Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	church_n	high_a	37	3	5.3475	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06013	The diocesans tryall Wherein all the sinnews of D. Dovvnames Defence are brought unto three heads, and orderly dissolved. By M. Paul Baynes.	Baynes, Paul, d. 1617.	1618 (1618)	STC 1640; ESTC S102042	91,040	104

ordained that the Civitas and Vrbs people taken in regard of the whole multitude of the one and locall bounds of the other should make but one Church they did institute a Diocesan church But those who so instituted a Church in Citie suburbs Countrey that their number might bee compared fitly to one congregation they did not therefore ordaine a Diocesan Church Againe to the assumption But those who use Citie by Citie and Church by Church as equivalent which the Apostles doe they ordained that Citie suburbs and Countrey should make but one Church I answer by the like distinction They who use Citie by Citie people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds as equivalent with Church by Church they may bee sayd to have ordained that citie suburbs and teritories should make but one Church But thus the Apostles doe not use them as of equall signification For the Citie had a reason of an ample continent the Church of a thing contained These phrases are the one proper the other metonymicall and are therefore to bee expounded the one by the other Hee placed Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest wee should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds it is sayd in the Acts of the Apostles that they placed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted out of the multitude and locall limits wherewith cities were bounded Secondly there is an adaequate acception of these phrases per accidens not because the citie and church was to make but one church but because the Christians by occasion of their number not being then too great were framed into one church or because by occasion there was yet but one church not because there was to be but one Now he who thus useth them promiscuously doth imply that one church was as yet constituted not that there was to bee but one through the circuit of citie suburbs and countrey Thus likewise it is easily answered to the proofe of the proposition For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted could not bee a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in citie suburbs and territories were actually converted was no more then might be ordered into one church and the Apostles framing these into one on the present occasion did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same locall bounds To the second Argument and First to the objection from the Nationall church of the Iewes I answer denying the assumption That the Synagogues being many made one Church because they were all one kingdome one possession For thus there was one Occumenicall Church when the world was under one Emperour and of one profession It is accidentall to the unitie of a Church whether the kingdom be one or no. If Israell when God had divided the kingdome into two had gone up to Hierusalem and kept there communion in the worshipp of that Church they had still beene one Church though two Kingdomes If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have been in England so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church should bee one Church though many Kingdomes The truth is they were one Church because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worship which were in that one Church to which they all belonged The high Priest was their proper Priest hee made intercession for them blessed them they were not to offer any where but there If any think this cannot bee the cause why they were one Church under the government of one high Priest for then should Aaron have been as well as Melchisedeck a type of Christs kingly office I answer there is Priestly Prelacie and government as well as Princely They were under Aaron in the former regard in which hee was a shadow of Christ To the second instance of Hierusalem wee deny the proposition It might bee intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over others If it should have been a head having power accordingly as it was a mother Church it should have been head to all the world Secondly Wee deny the Assumption That the Apostles ever intended that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Iudea as it had been before under the High Priest That constitution was typicall and may better plead for an universall Christian Church then for a Nationall Secondly there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way Thirdly had this Divinitie been knowne the Fathers would not have suffered that it should have been made a Diocesan church and subjected to Caesarea To the Prosillogisme The Church which was so numbersome that it could not meet ordinarily could not bee a parishionall Church This was so Ergo c. To the proposition I answer That which was by inhabitants who had fixum domicilium so numbersome that it could not meet I grant it But so this was not by accident often many others were there in transitu Secondly nay wee read that they did meet ordinarily as is aboue said and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them as Irenaeus affirmeth l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam eam convenisse Luke affirmeth the same As for that of millions of beleevers it is certaine they were not fixed members of this Church For would Luke who reckoneth the growth of them to 5000. have concealed so notable accessions whereby they say they grew up to I know not how many thousands there is no likelihood Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned Iohn 2. or whether by occasion of the Passover or Pentecost or such like feast they were in transitu onely there for the present How ever it is there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church Nevertelesse say they were more then could fitly meet yet might they bee tollerated as in one Congregation The Apostles seeing such times to ensue wherein many of them should translate themselves and bee dispersed hither and thither God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to bee because it was Ecclesia surcularis many of whose branches were to bee transplanted in their time Yea had there been five thousand setled members we read of some ordinarie Auditories spoken to by ordinarie Pastors as great as Chrysostome on Math. 24. doth signifie to his esteeme they might be five thousand that then heard his voyce Touching the third instance As to the first reason The proposition is denyed for naming the rest of Achaia with them doth no more signifie the subiection of all Achaians then in the 1. Corinth 1.2 naming all Saints in every place doth signifie their subiection The second reason hath the sequell of the proposition denied for the contrary is rather true He who without any note of difference calleth the Church of

