Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	church_n	see_v	time_n	2,962	5	3.5365	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04026	Informations, or a protestation, and a treatise from Scotland Seconded with D. Reignoldes his letter to Sir Francis Knollis. And Sir Francis Knollis his speach in Parliament. All suggesting the vsurpation of papal bishops.	Knollys, Francis, Sir, d. 1643.; Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.; Simson, Patrick, 1556-1618.	1608 (1608)	STC 14084; ESTC S107421	32,696	102

Bishop least equality should breed dissention yet saith he the Bishop was not aboue them in ho nor and dignity that he had rule over them but looke what is the Consuls duety in the Senate to propose matters to aske their opinions to direct others by giving them advise by admonishing by exhorting to guide the whole action by his authority and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent that charge had the Bishop in the assembly of Ministers And having declared that S. Ierom sheweth this to haue ben brought in by the consent of men vpon the first of Titus he addeth that the same S. Ierom other where sheweth how ancient an order of the Church it was even from S. Marks time to Hereclas and Dionysius at Alexandria In which words of Calvin seeing that the order of the Church he mentioneth hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had sayd the Bishop was not so aboue the rest in honor that he had rule over them It followeth that M. Calvin doth not so much as seeme to confesse of Ieroms reporte that ever since S. Marks time Bishops haue had a ruling superiority over the Cleargie Wherefore to use no more profes in a thing manifest which else might easily be proved more at large out of S. Ierom and M. Calvin both It is certaine that nether of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time haue had such superiority as D. Bancroft seemeth to father vpon them Thus haue I signified mine opinion of the points that your Honor specified in D. Bancrofts Sermon Which yet if he or any doe proue that I haue erred in or take him otherwise thā I ought I shall be very willing by Gods grace to correct remembring the Apostles lesson that The spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets 19. Sept 1598. SIR FRANCIS KNOLLIS HIS SPEACH IN PARLIAment related by himselfe to the late worthy Lo Treasurer Sir William Cicil. To the end I may informe your Lordship of my dealing in this Parliamēt time a gaīst the undue claīed superiority of the Bb. over their inferiour brethren Thus it was Because I was in the Parliament in the 25 yeare of King Henry the 8. In which time First all the Cleargie as well Bishops as others made an humble submission to King Henry 8. acknowledging his Supremacie and detesting the vsurpation of the Bishop of Romes authority Vpon which submission of the Cleargie the King gaue unto the sayd Bishops the same ample rule that before they had under the Pope over their inferiour brethren saving that the same rule was abridged by statute by this parenthesis following that is to say without offending the prerogatiue Royall of the Crowne of England and the lawes customes of the Realme In the latter end of the statute it was added That whofoever offendeth in any one parte of that statute and their aiders counsellors and abettours they did all fall into the penaltie of the Premunire And after I had recited the statute in the Parliament house I declared that in K. Henry 8. his dayes after this there was no Bishop that did practise superiority over their inferiour brethren And in King Edwards dayes the sayd Bishops obteyned a statute whereby they were authorized to keep their Courtes in the Kings name The which statute was repealed in Q. Maries dayes and is not revived in her Maiesties time that now is Wherupon it was doubtfull to me by what authority the Bishops doe keep their Courtes now in their owne names Because it is against the prerogatiue of the Crowne of England that any shou'd keep a Courte without a sufficiēt warrant frō the Crowne Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops doe keep their Courtes now by prescription and it is true that the Bishops may prescribe that K Henry 8. gaue them authority by the Statute of the 25 of his reigne to haue authority rule over their inferiour brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time But this was no special warrāt for thē to keep their courts by that in their owne names And yet they haue no other warrant to keep their courts as they do now in their owne names to my knowledge And this was the cause that made them obteyne a statute in King Edwards dayes to keep their courtes by in the Kings name Now it is a straunge allegation that the Bishops should claime authority at this present to keep Courtes in their owne names as they doe by prescription Because the statute of 25. H. 8. doth restreigne them generally from offending of the prerogatiue royall of the Crowne of England and the lawes and customes of the Realme And no man may iustly keep a court without a speciall warrant from the Crowne of Englād as is a foresayd And the generall liberty given by King Hen. 8. to the Bishops to rule and governe as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient warrant to the Bishops to keep their Courtes in their owne names by prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a warrant by statute to keep their Courtes