Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56148
|
A catalogue of such testimonies in all ages as plainly evidence bishops and presbyters to be both one, equall and the same ... with a briefe answer to the objections out of antiquity, that seeme to the contrary.
|
Prynne, William, 1600-1669.
|
1641
(1641)
|
Wing P3922; ESTC S122412
|
42,609
|
43
|
and multiplyed them or divided them as they saw occasion so they limitted q and granted them all that Episcopall power and jurisdiction whereby they were distinguished from or advanced above Ordinary Ministers as appeares by the Originall Charters of the foundations and erections of our own English Bishop-rickes the forecited Statutes and by our owne and forraigne Histories Now that jurisdiction and superlority thus acquired is but meere and humane not divine Againe Bishop-ricks are meer hâ—mane institutions directly contrary to the Holy Ghost who ordained many Bishops in every Church and City not one Bishop over many which he can never well instruct rule and oversee Acts 20. 17.28 1 Tim. 5.17 Pâ—il 1 1 Tit. 1â— 5 7. 1 Pet. 5 1 2 3. Now that Episcopal jurisdiction which distinguishetâ— Bishops â—rom Presbyters was r created with and annexed to their Bishâ—pricks yea it is delegated botâ— by the â—ing to Lay Commiâ—â—ioneâ—s and visitors and by Bishops themselves to Officials commiâ—â—aâ—ies and meere Lay men 26. H. 8. c. 1.31 H. 8 c 9 37. H. 8 c 17.1 â— 6 c. 2.1 Eliz c 1. Therefore it is meerely humane and belongs not to Bishops by any divine right neither is it peculiar unto them alone Moreover Bishoprickes with all Episcopall juâ—isdiction incident to them have been s usually granted hereâ—oâ—ore by our Kings of England to their Chancellours Treaâ—uâ—ers Secretaries Kinsmen and temporall Oâ—hcers being meere Lay-men as an advancement and augmentation onely of their temporall revenues and civill temporall things And in Germany at this day they are given to Dukes Earles and Nobles yea to Children and inâ—ants only as a temporall digâ—ity and revenue Thereâ—oâ—e they are â—nly tempâ—rall â—ffices and revenues and meere huâ—ane inâ—titutions which may well be spareâ— in the Church not divine oâ— Gods and Christs institution Moreover most of the t reâ—ormed â—â—otesâ—ant churches beâ—ond the 〈…〉 the Reâ—â—â—maâ—â—n 〈…〉 Bishopricks and Dioceâ—an Bishops as Anti-christian and humane inâ—â—â—tutions pernicious to the Church of Christ and to the power puâ—ity and progresâ—e of the Gospell making Biâ—â—ops proud Lordly idle Luxuâ—ious covetous Tyrannicall Symoniâ—call Seditious Schâ—smaticaâ— â—ppâ—essive vindictive prophane impious lascivious unchasâ— perâ—ideous rebellious â—recherous to their Soveraigns Therefore certainly they are no divine instiâ—ution useâ—ull or necessary for Gods Church and people oâ— which they have been the bane and ruine in all ages as our Acts and Monuments of Martyrs testifie they being the Authors of all perseâ—â—tions in our Church and of al our Martyrs Buchery bloodâ— shed And in truth our Kings in all former ages have â—eemeâ— Bishops not alâ—ogeâ—her so usefull or necessary in our Church as some now make them which may appeare by the long vacancies oâ—â—â—veâ—s Bishoprickes in sundry ages of which I shall give you a â—hoâ—â— taâ—â— and so conciâ—â—e u Anâ—â— 653 After the death of Honorius Arch-Bishop or Canâ—erbury that See continuâ—â— void 18 moneths Annâ— 669. After Adeotaâ—usâ—is death it remained voâ—d almost 4 yeares An 690. Afâ—eâ—Thâ—odorus his death it was void almoâ—t â—uâ—â— two yeâ—resâ— and as long aâ—ter â—aâ—â—yusâ—ecease An 734 After â—uâ—hberâ—s death An 758. â—t was vacant above one yeare Anno 762 two years aâ—ter â—regwins death An 790 3 years aâ—â—er Lambâ—râ—s death An 830 aâ—ove one Yeare after VVâ—â—reds decease An 958 almost 3 yeares after Odo his expiâ—ation An 1089. 4 yeâ—res after Laâ—â—â—akes departure An 1109 5 yeares after Anâ—elmes death Anâ— 36. 2 years after VViâ—liam Carkeâ— Aâ— 11 â— â—3 yeaâ—s aâ—ter Riâ—hard VVeâ—â—erâ—neâ— An 1242 2 yeares aâ—â—eâ— St. â—dmâ—nâ— An 1270 â—s long aâ—â—er â—oniâ—acâ— An 1502 2 yeares after 〈◊〉 Deane Aâ— 15â—8 oâ—e â—ear aâ—â—e◠〈…〉 v Aâ— 644 aâ—â—er Pauâ—â—nus the 〈◊〉 Aâ—â—h-Biâ—hâ—p 〈◊〉 â—oâ—keâ— that â—ee wâ—s vacant 20 â—â—me say 3â—â— yeeâ—es An 1114 sâ—â—ur yeares afâ—er â—â—â—mas the second An 1140 â—lmost 2 â—eares aâ—ter Tâ—â—â—stan An 〈◊〉 10 Years after Rogers deâ—thâ—An 1213. 