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
A85313	Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater power, and more eminent offices by divine right, then presbyterie. The arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his determination for such episcopacy are modestly examined. And arguments for the validity of presbyterial ordination added. With a brief discourse concerning imposed forms of prayer, and ceremonies. Written by G.F. minister of the gospel in defence of his own ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by Presbyters.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1660 (1660)	Wing F961; Thomason E1045_17; ESTC R208016	42,577	55

by you with those Forms which the Penmen of the Scriptures were directed by the Spirit to compose 2. Impose no other Prayers upon us but Scripture-forms and we shall not refuse to use them though not them only The Lords Prayer is the most compleat of all the Forms yet we are not bound to that form only I hope we may use other prayers keeping that substance 3. The 102 Psal which was made for the afflicted Church a little before the time of their return out of Captivity as the 13 14 15 16 Verses declare did not hinder Daniel Chap. 9. to pray by his own gift upon the same occasion where there is great difference in the Petitions and matter of prayer Object But other Churches have their Formes Answ Not all Churches where men are as orthodox and holy as ours are 2. Irenaeus bids us have recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles were conversant and in them we finde no such thing 3. Those who have Forms do yet condemn ours as witness Apollonius in the name of the Walacrian Classis p. 172. who rejecting Forms of Prayer and Administrations of Sacraments where the matter is vicious or any Superstition cleaves to them c. He adds For this cause we reject the Ceremonies and Forms of Publick Worship in the Church of England in these last corrupt times brought in by the Hierarehical Bishops as those which being Superstitious and Idolatrous have deformed the Church and the worship of God obscurarunt gloriosa Reformationis facem faciem c. In the next Section the same Divines do reject those Forms of Prayer though in respect of the matter of them good whenas they are imposed tyrannically and with violent command upon the consciences of men as being absolutely necessary and essential parts of Gods Worship c. They speak more and that notably what cruelty they have been made the instruments of and Hath not ENGLAND felt it See more in that Learned Author page 173. though he maintains the lawfulnesse of a Form So do the Leyden Professors Synop pu the. p. 499. and yet say it is necessary that Pastors of Churche should stirr up themselves to pray without forms p. 499. And once more for our Common-Prayer Book lately used Bishop Davenant hath commended it to us upon this ground What is there in it that is not approved of the Papists themselves Determ 27. and he confirms the truth of it thus That some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our forme of Prayers provided that we would accept it by their authority A notable Argument to bring Orthodox and holy Christians to hear it though his scope is to prove Ergo the Papists ought to be present at our worship and the Magistrate neglects his Office if he doth not compell them Object But the totall use of Ministers gifts is not taken away Answ I think it was in some places and every where it was in Baptisme and the Lords Supper only before Sermon and after men had the use of their gifts scarce that Object But all Ministers are not able Answ Whose fault is that shew us such Ministers ordained by the Presbyterians that are not in some good measure able to pray without their book though there is difference of Gifts There are a Generation coming in again that I think indeed are not all of them and but very few I deny not but there was wrong offered to some who were turned out and let them come in withall my heart But I speak of Superstititous men pot-companions swearers c. men who have not the Gift of Prayer and despise it in others 2. But what is this to those who are able why must they be forced to read as other insufficient men must wanting Gifts Question But what if a Form of prayer be imposed so as not to take away the total use of Ministers Gifts in any Ordinance they may have their liberty of their own gifts but sometimes use that Forme Answ I should a little desire to know the Authority that enjoins it if a Synod of such Divines as ought to be I mean not superstitious Arminians Orthodox and holy men did order such a thing in a sober way not tyrannically as absolutely necessary as said Apollonius before then I confesse it would trouble me to refuse it though I finde and have heard some of my Brethren say Let the Forms of Prayer be what they will they will submit to none it is an offence they conceive and a wrong to that good spirit who hath pleased to bestow on them the Gift of Prayer to have that hindered by submitting to mens injunctions But I am not satisfied in this 1. Because you have the use of your gift in all Ordinances only sometimes you are required to use a Form 2. A Form of Prayer in it self the matter of it being agreeable to the Word is not unlawfull thus godly and wise men judge 3. I finde that the old holy Non-Conformists were not offended at a bare form of Prayer but some particular things in the Common