a higher degree of dignitie and honour Now wee deny that ever antiquitie did take the Bishop above his Presbyters to bee in a higher order then a Presbyter further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignitie and honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Sardica speaketh Which is further proved becavse the fathers did not hold a Bishop to differ from a Presbyter as Presbyter from a Deacon For these differ genere proximo Noverint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotium vocari But a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter as from one who hath the power of Priesthood no lesse then himselfe and therefore the difference betwixt these must bee circumstantiall not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bishops not that one exceedeth the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignitie then then the other More plainly There may be a fourefold difference in gradu 1. in potestate gradus 2. in Exercitio 3. in Dignitate 4. in amplitudine Jurisdictionis The first difference is not betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter according to the common tenent of antiquitie or the Schoole but only is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bishop inwardlie diverse one from the other For as a Bishop differeth not in power and degree from an Archbishop Because nothing an Archbishop can doe as confirming consecrating Bishops c. but a Bishop can doe also So neither doth a Presbyter from a Bishop Obiect But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter and confirme as the Bishop doth and therefore differeth potestate gradus To this I answer that these authours meane not this difference in power de fundamentali remota potestate sed ampliata immediata et iam actu horum effectuum productiva as if Presbyters had not a remote and fundamentall power to doe those things but that they haue not before they be ordained bishops their power so enlarged as to produce these effects actuallie As a boy hath the generative facultie while he is a child which he hath when he is a man but yet it is not in a child free from all impediment that it can actually beget the like But this is too much to grant For the power sacramentall in the Priest is an actuall power which hee is able to performe and execute nothing defectiue in regard of them further then they be with-held from the exercise of it For that cause which standeth in compleat actualitie to greater more noble effects hath an inferior lesser of the same kind under it also unlesse the application of the matter be intercepted Thus a presbyter he hath a sacramental power standing in ful actualitie to higher sacramental actions therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in his power further then they are excepted kept from bein applied to him And therfore power sacramentall cannot bee in a Presbyter as the generative facultie is in a child for this is inchoate onely and imperfect such as cannot produce that effect The power of the Priest is compleat Secondlie I say these are no sacramentall actions Thirdlie were they yet as much may bee said to prove an Archbishop a distinct order from a Bishop as to prove a Presbyter and Bishop differing in order For it is proper to him out of power to generate a Bishop other Bishops laying on hands no otherwise then Presbyters are said to doe where they ioyne with their Bishops If that rule stand not maior ad minori nor yet equalis ab equali I marvel how Bishops can beget Bishops equal yea superior to them as in cōsecrating the Lord Archbishop yet a presbyter may not ordain a presbyter It doth not stand with their Episcopall majoritie that the rule every one may give that which be hath should hold here in the exercise of their power Those who are in one order may differ jure ●…o or humane Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall for they might all offer incence and make intercession But the solumne intercession in the holy of holies God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ Priests would haue reached to this power of intercession in the holy place or any act of like kinde but that God did not permit that this should come under them or they intermeddle in it Thus by humane law the Bishop is greater in exercise then the Priest For though God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other yet commonly confirmation ordination absolution by imposing hands in receiving Penitents consecrating Churches and Virgines haue been referred to the Bishop for the honour of Priesthood rather then any necessity of law as Ierome speaketh Finally in dignity those may differ many wayes who in degree are equall which is granted by our adversaries in this cause Yea they say in amplitude of jurisdiction as in which it is apparant an Archbishop exceedeth another But were it manifest that God did giue Bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse and an Archbishop through his Province though but when he visiteth this would make one differ in order from the other as in this regard Euangelists differred from ordinary Pastors But that jurisdiction is in one more then another is not established nor hath apparencie in any Scripture To the proofes therefore I answer briefly the one may be a step to the other while they differ in degrees of dignities though essentially they are but one and the same order In this regard it may be sacriledge to reduce one from the greater to the lesser if he haue not deserved it As for that of Ierom it is most plain he did meane no further order but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their Bishop or first Presbyter as that they did mount him up in a higher seate the rest sitting lower about him and gaue him this preheminence to sit first as a Consul in the Senate and moderate the carriage of things amongst them this Celsiori gradu being nothing but his honourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing sole authoritie For by a Canon of the Councill of Laodicea we finde that the Bishop had this priviledge to sit first though Presbyters did together with him enter and sit as Iudges of equall commission For though Deacons stood Presbyters did alwaies sit in circuitu Episcopi 10 Argument If Bishops be that which Aaron and the Apostles were and Presbyters be that which the Priests and the 72 Disciples were then the one are aboue the other in preheminence and power But they are so See Ierom to Nepotian Ergo. Answer If Bishops c. and Presbyters be that which the sonnes of Aaron and the 72 were then there are different orders c. To these may be added a third That which Moses and the 70 Seniors were that are