Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	church_n	1,754	5	4.4354	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26703	Cheirothesia tou presbyteriou, or, A letter to a friend tending to prove I. that valid ordination ought not to be repeated, II. that ordination by presbyters is valid : with an appendix in which some brief animadversions are made upon a lately published discourse of M. John Humfrey, concerning re-ordination / by R.A., a lover of truth and peace.	R. A. (Richard Alleine), 1611-1681.; Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. Question of re-ordination.	1661 (1661)	Wing A984; ESTC R3821	66,750	87

either they might not do so or at least did not think meet so to do When Paul was Ordained if Ordained was it not by three When Timothy was it not by a Presbytery But I will not go about further to fit a shooe to a foot I know not only give me leave to tell you that there is one Hypothesis which I perceive the Doctor laies much stresse upon in that and other Discourses the which unless it be granted to him and Adversaries are not now adayes so kind as to grant much he can never be able to prove I 'le give you it in his own words Disser p. 147 148. speaking of the words of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 He thus expresseth himself Illud sine dubio non universorum ad omnes sed singulorum ad singulas mundi plagas ut ad totidem Provincias aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administrandas profectione praestandum erat c. Quod factum juxta videmus cum Act. 1. Matthias in traditoris Judae locum surrogandus eligendus proponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simulque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. Sic ut verba ista non ad Judam defunctum sed ad Successorem ejus superstitem pertineant adeoque in praecedente 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conjungantur ut ad locum i. e. Provinciam propriam aut peculiarem aut singularem proficiscatur You see to gain some countenance to his Opinion from Scripture he is fain to make those words from which Judas fell to come in by way of Parenthesis and to refer the last words that he might go to his own place not to Judas the Son of Perdition but to Matthias or Barsabas one of which was now to be by the Lot falling on him chosen to make up the number But whom doth the Doctor follow in so doing Our English Translation No. His Friend Grotius Neither His words are significatur eventus scelera ipsius justo Dei judicio consecutus Proprium i.e. qui ipsi melius conveniebat quam Apostolica Functio And both he and Pricaeus make mention of a Greek Manuscript a very ancient one in which in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place which he deserved that is the Gallows or Hell it self I would fain know whether Provinces were divided to several Apostles by Christ or by agreement among the Apostles themselves If Christ designed each Apostle his distinct Province let it be shewn where and when If it be said that such Division was agreed upon among themselves I ask when Before their Masters Ascension or after 'T is not like 't was made before the Disciples then not being out of their Golden Dream of a temporal Kingdom as appears Acts 1.6 After the Ascention we find them all waiting at Jerusalem for the Promise of the Father and when they had received it V●de hanc hypothesin solide proliae refutatam a doctissimo Stilling-fleet Irenici p. 233 234 235 236. they still at least for some time continued at Jerusalem Acts 8.1 When they removed common Prudence dictated to them not to go all one way nor do I think they did but they disposed of themselves as God in his Providence directed and offered opportunity But so far were they from parcelling out of the world among themselves that sometime passed ere they were convinced that it was their duty or so much as lawful to preach unto the Gentiles By this time I hope you see that if there be any ground for the Divine Right of Episcopacy it must be Apostolical practise and I shall easily grant that the Apostles being by their Commission intrusted with the Government of the Church of God whatever they did with an intent to oblige succeeding ages may well be accounted to be established Jure Divino But then I do with some confidence challenge all the Prelatists to shew me in Sacred Writ any one example of a Bishop having Presbyters under him and yet engrossing all power of Jurisdiction and Order to himself Yea I do challenge them to shew me any one Bishop that had under his Charge so many Souls as are in your Parishes of Stepney and Cripplegate I take the Apostles to be unfixed Officers and such were Timothy and Titus Dr. Hammond himself who hath deserved best of the Episcopal Cause Annot. on Acts Chap. 11 p. 407. hath these words Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a 2d Order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius his Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Well then if there be no evidence that any such were instituted we shall think there were none such for de non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio And if there were no Presbyters then there were no Bishops exercising Jurisdiction over Presbyters And 't is plain enough that every worshipping Congregation had its Bishop in the Apostles times But the Reverend Doctor in his Answer to the London Assemblers as he cals them p. 107. thus brings himself off John I know was an Apostle and John I believe ordained Presbyters and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolical Institution i. e. in effect the divine Right of the Order of Presbyters I also know that St. John was an Apostle but what should induce me to believe that he instituted a second sort of Presbyters who were only to preach and administer Sacraments but had no power either of Order or Jurisdiction Must I believe this with a Divine or humane Faith If with a divine Faith shew me some infallible Testimony for it If an humane Faith be the greatest and highest Faith a man can attain unto what a pitiful pickle are the poor Presbyters in that can only have some probable perswasion that their Order is Jure Divino Who would take upon him the Office of a Presbyter that can have no greater assurance that it was the mind of Christ that there should be any such Office in the Church Had Paul and Peter in their Provinces power to institute this second Order of Presbyters as well as St. John in his If they had not how was their power equal If they had why did they not put it forth It will not I suppose be said they wanted care but only that the number of Believers was not so increased during their abode in the earthly Tabernacle as to require such kind of Presbyters Well then they leaving the Churches by them planted to be governed by a Bishop and Deacons how will it be clearly and evidently proved that it was those Apostles intention that the Bishop who when they left him had power over the Deacons and people only

