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
A69545	The diocesans tryall wherein all the sinnewes of Doctor Dovvnhams defence are brought into three heads, and orderly dissolved / by M. Paul Baynes ; published by Dr. William Amis ...	Baynes, Paul, d. 1617.; Ames, William, d. 1662.	1641 (1641)	Wing B1546; ESTC R5486	91,441	102

all the perfection of a Church I answer not taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church it is but a part and member and hath not perfection no more then a parochiall Church hath compared with a Diocesan Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed To the first I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who ordained that the Civita● and V●bs 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 Ci●y 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 City by City and Church by Church as equivalent which the Apostles doe they ordained that C●●y Suburbs and Count●y should make but one Chur●h I answer by the like distinction They who use City by City people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds as equivalent with Church by Church they may be said to have ordained that city suburbs and territories should make but one Church But th●s the Apostles doe not use them as of equall signification For the City 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 we should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds it is said 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 ●ut of the multitude and locall limites 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 hee who thus us●th them promiscuously doth imply that one church was as yet constituted not that there was to be but one through the circu●t of city suburbs and countrey Thus likewise it is easi●y answered to the proofe of the proposition For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted could not be a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in city 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 the objection from the Nationall church of the Jewes I answer denying the assumption That the Synagogues being many made one church because they were all one Kingdome one posses●ion For thus there was one Oecumenicall church when the world was under one Emperour and of one profession It is accidentall to the unity of a Church whether the kingdome be one or no. If Israel when God had divided the kingdome into two had gone up to Hierusalem and kept there communion in the worship of that Church they had still been one Church though two Kingdomes If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have beene in England so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church should bee one Church though ma●y Kingdomes The truth is they were one Church because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worships 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 thinke this cannot bee the cause why there were one Church under the governement of one high Priest for then should Aaron have beene as well as M●lehisedeck a type of Christs Kingly office I answer there is Priestly Prelacy and governement as well as Princely Th●y were under Aaron in the former regard in wh●ch h● was a sh●dow of Christ. To the second instance of Hierusalem we deny the proposition It might be intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over oth●rs If it should have beene a head having power accordingly as it was a mother Church it should have beene head to all the world Secondly wee deny the Assumption Th●t the Apostles ever intended that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Judea as it had beene 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 D●vinity beene knowne the Fathers would not have suffered that it should have beene made a Diocesan church and subjected to Caesarea To the Prosillogisme The Church which was so numbersome that it could not meete 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 meete I grant it But so this was not by accident often many others were there in transitu Secondly nay wee read that they did meete ordinarily as is above said and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them Irenaeu● affirmeth l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam cam 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 five thousand have concealed so notable accessions where by they s●y 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 reason of the Passeover or Pentecost or such like feast they were in tran●tu onely there for the present How ever it is there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church Neverthelesse say they were more then could fitly meet yet might they be tollerated as in one Congreg●tion The Apostles seeing such times to ensue wherein many of them should translate themselves and be dispersed hither and thither God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to be because it was Ecclesiae surcularis many of whose branches were to be transplanted in their time Yea had there beene five thousand setled members we read of some ordinary Auditories sp●ken to by ordinary Pastors as great as Chrys●stome on Matth. 24. doth signifie to his esteeme th●y 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

a bishop over them in higher degree Answer The Proposition is not true in regard of majority of rule For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches But to the Assumption we answer by distinction An order is reputed higher either because intrinsecally it hath a higher vertue or because it hath a higher degree of dignity and honour Now wee deny that ever antiquity did take the bishop above his Presbyters to be in a higher order then a Presbyter further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignity and honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Sardica speaketh Which is further proved because 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 sacerdotum voca●i 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 th●se must be circumstantially not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus bishops and Archbishops are divers ord●rs of bishops not that one exceedeth the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignity then then the other More plainely There may be a fourefold difference in gradu 1. in potestate graaus 2. in Exercito 3. in Dignitate 4. in amplitudi●e Iurisdictionis The first difference is not betweene a bishop and a Presbyter according to the common tenent of antiquity or the Schoole but only is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bishop inwardly 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 B●shops c. but a bishop can doe also So neither doth a Presbyter from a bishop Object But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter and confirme as the b●shop doth and therefore differeth Potestate gradus To this I answer that these authours meane not th●s difference in power de fundamentali rem ta potestate sed ampliata immediata jam actu hor um effictuam productiva as if Presbyters had not a remote and fundamentall power to doe those things but that they have not before they be ordained bishops their power so enlarged as to produce th●se effects actually As a boy hath a generative faculty wh●le 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 defective in regard of them further then they be with-held from the exercise of it For that cause which standeth in compleat actuality 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 sacramentall power standing in full actuality to higher sacramentall actions therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in h●s power further then they are excepted kept from being applied to him And therefore power sacramentall cannot be in a Presbyter as the generative faculty is in a child for this is inchoate onely and imperfect such as cannot produce that effect The power of the Priest is compleat Secondly I say these are no sacramentall actions Thirdly were they yet as much may be 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 joine with their bishops If that rule stand not major ad minori nor yet equalie ab equall I marvel how bishops can beget bishops equall yea superior to them as in consecrating the Lord Archbishop yet a Presbyter may not ordaine a Presbyter It doth not stand with their Episcopall majority that the rule every one may give that which he hath should hold here in the exercise of their power Those who are in one order may differ jure divino or humans Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall for they might all offer incense and make intercession But the solemne intercession in the holy of holies God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ. Priests would have 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 ●hough God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other yet commonly confi●mation ordination absolution by imposi●g hands in receiving Penitents consecrating Churches and Virines have beene referred to the b●shop for the honor of Priesthood rather then any necessi●y of law as Ierom speaketh Finally in dignity those may differ many waies 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 a●other But were it manifest that God did give bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse and an Archbishop through his Province though but when hee visiteth this would make one differ in order from the other as in this regard Evangelists deffered from ordinary Pastors But that jurisdiction is in one more then another is not established nor hath apparency in any Scripture To the proofes thereof 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 have not deserved it As for that of Ierom it is most plaine hee did meane no further order but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their bishop or first Prebyter as that they did mount him up in a higher seat the rest sitting lower about him and gave him this preheminence to sit first as a Consull in the Senate and moderate the carriage of things amongst them this Celfiori gradu being nothing but his honourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing sole authority For by a Canon of Councell of Laodicea wee finde that the bishop h●d this priviledge to sit first though Presbyters did together with him enter and sit as Judges of equall commission For though Deacons stood Presbyters did alwaies sit incircuitu Episcopi 10. Argument If bishops be that whi●h Aaron and the Apostles were and Presbyters be that which the Priests and the 72. Disciples were then the one are