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
A30396	Observations on the first and second of the canons, commonly ascribed to the holy apostles wherein an account of the primitive constitution and government of churches, is contained : drawn from ancient and acknowledged writings.	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1673 (1673)	Wing B5840; ESTC R233638	56,913	130

difference of Bishop and Presbyter seems not to have been unknown to Clemens as appears from these savings of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praepositis vestris subditi seniores inter vos debito honore prosequentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui nobis praesunt revereamur seniores inter nos honoremus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which by the words that follow must certainly relate to some Ecclesiastical constitution among themselves to which he accommodates the terms of the Temple Hierarchy All which I propose without any peremptory decision in this matter submitting it to the judgment of the impartial Reader For I know there are exceptions against these words yet they do clearly imply a difference and subordination betwixt the Presbyters and their Presidents and what he saith of the ranks of the High Priest the Priests the Levites and the Laicks hath certainly a relation to the Orders of the Church The next opinion about the Origine of Episcopacy is that of Ierome and he hath given it very fully both in his Epistle to Evagrius and on the Epist. to Titus cap. 1. He holds that all things at first were governed in the Church communi Presbyterorum consilio and that the Bishops were above the Presbyters non ex dispositione dominicâ sed ex Ecclesiae consuetudine And by divers arguments from Scripture he proves that Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same Acts 20. they who v. 17. are called Presbyters are v. 28. called Bishops Titus 1.5 he left him to ordain Elders and v. 7. it is added For a Bishop c. Whence he infers that Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same As also Phil. 1. the Apostle writes only to Bishops and Deacons And 1 Tim. 3. he gives the Rules only to Bishops and Deacons S. Peter also called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And S. Iohn designs himself the Elder But he adds after there arose Schisms and one said I am of Paul c. Toto orbe decretum est ut unus caeteris super imponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur ut Schismatum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnis sollicitudo est delata And ad Evagrium he tells how Alexandriae à Marco Evangelist â usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Quid enim excepta ordinatione facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non facit Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de Veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae fuerunt in Templo hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia And from these words we may observe that he accounted the difference of Bishop and Presbyter an Apostolical tradition which came in place of the difference that was betwixt Aaron and his Sons as also that this began from the time of the Apostles and of Mark the Evangelist That it was done to evite Schism and that it was appointed through the whole World as also that the whole care and chief Power was in the hands of the Bishop of which he saith further Dial adv Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiâ efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes It may seem likewise probable from him that Presbyters choosed their Bishop out of their own number and that in Alexandria they made him Bishop without any new Ordination And of this Eutychius Patriarcha Alex. who was not very long after Ierome speaks more plainly for he in his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published by Selden pag. 29.30 tells that there were twelve Presbyters constitute by S. Mark and when the See was vacant they did chuse one of their number to succeed and to be their Head and the rest laid their hands upon him and bless'd him yet this cannot hold true as shall afterwards appear But all Ignatius his Epistles are full of the subordination of Presbyters to Bishops not without very hyperbolical magnifications of the Bishops Office It is true in the vulgar Editions these expressions are much more frequent but in the Medicean Codex published by Vossius which agrees not only with the old Latin one published by Usher but also with the citations of Theodoret and Athanasius and other ancient Writers which they have taken out of them there is a great deal of the subordination of Presbyters to Bishops Ep. ad Tral he saith Necessarium est quemadmodum facitis sine Episcopo nibil operari Omnes revereantur Episcopum ut Iesum Christum existentem filium Patris Presbyteros autem ut concilium Dei conjunctionem Apostolorum To the Ephes. he bids them be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and concludes that they should obey these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In his Epist. to the Magnesians he saith Quantum Episcopum quidem vocant sine ipso autem omnia operantur wherefore he adviseth them ut omnia operentur praesidente Episcopo in loco Dei Presbyteris in loco confessionis Apostolorum And there he speaks of the age of Damas their Bishop who was but a young man which he calls according to the vulgar Edition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the Medicean Codex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which some will infer that Episcopacy was then newly invented but suppose that were the true reading which some question who in this prefer the vulgar reading it is clear from the whole Epistle that he is speaking of the Bishops age and not of Episcopacy And from 2 Tim. 2.22 we see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly youthful and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that which is new And what tho Ignatius who lived so near the Apostles time did call Episcopacy a new Order Many other places to the same purpose of the difference among these Offices occur through all his Epistles neither is there any room for debate but if these Epistles be his the difference of Bishop and Presbyter hath begun in the Apostolical times But that debate would prove too long a digression here therefore I refer the Reader if he desire a full discussion of that question to the incomparably learned and exact defence of them lately published by Doctor Pearson whose harvest is so full that he hath not so much as left work for a gleaner That of the Angel in the Revelation is brought by many and that not without ground to prove that there was some singular person in these Churches to whom each Epistle was directed and we have a great deal of reason to believe that Polycarp was then Bishop of the Church of Smyrna Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. and apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 13. tells that Polycarp was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now Irenaeus tells how he was Polycarp his hearer and disciple