prayer-Book and truly those are many Yea I finde the Congregationall Divines in New-England though they use no forms they are able indeed yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church Defense of the 9 Positions p. 34. divers of them at least would not do it so Master Shephard Though all of us could not concurr to condemn all set Forms as unlawfull yet for the English Liturgy c. And so after in the same Page Thus also Mr Norton in his Answer to Apollonius alloweth of a form of prayer for Ministers but if they be gifted then to impose is unlawfull But whether he means it is so though they use their own gift and the Forms sometimes I finde not p. 138 139. But do any we now speak of condemn all use thereof c. So again page 38. only there they say That though the thing it self be lawfull yet if not duly circumstantiated it may be evil and scandalous in the use as Meats 1 Cor. 8.13 This to me if we have liberty as in the Question is the greatest trouble how to answer the offence it will give to other Christians in case we cannot satisfie there being we have no command in the Word to use these Forms how will you help us here Will men give the Answer which Bishop Land when he silenced my Father in law gave to him My Father pleaded that Text of Paul He would not offend his weak Brother Why then should the Bishop offend him by imposing the Surplice To that speech of Paul Bishop Laud answered Yea Paul said so when he was alone but do you think Paul would have said so if he had been in a Convocation A rare Answer worthy of a Bishop 4. What think you of this Do we not many times when we are beaten with tentations pray our own conditions more than the Congregations though

Acts 14.23 that now a single Bishop can ordain alone The Dr. forgat himself much but this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction he had need to prove to reside as he saith in illis solis else he hath lost his cause But see how much authority he opposeth what woful mischief might this soon produce to the Church 5. It may as strongly be gathered that to preach in season and out of season as do all Bishops to meditate to read to oppose hereticks c do only belong to Bishops because these Commands are given the first I am sure only to Timothy as to gather because Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act that therefore Presbyters must not impose hands Why this proper to him above all the rest 6. Consider I pray that which is added 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins whether it may not infer the contrary thus Timothy though other Ministers may be rash and not consider what they do in Ordination but would ordain unfit unworthy persons yet do not thou lay on hanas suddenly do not thou partake of their sins in rash Ordinations joyning with them A man may partake of the sins of Ordainers as well as of the Ordained I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith nor to the Context if that sense be given Why saith the Dr. Could not the Ministers of Ephesus ordain before Timothy arrived or of Crete before Titus came thither I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the first time of his preaching there Answ and having laid the Foundations of Churches as Jerom saith left Titus there ut rudimenta nascentis Ecclesiae confirmaret ipse pergens ad alias Nationes c. But however 1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question 2. There being abundance of enemies and errours spread about as we see it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 These men being so able and qualified above others might very well there be lest for a time as to oppose the heresies and errours so to look to the Ministry that none but sound and able men came into it but because these being Evangelists were far more able does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them 3. Remember that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles Presbyter and Bishop signifie the same degree and the same office Had not the Churches been in danger Timothy had not need been there so this denies not their power The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority 1. From that Saying of Jerome Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat Answ Jerom speaks de facto the Bishops had engrossed this power but he does not say de jure it ought to be so for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same 2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom saith Bish Downam that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery And in the year 398 about which time Chrysostom flourished that fourth Council of Carthage which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination was held However this is but humane 2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria who ordained Presbyters but their Ordination was made void and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture Answ and yet there is somthing more to be said about this For 1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Augustine and others One of his Opinions Augustin mentions but what more he held I know not 2. He was a man infamis ambitione say the Historians and would make himself a Bishop as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates whence they call him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum whence the general Council commanded ut se pro Presbytero haberat qualis antea fuisset 