in the Queenes name as the Bishops did in king Edwardes dayes In which time Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into the Realme to be placed in the two Vniverfities for the better instruction of the Vniversities in the word of God And B Cranmer did humbly prefer these learned men without any challenge to himselfe of any superiour rule in this behalfe over his inferiour brethren And the time hath been that no man Could cary away any graunt from the Crowne of England by generall wordes but he must haue speciall wordes to cary the same by Therefore how the Bishops are warranted to cary away the keeping of their Courts in their owne names by prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship sayd vnto me that the Bishops haue for saken their claime of superiority over their inferiour brethren lately to be by Gods ordinance that now they do only claime superioritie from Her Maiestie Supreame Governement if this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my L of Caunter bury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his booke of the great volume against M. Cartwright where he saith in playne words by the name of Doct. Whitgift That the superiority of Bishopps is Gods owne institution Which saying doth impugne Her Maiesties supreame government directly and therefore it is to bere tracted and truely For Christ plainely truely confesseth Ioh 18. 36. That his kingdom is not of this world And ther fore he gaue no worldly rule or preheminence to his Apostles but the heavenly rule which was to Preach the Gospell saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum quicunpue crediderit et baptizatus fuerit falvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world

from witnessing this to be heresy by the generall consent of the whole Church Which untruth how wrongfully it is fathered on him and on Epiphanius who yet are all the witnesses that D. Bancroft hath produced for the proofe hereof or can for ought that I know it may appeare by this that our learned country man of godly memory Bishop Iewell when Harding to convince the same opinion of heresie alleadged the same witnesses he cyting to the contrary Chrysostome Ierom Austen and Ambrose knit up his answer with these wordes All these and other moe holy Fathers together with the Apoflle S. Paul for thus saying by Hardings advice must be held for heretikes And Michaell Medina a man of great accoūt in the Counsell of Trent more ingenious herein than many other Papists affirmeth not onely the former anciēt writers alleadged by Bishop Iewel but also an other Ierom Theodoret Primasius Sedulius and Theophilact were of the same mind touching this matter with Aerius With whom agree likewise Oecumenius and Anselmus Arch B of Canterbury and an other Ansel mus and Gregorie and Gratian and after them how many It being once inrolled in the Canon law for sound and Catholike doctriue and therupon publikly taught by learned men All which doe beare witnes against D. Bācroft of the poynt in question that it was not condemned for an Heresie by the generall consent of the whole Church For if he should reply that these later witnesses did liue a 1000. yeares after Christ and therfore touch not him who said it was condemned so in the time of S. Austen and of Epiphanius the most florishing time of the Church that ever happēed since the Apostles dayes either in respect of learnīg or of zeale first they whom I named though living in a latter time yet are witnesses of the former Oecumenius the Greek scholiast treading in the stepps of the old greek Fathers and the two Anselmes with Gregory and Gratian expressing S. Ieromes sentence word by word Besides that perhaps it is not very likely that Anselmus of Canterbury should haue beene Canonized by the Pope of Rome and worshipped for a Saint that the other Anselmus Gregory should haue such place in the Popes library and be esteemed of as they are that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden foūdation of the Canon law if they had taught that for Catholike and sound which by the generall consent of the whole Church in the most flourishing time that ever happened since the Apostles dayes was condemned for heresie cheifely in a matter of such waight and moment to the Popes supremacy which as they doe claime over all Bishops by the ordināce of God so must they allow to Bishopps over Preists by the same ordinance as they saw at length and therefore haue not only decreed it now in the Counsell of Trent but also in the new edition of their Canō law haue set down this note that on Hughes Glosse allowed by the Archdeacon saying that Bishops haue differed from Preists alwayes as they doe now in Governement and Prelatship and offices and Sacraments but not in the name and Title of Bishop which was common to them both must be held hereafter for S. Ieroms meaning at least for the meaning of the Canon taken out of S. Ierom though his words be flat playne against this glosse as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Wherto may be added that they also who hauelaboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 yeares haue taught that all Pastors be they intituled Bishops or Preists haue equall authority and power by Gods word First the Waldenses next Marsilius Patavinus then Wickliffe and his schollers afterward Husse and the Hussites last of all Luther Calvinc Brentius Bullinger Musculus and other who might be