Churches in the inferiour Cities to those in the chief or Metropolis An example of this we have in the story of the Acts concerning Syria and Cilicia and the several Cities thereof in relation to Antioch the Metropolis for when the question Acts 15.2 was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch Chap. 14.26 and 15.3 and the Decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the question was proposed i. e. to the Church of Antioch ver 22. yet in the Epistle in which that Decree was contained we find the Brethren through Syria and Cilicia i. e. all the Christians of that Province to be expressed and joyned with those of Antioch v. 23. and after when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antioch v. 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia v. 41 42. and as they went they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel cap. 16.4 which is an evidence that the Churches of those Cities related either immediately to Antioch or as Antioch it self did to Jerusalem and were in subordination to it as to the principal Metropolis of so wide a Province c. I heartily wish this argumentation had been put into a Syllogistical form then it would have been easie enough to find out a Proposition that might safely be denied But seeing the Author hath not thought meet to put his discourse into that dress I shall not do it for him lest I should be thought not to do it according to his mind Taking it as we find it I say 1. That which he supposeth may well admit some dispute viz. Whether the question referred to Jerusalem was referred to it by the single Church of Antioch but that as Metropolis of all Syria for if it can be proved that this reference was made only by the Church of Antioch and that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria it will still be unproved that the reference was made by Antioch as Metropolis for many things are done by a Metropolitan Church which are not done by it as such 2. There 's no evidence that the ground of the reference to Jerusalem was because that it was the principal Metropolis more probable it is that the reasons of referring this controversie to a determination at Jerusalem were because of the authority of those Apostles that were at Jerusalem in which it was supposed those who contended with Paul would acquiesce and because those Judaizing Teachers pretended the Commission of the Apostles for their doctrine Against these let us examine what is objected 't is said page 204 205. That the first taken alone could not be the reason because there being but two Apostles there at that time Peter and John 1. There might be so many in some other City 2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated by Gods Commands to the Apostolick Office were in this respect of equal authority with them and so in this sense the words of S. Paul have truth Gal. 2.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The reference is made not to the Apostles alone but to the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 4. The cause of the reference was not only the contention of those who came out of Judea but the Antiochean Christians being taught i. e. being seduced by them Acts 15.1 and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly and so this first reason is of no force Answ 1. 'T is certain that the reference was made not only to the Apostles but also to the Elders from which perhaps something might be deduced no way advantagious to the cause of the Episcoparians 2. We 'll grant it probable that these Judaizers did not only teach but also had perswaded some of the Antiochean Christians to imbrace their errour But then 3. We deny that there were at Jerusalem but two Apostles viz. Peter and John James undoubtedly was there and it is by very learned men thought that when the other James had run his course he was taken into the Apostolical rank office and imployment Now it will never be proved either from Scripture or any other credible testimony that there were in any one City three persons so fit to be appealed to as these three As for Paul and Barnabas granting them to be separated by Gods command to the Apostolick Office and so of equal authority with Peter c. yet their Apostleship might be more questioned by these Judaizing Teachers to stop their mouths and let the Antiochean Christians know that they did not go about to abolish any thing which Peter James and John who did mostly converse with those of the Circumcision did reckon obligatory this reference is made this journey undertaken The learned Doctor seems not to deny but that those who came from Jerusalem might pretend Commission and Commandment from the Apostles to teach what they taught but thinks this is useful not disadvantagious to him For hence he thinks it follows That if these certain men had been truly sent and commissionated by the Church of Jerusalem then this would have been of some force at Antioch which it could not be if Antioch were perfectly independent from Jerusalem page 205. But who can swallow this what Christian doth not think that if these men had come at that time into England with a Commission to preach that except we be circumcised we cannot be saved it should be of no force because we are a Church independent on Jerusalem 3. Therefore we deny that the Decrees did therefore oblige the Churches of Syria and Cilicia because Antioch or Jerusalem was their Metropolis but because the Decrees were made by Apostles men acted by an infallible spirit who could not but know the mind of Christ their Lord and Master Such Decrees did concern and oblige all Christians that had any certain knowledge of them whether they were under the Metropolis of Jerusalem or no. My second argument to prove that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right shall be taken from the testimonies of those Authors who do clearly and plainly make it to be but of humane institution I begin with Jerom in his Commentaries on Titus made Anno Dom. 387. Sicut Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores In his Epistle to Evagrius Quod autem unus posteà electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet If you say that Hierom was a Presbyter and provoked and so may be thought to write all this in a fit of spleen and malice I shall without retorting the argument which you know is obvious refer you to Isidore who was a Bishop himself he saith in his second book De Divinis Officiis cap. 7. that Presbyters have most things in common with Bishops Sed sola propter