4 Yeaâ—es after 〈◊〉 An 1255 13 â—loneths after VVâ—â—â—eâ— Gâ—ay Anâ— 13â—3 after â—homas de caâ—bridge above 2 yeares An 315 â— Years after â—illiamâ—â—Greenfielâ— Aâ—â— 1240â— 2 yeâ—res afâ—er VViâ—liam de Melâ—â—â— An 1405 2 years and an haâ—â—e aâ—te◠〈◊〉 Sâ—â—ope that Arch-traitor beneaâ—eâ— for his Treâ—son Anâ— 1423 2 Yeares after Henry Boweâ—â— An 14â—9 almost 4 Yeares after Iohn Kâ—mp An 1464 2 Yeares after VVilliam Bâ—â—th almost a â—ull yeaâ—â— both after Cardinall VVolpe and â—â—â—ard Lee Anâ— 1559 â—â—â—er â—â—câ—olas Heath 2 yeares Anâ— 1568 after Thomas â—oung above one yeare Thus long have both our Arch-Bishoprickes been void in severall ageâ— without any prejudice to Church or State w Anno 619 after Mellitus his translation from London to Canterbury that see continued void 31 Yeâ—res together An â—64 2 Yeares An 1133. 7 Yeares aâ—ter Guilbert An. 1187 alter Gilbert Folâ—oâ— above 2 yeares An 1279 above one yeare aâ—â—er Iohn de Chishul An 1303 almost 2 yeares after Richard de Granefâ—rd Anno 1501 after Thomas Saâ—age above two yeares An 1171 after the death of Henry de Bloyes the Bishopricke of Winchesteâ— was void above 3 yeares An 1238 after Peter de la Roch 5â— yearsâ— An 1243. after William de Rawley 16 Yeâ—res Ethelmanus holding it 9 yeares without consideration Anno 1259 after Henry de Wengham 6 yeares An 1492 after Peter Coventry aboue one Yeare An 1500 after Thomas Langton 2 yeares An 1528 aâ—ter Richard Fox 2 Yeares An 1530. after Cardinalâ— Woolsey almost 4 yeaâ—es w An 1131 after the death of Hâ—rnaus first Bishop oâ—Ely that See was void above 2 yeares An 1169 after Negellus the Second Bishop 5 yeares An 1197 afteâ— William Longchamp above one Yeare An 1214 after Eustachius above 5 yeares An 1256 after William de Kilâ—enny above one yeare An 1297 after William de Luda 2 Yeares An 1373 after Iohn Barnet 2 yeares An 1434 after â—hillip Morgan 3 yearesâ—An 1486 after Iâ—â—n â—oorion 3 yeares An 1500 aâ—â—er Iâ—hn Alcocke one whole yeare An 1533 as long after Nicholas West An 158â— after Richard Coxe almost 20 yeares together x â—n 11â—7 after the death of Roâ—ert de Chisney the 4 Bishâ—p oâ— Lincoln that See continued vâ—cant almost 17 yeares Ceâ—â—ry â—enâ—y the 2 his base Sâ—nne taâ—ing the â—rofits thereof without any consecration An 1184 afâ—er Walteâ— de Câ—â—stâ—rtiis 2 â—eares An 1200 after St. â—ugh almost â— years â—n 1206 after William de Blâ—yes 3 yeâ—res An 1490 after Iohn Rusâ—el 2 yeares An 1513 after William Smith one yeare y An 1086 the Bishoprick of Coventry and Lichfâ—eld was vacant 2 yeares after the death of â—eter and as long An 1â—27 after Robert â—each as long An 118 after Giâ—acdus Puella as long An 1208 â—fter Geofâ—ry de Muschamp An 1238 almost 3 yeares after Alexanderâ—e Saâ—ensby An 1243 after Hugh Pateshul 2 yeâ—es An 1386 as long after â—ichard Scroope An 1490 as long after Iohn Huâ—â—e z An 1099 after Osâ—ond his death the second Bishop of Salisbury
in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâ—ing it theÌ„selves as a truth Wherefore no ancient Counsell or Author whatsoever but Epiphanius branding it either for an heresie or Error I see not well how it should be so esteemed Secondly this hath been the constant received Doctrine both of Christ and his Apostles of all the Fathers and learned Orthodoxe writers in all ages as the precedent Catalogue witnesseth therefore no Heresie or Error as Epiphanius and some few of late out of him alone have rashly deemed it Thirdly it cannot properly be called an Heresie because the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers by a dâ—vine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâ—e it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâ—ius there condemnes Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring Prayer for the dead as for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall But this our Prelates must confesse unlesse they renounce this Doctrine of our Church was no Error or Heresie in Aerius but rather in Epiphanius why not therefore the other Fifthly Epiphanius himselfe doth not condeâ—ne Aâ—rius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ— quod tota res stuâ—titiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ— Naziaâ—zen Basill Sedulius Ambrose Chrisostome and Augustine taught the same Doctrine that Aerius did at or about the same time but they were never taxed of Heresie or Error for it either then or since why then should Aâ—rius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâ—ipture to prove his assertion as Hieromâ— hath done in his Epistle to Evagrius on Tit. 1. Seventhly Epiphanius his refutations of Aerius his Arguments and opinion is very ridiculous false and absurd For first he saith that Presbiters then had not the power of ordination neither did they use