reckoned perticulerly in great number sith as here with us both Bishops and the Queenes Professors of Divinity in our Vniversities and other learned men do cōsent therein so in forreine Nations all whō I haue read treating of this matter and many moe no doubt whom I haue not read The sifting and examyning of the Trent Counsell hath been udertaken by only two which I haue seene the one a divine the other a lawier Kemnisius and Gentilletus they both condēne the contrary doctrine thereunto as a Trent error the one by scriptures and Fathers the other by the Canon law But what doe I further speake of several persons It it the cōmon judgment of the Reformed Churches of Helveti a Savoy France Scotlād Germany Hungary Polony the Lowe Coūtries our owne witnes the Harmony of Confessions Wherefore sith D. Bancroft I assure my selfe will not say that all these haue approved that as sound Christian doctrine which by the generall consent of the whole Church in a most florishing time was condemned for heresie I hope he will acknowledg that he was overseene in that he avou ched the Superiority which Bishops haue among vs over the Cleargie to be of Gods owne ordināce And thus farr of the former poynt of D. Bancroft Sermon The latter is concerning that he af firmeth that S. Ierom saith M. Calvin seemeth on his report to confesse that Bishops haue had the said superi ority ever since the time of S. Marke the Evangelist Of the which poynt I thinke as of the former sith neither Ie rom saith it neither doth Calvin seeme to confesse it on his report For Bishops among us besids ordeyning laying on of handes may doe sondry other thinges which inferior Ministers or Preists as D. Bācroft termeth thē may not But Ierom after mention of the superiority allotted to Bishops since S. Marks time what doth a Bishop saith he except ordination which a Preist doth not Meaning in forcing by this kind of speach as a thing most evident such as no man could deny that Bishops had that onely power aboue Preists then which Chrysostome also witnesseth Though neither had they it alone in all places as it is apparant by a Counsell of Carthage shewing their Churches order that the Preists layd their hands together with the Bishop on those who were ordeyned Yet Ierom having proved by testimony of scripture that in the Apostles tymes Bishops and Preists were all one even in the right of this too grāteth that afterwardes Bishops had that peculier unto themselues some where but nothing else saue it S. Ierom therfore saith not of that superiority whereof the question is that Bishops haue had it ever since S. Marks time No more doth M. Calvin seeme to confesse it upon his report For Calvin in the same place that D. Bancroft quoteth shewing how in old time the Ministers that had charge to teach chose of their company one in every Citie to whom they did especially giue the title of

estate of Christ his Kirke under the Gospell must be inferior unto the estate of the Kirke under the law which had the accomplishment of all offices ministeries and lawes needfull and sufficient for the regiment therof But none will graunt that the estate of the Kirke of Christ is inferior to the estate of the Kirk under the law Therefore the aforesayd offices are sufficient for the Governement of the Kirk of the New Testament And therefore this forme order of Government by the foresayd offices and Ministeries of Preachers and assisting Elders being grounded vpon the written word of God practise of the Apostles Kirkes in their time Rom 12. 6 7 8. Eph 4. 11 12. Act 14 23. et 20. 17. 28. 1. Tim 5. 17. Tit 1 5 c. It can admit no prescription or change by any mortall man or by any humane tradition whatsoever Which forme of Discipline as it hath been practised in the Apostolicall and Primitiue Kirke quhilk is evident by scriptures afore aledged so hath it the testimony of antiquitie in the auncient Kirkes as is collected not very obscurely out of Ignatius Epist ad Trallen Tertul in Apoc. cap. 39. et lib de Baptism Christian. Cyprian lib 2. Epist. 5 et lib. 3 Epist. 10. 18. 22. et lib. 4. 5. Augusti de verb. Dom. in Math Serm. 19. But more clearly out of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5 1 Ierom in Isai 2. et ad Rustic Epist 16. Possidonius in vita Augustini Socrates Eccle. hist. lib. 5. ca. 20. and others also alledged be the defenders of this christian and true Kirke Governement Amongst the quhilk I cannot passe by for proofes sake the cleare sayinges of Ambrose and Ierom. Ambrose writteth thus upon 1 Tim. 5 Whence it is that both the Synagage and afterward the Kirk had Elders without whos counsell nothing was done in the Kirk Quhilk by what negligence it is growne out of use I know not unlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes or rather prid of the Teachers whilst they alone will seeme to be something Ierom ad Tit. cap. 1. Vntill schismes were made in religion by the diuely suggestion the Kirkes were governed by the common counsell of Elders and in the same place speaking of the corruption that followed therafter addeth this But this was rather by custome than by the truth of the Lords disposing This forme of Discipline according to the word the Kirk of Scotland hath used many years by past being authorised and ratified by the three Estates in Parliament receaved and practised by all the Preachers within the whole Realme with on consent concord even by thē also who now haue made defection