3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus ordained alone there are none mentioned that joyned with him 4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus and about whom there was so much trouble was not chosen of a Church for so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 570. Now for a Heretick alone ambitiously making himself a Bishop to ordain a person not elected by a Church is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church The Dr. before he hath done does allow this which is so proper to Bishops to be common to Presbyters in some cases then it seems the power may be ours and whether our case be not as weighty I will consider anon The Third and last is The power of Jurisdiction over both Laick● and Presbyters and instanceth in Excommunication He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example he might have added the 23 Canon Concil Carthag 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita but for the censure this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication nor are Judges in it so he saith 2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters For the first Presbyters have the power of Excommunication 1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers Heb. 13.17 and the people commanded to obey them they must feed the flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.1 So 1 Thes 5.12 They are over them in the Lord. 2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out yet they had the power of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.7 12 13. purge judge put away Had they done it before Paul would not have written so sharply 3. Those who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Jurisdiction but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes not denied by the Papists Sent. l. 4. dis 18. S. 14. but affirmed insomuch that Estius moves this Question Vtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommunicandi and tels us some were of that opinion Now by soli● Estius does not mean whether they alone without a Bishop For the question he is about is this Penes quos sit excommunicandi potestas and his scope is to prove that others besides Priests have the power but for the Priests that is taken for granted that they had the power and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5 13. And Augustine l. 3. contra Epist Parmen c. 2. Aquinas he also tels us Supplem q. 22. ● 1. that some were of that opinion that the Parochial Priests might excommunicate but thinks his own opinion to be more rational that the Bishop should do it had his distinction a foundation in Scripture 4. Those that have power to take into the Church have power to cast out of the

through all degrees ad culmen Episcopatus but what must such eminent men descend be degraded when as Timothy also had a Prophesie concerning him 1 Tim. 1.18 believe this who will 2. Was there need of these men to be Evangelists in Pauls life time and not as much after Did the Seducers and Wolves cease or decline when Paul was gone Acts 20.29 Surely there was more need of being Evangelists now than before 3. After that time when you say they were made Bishops we find them sent up and down by Paul 4. If so Titus had an advantage or honour above Timothy to be made Bishop of an Iland of 270 miles long 50 miles in breadth a hundred Cities whence called Hecatompolis and not only so but Bishop of the Ilands adjacent and Timothy to be made Bishop of one City Ephesus and it may be some Villages about there But Dr. Hammond if he speak truth will be too hard for me he tels me Timothy was Metropolitan of Asia Then Timothy is equal but take Metropolitan in our sense else he saith nothing as we call such Bishops you may believe him who think him to be one who could not erre But 3. Suppose they had been constituted thus yet he hath not proved that they were invested with power to do such Acts which Presbyters might not do which he doth afterwards assert indeed how strongly he proves I will consider For the Angel in Rev. 2. what force is there in this to prove such a Bishop I know not though taken individually Are not all Ministers truly such sent then they are Angels I think Rom. 10.15 But this is Angel Object onely One When our King sent his Letters from Breda Answ to the Speaker of the House of Commons did it imply the Speaker had more power than other Members When Christ sends his Letters to this Angel doth it imply more power The Speaker is there for Order-sake and it is honour to him c. So if you be men sound in the Faith holy in your Conversations Learned and able fit for the place I can allow you an Angel of the Church in London in Ipswich in Exeter c. So in the Countrey you shall have the Honour and Maintenance to be our Speakers I have declared my Opinion and Reasons for this before this turn came if you will have more win it by Scripture and wear it Thus I have done with all his Arguments for the jus divinum only I might mind him that Bishop Jewel and Anselm do subscribe to that of Jerom Let Bishops understand that they are above Priests rather of custom than of any truth or right of Christs Institution And to that of Augustine The Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest not by authority of the Scriptures but after the names of honour which the custom of the Church hath now obtained I hope it will still be said fifteen hundred years Bishops have been superiour by Divine