to lay on hands in the election and Ordination of Ministers which is a meere falshood as Hierom in Soph. c. â— with the â—th Counsell of Carthage witnes and I have elsewhere manifested at large Secondly he saith that Presbiters had no voice in the Election of Bishops and Ministers which is (s) contrary to all Antiquities extant and a most palpable untruth Thirdly he saith that there were then more Bishops then Presbiters and men sufficient worthy enough to be made Bishops but noâ— Presbyters and therfore the Apostle writing to the Philippians and others makes mention only of Bishops not of Presbyters because they had then Bishops but not Presbyters A miserable ridiculous answer which subverts that he contends for and constitutes Bishops without any Ministers under their command or jurisdictionâ— whence it will necessarily follow That seeing the Apostles instituted Bishops without Ministers under them aâ—d more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâ—ced in every churchâ— without any Ministers under â—hem but Deacons only and more Biâ—hops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their â—iocesâ—e and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoâ—â—les first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâ—ut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâ—und them worthy which is contrary to Stâ— t Ierome and â—ll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church 〈◊〉 14â— 23 Tit. 1 5 and that they afterward elected a Bishop out of themselves Fifthly he saith that the Apostles used to write to the Bishops of one Church in the plurall number when there was but one Bishop there which is very improbâ—ble yea contrary of all other expositors on â—hil â— 1. Tit. 1 5 7 Act. 20 17 2â— Sixthly he peremptorily determines Timothy to be a Bishop which I have elsewhere proved false and fâ—om this false ground would prove Bishops and Presbiters distinct Seventhly he interprets an Elder in the 1 Tim. 5.1 to be a Presbiter which most Fathers else expound only to be an ancient man Eightly he would prove Timothy a Bishop and Bishops to be Superior too and distinct from Presbiters because Paul exhorts him not to rebuke an Elder but to exhort him as a Father and not to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses which are grosse inconsequence as I have else where manifested so that Epiphanius whilst he goes about to prove Aerius his assertion still of folly steps into many Errors follies and absurdities himselfe as Bellarmine is inforced to confesse though desirous to make the best of it In a word then as all the forecited Authors in generall â—o in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis â—acramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâ—corum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â— c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ— Ecclesia p 2â—â— to 29â— Bishop Ioâ—â—ll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâ—tat Puritanâ— Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâ—itakeâ— câ—ntr Duraum l 6. sect â—â— ad ratio 10 Campiani Resp. Contr. lib. â— qu. 5. c. 7. Doctor Fulke and Mr. Cartwright confutation of the Remish Testament Phil. 1.1 Bishop Bridges in his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. Doctor VVillâ—t Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâ—de Sacr. hom Orig. l. 1â— c. 5. Doctor Armes in his Bellarminnus enarvatus Tom. 2. l 3 c 4. to omit others do all joyntly acquit Aâ—â—ius both â—roÌ„ the guilt of Heresie or Error in thiâ— very point and taxe Epiphanius for censuring him without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church condemning his answers to Aerius his reasons as notoriously absurd impertinent yea as foolish Childisâ— worthy to be hissed and derided I shall therfore conclude as doth our learned w Whittaker in this case verily if to condemne prayers for the dead and to equâ—ll Presbitersâ— with Bishops be hereticall Nihil Catholicum esse potest Nothing can be Catholicke so farre as it from being either an Heresie or Error as oâ—r absurd Prelates and their Sycophants Pretend If they object the Authority of x Ignatius that he advanceth Bishops above Presbyters commanding them to obey the Bishops as the Apostles obeyed Christ and willing the people to be subject to their Bishops as to God and Christ and to their Elders as to Christs Apostlâ—s therfore in his daies Bishops were Superior to Presbiters To this I answer that these Epistles of Ignatius are false and spurious as many y of our learned men have proved at large therefore of no Authority Secondly it is