frō it taking upon thē Episcopall authority Siclik it hath the testimony of all the reformed Kirkes in Europe in France in Freisland in Geneva in Helvetia Polonia Vngaria in Palatinatu in Germania Saxonia Bohemia in Suedia Dania and all other reformed Kirkes except Englād alone Siclik also it hath the testimony generally of the Divīes of later times as Zuinglius Martir Aretius Calvinus Bucer Hiperius Bullingerius Musculus Hemingius Beza Olevianus Iunius Sadael Nowel Fulke Whitakers with all other learned famous Preachers in the Countries reformed professing truely the Gospell only Englād excepted wherin also the best yea the greatest parte haue sought and dayly seiks the liberty of the same Governement according to the word most clearely haue defended it with their penne and most pithie writtings and most constantly haue avouched it by their manifold suffrings at home and abrode for the glorifiyng of God and the witnessing of the truth of Christ Iesus All that afore hath been breifly sayd anent the deduction of this purpose may be more largely intreated and more particularly handled if any within this land will proue so obstinat as to refuse consent to the truth of Christ Iesus THE SECOND PART OF KIRKE GOVERNEMENT CONTEINING AREfutation of Episcopall Governement by Lord Bishopes IT pleased our Heavenly Father to compasse us with compassion and mercy whē we were lying in darknes and under the shadow of death by sen ding his owne deare Sonne Christ Iesus with the brightnes of his Gospell delivering us from Idolatry and super stition and the darknes of the former times vnder the bondage and tyranny of Antichrist and that by the Ministery of few not the greatest to the great admiration of the world And forder of the same mercy it hath pleased him from time to time to multiply the nūber of the faithfull and to increase his graces among men for the beutifiyng of his Kirk within this land and finally to croune his owne worke adding the keepstone of sincerity both of doctrine and Discipline as it was prophesied by that holy Martyr M. George Wiseheart quhilk two glorious staues our Kirke hath brooked with Concord Unitie with peace prosperity many yeares within the gates of Ierusalem in this land wherby our Kirk by the unspeak ble bountifulnes of God became famous renoumed and in great accōpt before many others amonge forren Nations and Kirkes reformed in Europe For the which belongeth everlasting prayse to this our boūtifull God through his Sonne Iesus Christ our deare Saviour But now of late hath risen ane whirle wind among our selues like the whirle winde that devoured the children of Iob shaking the foure corners of the house of God and throwing doun the kepston and this wind of discord Schisme and dissention is not come from the wildernes but risē from our owne bowels and the riches of the Temple dispoyled not by Assyri ans Chaldeans or Arabians but by the Preistes and Ministers themselfes hom-bredd and borne in the bosome of our Kirke and fostered sometime by the sincere milke of the Gospell who also haue made avoumemt of the same sinceritie both of Doctrine and Discipline not only in Preaching and practising but also with solemne Oath binding themselfes therto From quhilk an manifest slyding backe and Apostasie is seene this day lamented with greiff by the godly and mocked be the enemyes the Papists and Atheists whose number strength and power daylie in cresseth by this lamentable renting inbringing of Episcopall Gubernation be Lord Bishops quhilk before had ben banished with Antichristian corruptions from the Kirk of Scotland For the working of this Mysterie many intentions haue bene proponed many sheapes cullours haue bene changed As for example in the begining nothing for such was meened but Ministers to haue vote in Parliament and that to vindicat the Ministerie from povertie and cōtempt c. quhilk practise God even then at the begining discovered unto his servantes and they unto the world foretelling the effectes that visibly now appeares before the eyes of the world viz. renting of our Church overthrowing of Christian Discipline setting up a fewe Episcopall men with contempt bondage and povertie of the rest which this day is to be seene to the great greife of the godly and hinderance

writers As for the new obtruded Lord Bishops to the Kirk of this Realme we haue not heard much of their reasoning as yet for their part only shreuding them selfe by authority and arme of man whence they alledge Donation with power c. To the quhilk albeit many things may be replyed yet we answer thus only with the Apostle The weapons of our warfaire are not carnall 2 Cor 10. 