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
A56213	The substance of a speech made in the House of Commons by Wil. Prynn of Lincolns-Inn, Esquire, on Munday the fourth of December, 1648 touching the Kings answer to the propositions of both Houses upon the whole treaty, whether they were satisfactory, or not satisfactory : wherein the satisfactorinesse of the Kings answers to the propositions for settlement of a firm lasting peace, and future security of the subjects against all feared regall invasions and encroachments whatsoever is clearly demonstrated ... and that the armies remonstrance, Nov. 20, is a way to speedy and certain ruine ... / put into writing, and published by him at the importunate request of divers members, for the satisfaction of the whole kingdome, touching the Houses vote upon his debate.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1649 (1649)	Wing P4093; ESTC R38011	126,097	147

being thereby abolished and extirpated his power of Ordination must be destroyed with his Function as well as suspended All which considered I cannot but conclude the Kings finall Answer as to the Office of and Ordination by Bishops to be compleatly satisfactory to our demands And so much the rather because the King in this particular of Ordination pleads only dissatisfaction in polnt of Conscience for closing with us in this seeming punctilio and if it were not meerly Conscience though some have over rashly censured it for a meer pretence to keep up Bishops still he that hath granted and yeelded us the greater would never contest with us for the lesser nor go so far in the abolition of Episcopacy as he hath done And truly I doubt not but His Majesty by conference may soon be satisfied in this point Nay had his own Divines dealt faithfully with him in the Isle of Wight He might have beene easily satisfied in this particular in which I doubt not by Gods blessing to undertake to satisfie him both in point of Episcopacy that it is in all things the same with Presbytery and that the ordination of Presbyters and Ministers by divine Right belongs only to Presbyters as such and not to Bishops as Bishops who for above a thousand years after Christ claimed the chief but not the sole interest in it not by divine Right and Authority but meerly by Canons and Custom long after the Apostles time which I have proved at large long since in my Vnbishoping of Timothy and Titus which none of the Bishops or their Patrons ever yet attempted to answer though I particularly challenged them to do it Only this I shall now say in brief for some satisfaction in the point to other Members 1. That there is no one Text of Scripture to prove that Bishops Iure divine are distinct from Presbyters in any thing much less in this particular of having a negative Voice or sole or principall interest as Bishops so distinguished in the power of Ordination● but a direct Text to the contrary 1 Tim. 4. 14 to omit others 2 That the pretence of impropriating Ordination to Bishops distinct from Presbyters by divine Right is grounded upon these two gross mistakes that Timothy and Titus were Bishops properly so called the one of Ephesus the other of Crete and that this power of ordaining Elders was vested in them quatenus Bishops only and not otherwise by divine institution for proof of the first the Postscript● of Pauls Epistles to them and no one Text of Scripture are cited and the 1 Tim. 5. 22. Tit. 1. 5. relating only to Ordination for the latter But it is clear as the noon-day Sun by Scripture that Timothy was never a Bishop properly so called much lesse the first or sole Bishop of Ephesus as is evident by sundry texts especially by Act. 20. 4 5 6 15 17 18 21 29 30 31. compared together nor Titus a Bishop properly so termed distinct from a Presbyter much lesse the first or sole Bishop of Crete nor do either of those texts prove that they had the power of Ordination by divine Right vested in them two meerly as Bishops distinct from or superiour to Presbyters as I have undenyably manifested in my Vnbishoping of Timothy and Titus And as for the Postscripts to these Epistles terming Timothy ordained first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete they are no part of the text first extant in and invented by Occumenius none of the authentickst Authors above 1050 years after Christ and annexed only to the end of his Commentary on those Epistles not adjoyned to the Text and they are not only omitted in most Manuscripts and printed Editions and Translations of these Epistles but apparently false in themselves as I have at large demonstrated in some printed Books Therefore this point of conscience may soone be satisfied 3 That no Bishops for 1200 years after Christ did ever claim the chief power in Ordination by any Divine Right as Bishops but meerly by Canons or Custom long after the Apostles and that in the Primitive times before any re●●riction by Councels Presbyters in many places did not only ordain Ministers and Deacous without Bishops and Bishops never but jointly with Presbyters but likewise ordaine Bishops themselves as Ierome Epiphanius Augustine and others assure us and sometimes joined in the consecration and enstallment of Popes themselves and Archbishops for defect of Bishops 4. That it is the constant tenent of all the eminentest Protestant Divines and some learned Papists too and the practice of all the reformed Churches that the Divine right of Ordination belongs originally to the whole Church but ministerially to Presbyters as such not to Bishops as Bishops and that which undeniably clears it up to mee is this That in the New Testament wee find both Apostles some of the 70 Disciples Evangelists and Presbyters equally ordaining Elders or Presbyters but not any one who is once in Scripture stiled a Bishop either conferring orders upon any much lesse eonomine jure as a Bishop And since the Apostles time wee find in point of use and practice Popes Patriarchs Archbishops Metropolitans Cardinalls Abbots in some places who are not Iure Divino nor Bishops properly so called but distinguished from them in degree ordaining Presbyters and Ministers as well as Bishops quatenus Bishops and that never by themselves but all by the Presbyters joint concurrence then present who by the fourth Councell of Carthage the Canon law the very Canons of Trent also and our owne book of Ordination and our Canons ought also to join with them in the Ordination Now all these distinct Orders and Degrees claiming and exercising this power by a Divine Right and many of their Functions being confessed not to be of Divine Right as Popes Patriarchs Archbishops Metropolitans Abbots and Chorall Bishops who yet ordain and these alwaies necessarily calling Presbyters who are clearly of Divine Right to join with them in their Ordination and not doing it alone is an unanswerable proof to me that they all concur in this action in no other right or notion at all but meerly as they are Presbyters in which they all accord and have one and the same authority not in their own capacities wherein they are all discriminated and are not all of Divine but only of humane institution Presbyters quà Presbyters being the properest persons to ordain others of their owne degree and function as Doctors of Divinity law and Physick in the Universities create Doctors of their severall Professions and Bishops consecrate Bishops and Archbishops even as a man begets a man of his own quality and degree and all other creatures generate those of their own kind without the concurrence of any her distinct species paramount them As for the Angel of the Church of Ephesus much insisted on in the Isle of Wight to prove an Episcopacy Iure Divino distinct from Presbytery I never read that this Angell ordained