the man or at least his partakers haue sought euery corner of the Fathers and yet finde nothing against the prerogatiue of bishops therfore is hee glad to flye to the practise of late churches late writers but the conclusion which he draweth from them is most weake for admit that in Geneua in France Flaunders and other churches they haue not bishops of such quality in all respects as wee haue no more haue other churches such Elders as they of Geneua haue it is sufficient that we haue such bishops as in time past they had at Ierusalem Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Carthage Seuil throughout the world before that the cornercreeping Aldermē crept out of the slime of fond mens inuention that the bishops in reformed churches of Almayne haue episcopal authoritie ouer other ministers in ordination of ministers correction of maners so that they are to be blamed that digresse from all antiquitie yea and later churches not we that agree with al former times and the Almayns for both they the Danes albeit some of them mislike the names and most of them haue taken away the liuings of bishops yet reteine still their authoritie and office in their superintendents generall superintendēts and had done better if also they had reteined the liuings rewards of learning stipends of ministers wherefore let the libeller cease to obiect vnto vs the Heluetian and Dutch and Danish churches for they differ farther from the Geneuians then from vs and the petitioner himselfe 1 Pag. 10. confesseth that they haue authoritie though not so much Of late writers I know none of name that hath condemned our bishops euen the chiefe authors of this innouatiō Caluin and Beza as may appeare by their letters which are to be shewen speake euery where honourably of them Zanchus greatly extolleth that order onely Beza as some say hath written a foolish 2 Entituled The iudgement of a learned man beyond the sea pelting discourse wherein he would proue our bishops to proceed of men as if himselfe were a bishoppe of God and Daneau in that poynt consenteth with him taking himselfe also to be a bishoppe of God and yet the Geneuians when through weakenesse of body sicknesse and age hee coulde not execute the ministerie shut this bishop of God from his liuing and forced him through want to depart out of their Citie Bullinger and Gualter and diuerse learned men of Suitzerland and Germanie haue by letters and writings allowed our bishops yea 1 Histori confess August Melancthon Camerarius Sturmius wished to God they had such in their Countreys neyther did any of these that are named by the libeller euer speake against other then papisticall bishops let the worlde then iudge what honestie or shame was in this companion that alledgeth Luther Melancthon Bucer Caluin Beza Bullinger Zanchus Erastus Gualter and Mounster against our bishops whereof some neuer spake of them others neuer spake of them but with reuerence and none against them and 2 In diuers of his letters to be shewed Beza complaineth of some that drewe his wordes vttered against popish bishops against our bishops If therefore the libeller do not bring forth some other places then these hee hath quoted there is no cause but that euery man shoulde take him for a forger of false writings and an abuser of his reader But suppose Beza or Daneau or some other of that sort shoulde write their pleasures in priuate letters or in their imperious paltrie pamphlets who would not be ashamed to oppose these two or all their headie followers to Ignatius Dionysius Chrysostome Augustine Ambrose Hierome and all antiquitie yea to most writers of late times And if these men that patronise the consistorie which cannot stand with bishops for in deede there is no agreement in gouernement betwixt the rusticall fauni and the muses betweene learned men and men of occupation betweene clownes and schollers if these I say doe not speake against bishops wee may not thinke that bishop Iewell orbishop Elmar or bishop Bollingham or others that haue written in defence of the state haue vttered any thing that soundeth to their disgrace 1 In his Apologie Bishop Iewell expressely defendeth the degree of bishops aboue priestes and good reason for it is the publike doctrine of this Church and those that goe against it make this Church to reuoke a part of their publike confession and doe more harme by their secret trechery then euer did Harding by his open enmitie neyther can there be a greater scandale or dishonour offred to religion or the state then that we should now alter the publike confession of faith made by our Church Iewell saith that the office of prince and bishop is distinct and no man denieth it for no man by the office of bishop challengeth as doth the pope soueraigntie of both swords but if any conclude because bishops ciuil officers are distinct that a bishop shal doe no ciuil office he wil conclude that hee may not looke to his house nor do the office of a subiect nor fight for his country which is a nice point of puritanisme and little better then trechery and by the same reason should ministers be excluded both from gouernement of colledges and hospitals and al offices in the vniuersities whereto our puritanes ambitiously aspire are as great canuasers as any notwithstanding their ministerie or puritanisme Neither can master Nowels words be stretched against bishops for what if Christ would not receiue riches or dominion of the deuil may not a minister receiue a benefit of a Prince or because Christ forbade them to rule as Princes may they do no offices of good subiectes but liue like traitors or like puritanes that liue in open contēpt of lawes if then the petitioner had any conscience he would not alledge Mr. Nowel against bishops whose authority he mainteineth against Dorman and whose resolution for this present gouernement is sufficiently knowen Master Bilson distinguisheth betwixt apostolicall gouernement and princely gouernment but hee