Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	law_n	person_n	1,451	5	4.8874	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88948	A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1647 (1647)	Wing M1275; Thomason E386_9; ESTC R201478	144,474	133

Iudge and party too in the cause there can be no Ceremony or Type in this Next of all I alledge the words of the same Reverend Author in his Page 10 Which is also alledged in the forementioned place of the Answer Where the words are these What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother but the whole Congregation What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part Shall we thinke the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale here That the offended party be not against all equity the sole and finall Judge of the offence In which places wee see it is plaine yet this Reverend Author counts it against the very light of Nature that the adverse party should bee Iudge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the party offended should bee sole and finall Iudge of the offence And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should say that none of them do so teach Yea it is the more marvellous inasmuch as both these places of Mr. Herle are expresly mentioned in that very page of the Answer which here Mr. Rutherford is disputing against And therefore it he had not remembred that himselfe had read the same in Mr Herle as like enough he had yet finding the same alledged by us in that Scripture of ou●s it is marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to search and see whether the thing were so or no afore he had denyed the same Whereas on the contrary whether he searched or searched not this we see that he roundly affirmes that none of them do so teach to which saying I know not how to assent our eyes having so plainly seene and read the direct contrary Yea and further it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should thus write considering not only what hath been already said but also what himselfe hath written elsewhere I will mention a few of his own sayings and then himselfe shall be ●udge whether the thing we have now in hand was by him advise●ly and well spoken In his Pe●ceable Plea Page 218 he hath these words When the Graecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church the Hebrew Church cannot complaine to the Graecian Church for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the same Treatise where he saith If one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an Assembly where there is more light and greater Authority as the weaker may fly to the stronger Now let himselfe be judge whether in these testimonies compared he do not teach that it is against the Law of Nature that parties should be Iudge● and that therefore men may appeale from them Againe those words Page 27 of the same Book are so plaine as that nothing can be more These words saith he what soever yee bind on earth c. Must be meant only of the Apostles and of the Church verse 18. Yea and it must exclude Peter and his offending Brother suppose they were both beleevers because parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges Las●ly those words are expresse in his Due Right of Presbytery in his see ●nd P. 338 339. Where hee writes thus If according to the Law of Nature and Nations no man can be Iudge in his own cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one Congregation when they are a party to the caused person Naturall but the former is reason Nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter In the Assumption of which Sylogisme he plainly affirmes that it is reason Nature and the Law of Nations that no man may be judge in his own cause and by all this I suppose t● is manifest that the thing which he saith none of them do teach is expresly and plainly taught by some of them and among others even by himselfe who therefore ought not to have denyed the same nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulnesse in so doing And if so great an oversight be found in him I hope himself may thereby be intreated to be tender of agravating matters against us or others at leastwise not so farre to agravate them as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold for a mans owne infirmities should make him more equitable and favourable towards others And Christian Readers may be warned hereby not hastily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written afore they have duly examined and tryed the same whether the things bee so or not for wee see through forgetfulnesse or otherwise hee may greatly mistake himselfe and misse of the truth and give forth such sayings and expressions for truth as are in no sort to be maintained but recalled though neverthelesse he is otherwise a man of great worth and so ever to be acknowledged We teach that it is not Congruous to the wisdome of Christ nor to the light of Nature that Christ should have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts so many thousand Congregations who may rather crie then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onely ordinary Iudges in their own cause Answ These qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges are such as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now Now indeed it is said 1. That all Congregations being so many thousand 2. May not be the only ordinary Iudges in their own cause but it would bee against the wisdome of Christ and light of Nature if it should so be Yet formerly it was delivered absolutely and simply that it is against the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges without any such modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf gives to help the matter withall Neverthelesse by qualifying the thing in this sort it seemes thereby to bee still granted that though so many thousand Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in their own cause but the light of Nature will be against it yet for some Congregations and at some times the thing may be allowed well enough else why is the thing denyed only to so many Congregations and ordinarily if it be not thereby implyed that some Congregations and at some times may thus practise Now hereupon the question groweth whether some at some times may bee allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature though all may not or whether the light of Nature bee changed when there comes to be many Congregations and be not the same that it was before when there was no more Congregations but one whether I say some new light of Nature do arise with the rise of new Congregations so that when they are many it would be against this light for them thus to bee Iudges though it was not so when there was but one or whether we must say the light of Nature remaining in the same one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto but