4. The abuse present practise the more is to be lamē ted that such injquity is done in so great light of the Gospell after long profession of the same that in place of light men should imbrace darknes loue the honor of the world more thā the honor of Christ Iesus not onely comming against the truth but also against their owne profession avoument having preached and practised the true Christian Discipline by Ministers and Elders according to the word and Institution of Christ opponing them selfes alwayes unto Antichristiā authority practise of Papal Bishops Is not this to begine in the spirit end in the flesh And who hath bewitched you so Now for conclusion seeyng holy scripture practise of the Apostolicall and Primitiue Kirk and Christian Kirkes in succeeding times the learned sincere Antiquitie both in Councells and by writing with all reformed Kirkes every where truely professing the Gospell with the best of the leater writers of our time Forrain within this Yle stand on our side for Kirk governement by Ministers assisting Elders according to the word against the Governement of Lord Bishops their authority practis in the Kirk of Christ we being I say compassed with such great cloud of witnesses let us hold fast the true profession of Doctrine Discipline according to the word without wavering or halting praying continually That the God of our Lord lesus Christ the Father of glory might giue unto us the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the acknow ledgment of him strenthned with all might throw his glorious power that we being like mindit having the same loue being of one accord and of the same iudgment we may doe that which is pleasant and acceptable in his sight through Christ to whom be praise for ever and ever Amen DOCTOR REIGNOLDS HIS LETTER TO SIR FRAVNcis Knollis concerning Doctor Bancrofts Sermon at Paules crosse 9. Feb 1588. In the Parliament time ALbeit Right Honorable I take greater comforte in labouring to discover and overthrow the Errors of Iesuites and Papists enemyes of Religion thā of the Ministers of Christ yet seeing it hath pleased your Honor to requyer me to shew mine opinion of some thinges which certeine of these men mainteyne stand in I thought it my duty by the example of Levie who sayd of his Father and Mother I regard them not nor acknowledged he his brethren to declare the truth without respect of persons Of the two poynts therfore in Doctor Bancrofts Sermon which your Honor mentioneth one is concernning that he seemeth to avouch The superioritie which Bishops haue among us over the Clergie to be Gods owne Ordinance though not by expresse words yet by necessary consequence In that he affir meth their opiniō who oppugne that that superiority to be Heresie Wherin I must confesse he hath committed an oversight in my judgment and himselfe I thinke if he be advertised ther of will acknowledge it For having said first that Aerius affirmeth that ther was no differēce by the word of God betwixt a Preist and a Bishop and afterward that Martin and his companions do mainteine this opinion of Aerius he addeth that Aerius persisting therein was condemned for an heretike by the generall consent of the whole Church and likwise that Martins and all his companions opini on hath herein been condemned for heresie Touching Martine if any man behaue himselfe otherwayes than in discretion and charitie he ought let the blame be layd where the fault is I defend him not but if by the way he utter a truth mingled with whatsoever else it is not reason that that which is of God should be cōdemned for that which is of man no more thá the doctrine of the resurrection should be reproved because and held by the Pharises Wherefore removing the odious name of Martin from that which in sincerity and loue is to be dealt with it appeareth by the aforesayd words of D. Bancroft that he avoucheth the Superiority which Bishops haue over the Cleargie to be of Gods owne ordinance For he improveth the impugners of it as holding with Aerius that there is no difference by the word of God betwixt a Preist and a Bishop which he could not doe with reason unlesse he himselfe appro ved the Bishops superiority as established by Gods word and he addeth that their opinion who gayne say it is Heresie wherof it insueth he thinke it contrary to Gods word sith Heresy is an error repugnant to the truth of the word of God as according to the Scriptures our owne Church doth teach us Now the Argumēts which he bringeth to proue it an heresy are partely overweake partly untrue overweake that he beginneth with out of Epiphanius untrue that he adjoyneth of the general consent of the Church For though Epiphanius do say that Aerius his assertion is full of solly yet he disproveth not the reason which Aerius stood on out of the scriptures nay he dealeth so in seeking to disproue it that Bellarmine the Iesuite though desirous to make the best of Epiphanius whose opinion herein he mainteyneth against the Protestants yet is forced to confesse that Epiphanius his ans wer is not all of the wisest nor any way can fit the text As for the generall consent of the whole Church which D. Bācrost saith condemned that opinion of Aerius for an Heresy and himselfe for an Heretike because he persisted in it that is a large speach but what proofe hath he that the whole Church did so It ap peareth he saith in Epiphanius It doth not and the contrary appeareth by S. Ierome and sondry others who lived some in the same time som after Epiphanius even S. Austin himself though D. Bancroft cite him as bearing witnes therof likewise I grant S. Austin in his booke of heresies ascribeth this to Aerius for one that he sayd Presbiterum ab episcopo nulla differentia de beri discerni but it is one thing to say there ought to be no difference betwixt the which Aerius saying condemned the Churches order yea made a schisme therein and so is censured by S. Austen counting it an heresie as in Epiphaus he tooke it recorded himselfe as he witnesseth not knowing how farre the name of Heresie should be stretched another thing to say that by the word of God there is no difference betwixt them but by the order and custome of the Church which S. Austen sayth in effect himselfe so farre was he