interpretation or his doctrine to the Meeting which may be called Extraordinary under which notion most reject everything in Scripture that doth not please them But this continued longer in the Church Euseb. lib. 6. hist. cap. 20. tells that Origen before he had gotten the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mark how this word stands here for the order and degree of Presbyterat was invited earnestly by the Bishops not only to dispute but also to expound the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the publick assembly of the Church For the vindication whereof Alexander Bishop of Ierusalem and Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea wrote to Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria thus Quod autem in literis adjunxeris nunquam antea auditum neque jam usurpatum ut Laici praesentibus Episcopis disputarent scripturásve exponerent in eo mihi nescio quo modo videris falsa dixisse Nam ubi idonei habiles reperiuntur qui fratribus in verbo DEI adjumento sint à sanctis Episcopis rogantur ut populum DEI instituant in verbo sicut Larandis Euelpis à Neone Iconii Paulinus à Celso apud Synadas Theodorus ab Attico qui omnes beati ac pii fratres crant ac verisimile est quamvis nobis obscurum minime cognitum sit illud idem in aliis locis fieri Tert. in his Apologetick cap. 39. tells that Post aquam manualem lumina quisquis ut de Scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest provocatur in medium DEO hymnum canere And of this remember what was before cited from Hilary the Deacon on the 4th of the Ephesians Sozom. lib 7. cap. 19. saith that at Rome neither the Bishop nor any other taught in the Church but that in Alexandria the Bishop alone taught that not being allowed to any Presbyter after Arrius broached his Heresie It remains only to be enquired who was the proper Minister of Confirmation But because this whole matter of Confirmation comes not in so properly upon any of the other Canons I shall therefore examine all that relates to it here and shall consider upon what grounds it was used how early it was practiced with what Rites it was administred who was the proper Minister of it and for what end it was introduced and continued in the Church From Acts 8.15 and 19.6 all the Fathers have pleaded for this Rite for there we have the laying on of hands practiced as a Rite clearly distinct from Baptism and tho we find the holy Ghost conferred by that imposition of hands thence it will not follow that that action was extraordinary and so to have expired with the Apostles For we find extraordinary effects following upon their ordinary actions such as Ordination Excommunication c. And yet none will plead that these actions are now to be disused because they are no more attended with such effects But Heb. 6.2 speaks most plainly for this where among the foundations of Religion the laying on of hands is joined with Baptisms and this seemed so clear to Calvin commenting on that place that he judges this to have been a Rite derived from the Apostles The constant Ceremony of it was that which is often mentioned in Scripture Imposition of hands But besides this they began very early to use a Chrisma of consecrated Oil with which they anointed them in the brow This it seems hath been taken from the mention that we find made of anointing 2 Cor. 1.21 where some think the whole Rites of Confirmation are set down in these words Now he which stablisheth us with you in CHRIST and hath anointed us is GOD who hath also sealed us and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts And 1 Ioh. 2.27 we are told of an unction from above and a holy anointing But that in these words no material anointing but the extraordinary conferring of the holy Ghost is meant seems clear from the Text and so Christ is said to be anointed with the Oil of joy above his fellows tho we hear nothing of a material anointing It is true James 5.14 there is clear mention made of an anointing with Oil in which certainly there is no Metaphor but that relates nothing to our purpose However it is like from these places it was that the Ancients used the Chrisma for we find that this was very early practised in the Church Theophilus Alexandrinus who flourished about the year 170. lib. 1. ad Antolycum saith we are for this reason called Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et quis mortalium est qui vel ingreditur in hanc vitam vel certat in arenâ non oleo inungitur Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. tells That Valentinus used both Confirmation and anointing in the receiving of his Disciples and tells that he used a mixture of Water and Oil with Opobalsamum And this seems to imply that to have been the practice of the Church for he tells that Valentinus had adapted and transformed the Rites of the Church into his Character Tert. de bapt cap. 7. makes mention of the Unctio benedicta qua egressi de lavacro perunguntur And cap. 8. dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans invitans Spiritum Sanctum Idem de refur carnis cap. 8. saith Caro abluitur caro ungitur caro signatur caro manus impositione adumbratur ut anima spiritu illuminetur And lib. de praescript cap. 36. Aquâ signat Spiritu sancto vestit Eucharistiâ pascit Yet Tert. de Cor. Mil. cap. 3. when he recounts these Ceremonies which he judged to have been of Apostolical tradition doth not reckon this for one Cyprian Epist. 73. ad Iubaianum speaking of S. Peter and S. Iohn their laying on of hands at Samaria shews it was no new Baptism Sed tantummodo quod deerat id à Petro Ioanne factum esse ut oratione pro iis habitâ ac manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus sanctus quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manus impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo divino consummentur And Epist. 70. after he hath spoken of Baptism he adds Ungi quoque necesse est cum qui baptizatus sit ut accepto Chrismate id est unctione esse unctus Dei habere in se gratiam Christs possit And he tell That both the Eucharist oleum unde unguntur babtizati in altari sanctificatur Cyril of Ierusalem his third Mistagogical Catechism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he describes the anointing we have from GOD and the consecrated Oil which was the rite expressive of the former comparing it to the Dove that descended from Christ and was his spiritual Anointing Which is also done by Optatus lib. 4. cont Paramenianum and the Areopagite de Eccles. hier cap. 4. where he at length describes the rites used in the consecrating