such Appeales because such Assemblies doe more seldome erre because many eyes doe see more and doe more seldome miscary in taking up the right object Then it will follow that the greatest Assemblies in as much as they have the most eyes doe of all others most seldome erre and so to them there must bee the most Appeales For the learned Author well knowes à quatenùs ad Omni● valet consequentia And so by this meanes the true cause and reason of Appeales lying according to Mr. Rutherford his apprehension in the rarenesse and seldomnesse of erring in such Assemblies to whom appeales are made and the cause of this seldomnesse of Erring lying in the multitude and great number of eyes in such Assemblies it must needs thereupon follow that Vniversall or generall Councils as having in them the most eyes are the Assemblies that doe most seldome erre and so un●o them there must be most Appeales Which if it be gran●ed the Classicall 〈◊〉 and Nationall Synods are all by this meanes deprived and stri●t of 〈◊〉 of ●●●●diction as well as the particular Congregations the Synods by 〈◊〉 to generall Councils as to those that doe ra●iùs c●rare aswell as the 〈…〉 appeales unto the Synods And so thera must be no entirenesse of 〈…〉 onely in the generall Councils but from all other Synods there must 〈◊〉 liberty of Appeales aswell as from the Congregation This Consequence for ought I see doth unavoidably follow upon that which Mr. Rutherford lay undowne as the cause of Appealing from a particular Congregation and so ou● Brethren by this meanes have spun a fine thred drawing forth a Conclusion which is every what as prejudiciall to their owne Cause as to ours If any aske why may not this Consequence be owned Why may wee not say there must bee liberty of Appeales from all Synods and Presbyteries except onely the generall Councill The Answer is th●t wee may not so say because then Causes would be too long depending a●ore they could come to issue yea perhaps would never come to issue as long as this world shall endure For by this Rule they may by Appeales upon appeales be protracted untill they be brought to a generall Councill to be determined there Now as there hath not beene any such Councill for many Ages by-past so it is very uncertaine when there will be one assembled whether ever or never whilst this world stands But wee thinke Christ Jesus hath provided better for his Church then so and hath not appointed such a necessitie of Appeales upon appeales but that Causes may bee determined afore any generall Councill can be assembled Besides if such Assemblies might be frequently attained yet it is not yet cleered that when they are assembled they have any power of Iurisdiction at all but onely a Doctrinall power to cleare up the Rule the power of Iurisdiction remaining in some other Assembly Sure it is Mr. Rutherford thus teacheth expresly for his words are these Verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to Censure scandals can be in a generall Councill there may bee some meerly Doctrinall power if such a Councill could be had and that is all Due Right c. pag. 482. and in the end of the same Page and beginning of the next speaking of those words Math. 18. Tell the Church hee saith thus Because ordinary Communion faileth when you goe higher then a Nationall Church and Christ's way supposeth an ordinary Communion therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church By which sayings it appeareth that he counts Christs remedy to Censure Scandals not needfull in a generall Councill yea and hee seriously professeth that hee cannot see that such a Councill if it could bee had hath any power of Iurisdiction at all to censure Scandals Which being so it must needs follow that Scandals must be censured and Causes ended somewhere else afore they can come 〈◊〉 such end to a generall Councill And if this bee so then how can that stand which here hee affirmeth that the true cause of Appealing to Synods in this because they doe rariùs errare more seldome Erre then the particuler Congregation and having many eyes doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right object For this Cause is most properly appliable to the generall Councill unto whom notwithstanding hee denies any power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals and if they h●ve no such Power there can bee no Appeales to them for such purpose and end And how these things can stand toget●er That the true cause of Appeales to such or such Assemlies doth he in this that they doe more seldome erre as having many eyes and yet that to generall Councils there should be no Appeales at all as having no power of Iurisdiction though of all others this Cause be most properly ●ound in them I for my part doe confesse I doe not understand If any shall say that as Mr. Ruthe●ford doth make that which I have mentioned the true cause of Appeales so hee doth also hold a Power of Iurisdiction even in generall Councils and shall therefore doubt whether I doe truly report him 〈◊〉 touch the contrary I would wish no more favour of such a one but to peruse the places which I have here above alledged and then I hope hee will ●nd the words to bee no otherwise but as I have set them downe I know indeed there are some places in him which doe looke another way as that where hee saith It is by accident and not through want of inuat● and intrinsecall power that the Court of a Catholick Councill can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise that Power which now we are speaking of Due Right page 308. And a little after hee saith He seeth nothing to prove that a generall Councill hath not power to Excommunicate a Nationall Church Yea and further that if there were a generall Councill at this d●y they might lawfully in a Iuridicall way so are his words doe that to the faction of Romish pretended Catholicks which hee saith is Excommunication in the essence and substance of th● Act. And in the Page next ensuing he saith This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a Catholick Councill These Places I confesse doe seeme to me not very well to agree with the either afore alledged For in the one he plainly affirmes there is in generall Councils power of Iurisdiction to censure Scanda●s and in the other hee doth as plainly deny the same But it is the former places and not these latter which I doe stand upon in which former as I conceive him to hold the truth so for ought I see that which hee saith in this place wee have in hand about the true cause of Appealing from Congregations to Synods is much infirmed thereby For how can that be taken to be the true cause of Appeales which is most

against the Answer it in his Pag. 410. Where he proposeth an Object to this effect to wit Paul exercised the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians and might have Preached to Indians and did to scoffing Athenians yea Paul by this power Dogmaticall rebuked the Athenians Act. 17. 22. Yet Paul had no power to Excommunicate the Athenians And then he subjoyneth my name and cites in the Margent the 43 and 44 pages of the Answer Answ This Objection being taken from Pauls rebuking the Athenians our Brother had no reason to propose it under Mr. Tompsons 〈◊〉 and mine for as much as in all that discourse of ours the Athenians to my rememb●ance are not so much as once mentioned sure in the Pages by him alledged there is no mention of the Athenians at all And therefore why this Objection should bee proposed and reported by him as ours wee doe not know Which I doe not say 〈◊〉 though I thought the objection so weake as though the Authors of it may not well owne it For from whosoever the Objection came for ought that I yet perceive there is good weight therein For which cause and because in one of those Pages wee have delivered something concerning a Ministers power to Preach to Pagans in generall though nothing concerning the Atheni●ns in particular as hee reporteth therefore I am willing to consider what Mr. Rutherfor● saith for the satisfying of the objection proposed as not willing to passe by any thing without consideration wherein our selves may seeme to be concerned or aymed at I deny not saith he but there is a great oddes betwixt a concionall rebuking by way of Preaching which may be and is alwayes performed by one and a juridicall rebuking by a power Jurididicall of the Keyes which is performed only by a Church society Answ If all this were granted you the Objection is not satisfied nor his purpose gained thereby For the cleering whereof it is good to consider the thing in Question and how this Objection comes in and whereto it tends and then we may better descerne how the objection is removed by Mr. Rutherfords answer The thing in question is whether a Synod have power of Iurisidiction and Excommunication Mr. Rutherford his scope in that place is to prove the Affirmative and therefore for a dozen or 14 Pages together hee hath these words in the top of every lease The power of a Synod a power of Jurisdiction and his medium to prove this Tenent is this Because a Synod hath Power to rebuke Whereupon ensueth the Objection that Paul might rebuke the Athenians and yet might not Excommunicate them and therefore enough a Synod may rebuke it followes not that they may Excommunicate This is the order of the Dispute as is plainly to bee seeme by p●●●sing the place And now comes in the Answer which Mr. Rutherford gives to the objection to wit That there is a great odds betwixt a Concionall rebuking and a Juridicall the one being performed by one and the other by many Which Answer I conceive is not sufficient because this Difference may hee granted and many more may be added if hee please and yet the thing in question not gained nor the Objection removed at all For what though a Concionall rebuking be performed by one and a Iuridicall by many Yet still it remaineth cleare that there may bee rebuking where there is no Iurisdiction and therefore though a Synod may rebuke it followes not that they may Excommunicate nor have power of Iurisdiction If our Brother would have satisfied the Objection he should not have satisfyed himselfe with alledging the difference mentioned betweene a Concionall rebuking and a Iuridicall or Synodicall but should have proved that there cannot be any Concionall rebuking at all at least wise not any rebuking of Athenians who are not subject to Excommunication and if this had been proved the Objection had been fully removed But this he hath not proved at all nor once attempted to prove it but plainly yeelds the contrary and therefore for ought I see the Objection remayneth in its strength and so the strength of his argument removed thereby who would prove the Synod power of Iurisdiction from their power of rebuking But let as heare what he answereth in the words ensuing It cannot be denyed saith he but the rebuking of men because they subverted Soules verse 24. Is not a meere Concionall rebuking which may be performed by one First it is a rebuking verse 24. Second it is a rebuking performed by many by a whole Synod 6. 22. Third it is performed by a politicall Society Answ And what of all this May it not neverthelesse be denyed that this rebuking was any other then in a Doctrinall way Be it granted that it was a rebuking and a rebuking performed by many and if were granted by a Politicall Society too must it needs follow that therefore it was Iuridicall or in way of Iurisdiction I see no necessity of such Consequence Nay Master Rutherford himselfe doth confesse as we heard afore in his Page 393. That the specification of this rebuke must not be fetched from the efficient causes because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision If therefore it were granted that many persons a whole Synod a Politicall Society or what ever else he will call them were the efficient causes of this rebuke yet all this is too little to prove that the rebuke was Iuridicall unlesse the specification of it must be fetched from the efficient causes which Master Rutherford himselfe disclaymes Moreover I would put this Case suppose a Pagan or a Christian of another Nation and Kingdome shall come into a Church Assembly whether the Assembly be a Congregationall Church or a Synod and in the Assembly shall openly and Scandalously misbehave himselfe in one kind or other to the dishonour of God and grieving of the godly and the danger of corrupting others that shall behold such bad example I would gladly know whether this Assembly be it Synod or other may not lawfully rebuke this Scandalous practice and behaviour and if they may whether it would follow therupon that they may also lawfully Excommunicate the man if his sin and impenitency shall deserve the same If it be said they may I would know quo jure And who gave them such Authority to Excommunicate Pagans or men of another Nation being only there present at that time occasionally And if they may not so proceed against such a person then the answer to Master Rutherfords alledgements in the Case we have in hand is ready and plaine For as he alledgeth First here is a rebuking Second a rebuking of many even a whole Synod Third of a Politicall Society and Body even so the same may be said in this Case in all the particulars For first here is a rebuking Second rebuking of many Third by a Politicall Society and body and yet all this is too little to prove a power of Iurisdiction and