right How did Jeroms and Augustins sentence escape the Index expurgatorius Then the Dr. comes to the Insignia Episcoporum propria Let us see if he prove these also by the Apostles His first is this That in large and populous Cities in which were many Presbyters made the Apostles ordained one only Bishop For the Bishop in the question Answ the Apostles were so far from ordaining unicum that they ordained ne unum not one Scripture or sound reason brought to prove it 2. That the Apostles did ordain but one Scripture-Bishop in a great City is an assertion point-blanck against the Scriptures which shew the contrary Let Jerom speak some say he was angry and I know not what but the Scriptures he produces were not Vide Chemnit exan Concil Trid. de Sacr. ord p. 224. Chemnitius gives us a better ground for his writing but thus Jerom Doth any one think it is our own opinion and not the sentence of the Scriptures that a Bishop a Presbyter are one Let him read Phil. 1.1 With the Bishops and Deacons Philippi is one City of Macedonia and certainly as Bishops are now called there cannot be more than one in one City but then there were non adversatur sacris eloquiis plures in una civitate appellari tunc temporis Presbyteros seu Episcopos ut Acts 10. Doth it still seem doubtful unlesse it be confirmed by another testimony then take Acts 20.17 He calls them Elders v. 28. calls them Bishops Observe diligently the Elders of one City he cals Bishops then adds Heb. 13.17 Thus he in Tit. 1. When in his Epist ad Evagr. he had been proving the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Tim. 4. Tit. 1. Pet. 5. He saith to him Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Testimonia To us these testimonies are not small but more than if a thousand Bishops say the contrary What Jerom saith Cajetan Tit. 1.5 postea nuns electus we regard not being after the Apostles and yet then not superiour in power that crept in by degrees His Second is The Right and Power of Ordination which is denied to inferiour Presbyters 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 1. He hath not shewn us such a Bishop as he speaks of Answ as yet in all the Scripture how then can this be true 2. If denied to Presbyters then to Bishops also for they were both one in these Epistles to Timothy and Titus Vnde ad Titum ad Timotheum de ordinatione Episcopi Diaconi dicitur Hieron ad E vagr. de Presbyteris omnino reticetur quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Hieron ad Evagr. 3. Was not Timothy himself ordained by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 How then was it denied The laying on of Pauls hands did not deny the laying on their hands 4. According to this One Bishop alone may ordain which as it is 1. Contrary to the Instance before in Timothies Ordination So 2. Contrary to the Canon 3. Concil Carthag 4. Where no Bishop alone must impose but Presbyters with him 3. And contrary to the 35 Canon of our English Bishops Whence Dr. Featly in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 4.14 saith Timothy though he were ordained by St. Paul 2 Tim. 1.6 yet this Ordination was performed in the Assembly of the Elders and with the laying on of their hands also agreeable whereunto is the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage and the practise of the Church of England So he 4. Contrary to Cyprians practise Ep. 33. Also what means the Constitution of Vrban Ordinationes factae sine communi sensu clericorum irritae Take also the 22 Canon of the Council of Carthage before-named Vt Episcopus sine consilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet c. Now what is meant by consilium the 3 Canon shews All the Presbyters present were to impose hands with the Bishop Much it is that when we cannot find the Apostles did ordain alone Paul had the Apostle Barnabas with him

upright Gentlemen How is it that you who tell us so much of Antiquity for the proof of your Episcopacy do you now make so light of your own Bible Harding tells Bishop Jewell That if the blessed Sacrament of the Altar were no other than he and the rest of the Sacramentarians think of it then were it not well done for the people to bow down to it Transubstantiation was that which brought in Kneeling and it seems the Papists think if we do not own that there is no reason to Kneel nay we do not well to bow down to the Bread and Wine But that which hath much run in my minde is this Suppose in the Mahometane worship there were some dispute what gesture there should be used in it and the Mahometanes should find in their Alcoran that Mahomet and some of his chiefest followers whom they most reverence did use such a gesture in the worship and this is recorded in the Alcoran do we think the Mahometans would not give so much honor to Mahomet his chief followers their Alcoran as to say That is the gesture we must and will use which by our Alcoran we finde our great Prophet and his Followers used I am confident they would not disgrace their Alcoran Mahomet nor his Followers so much to say because we are not bound to it we will use another I beseech you Brethren when as we finde in our Holy Bible that Jesus Christ administred and the Apostles received the Sacrament not kneeling but with another gesture suting a feast If the Question be now moved What gesture must we use at the Sacrament do we when we have the gesture of sitting to be sure it answered sitting at our feasts recorded in our Bibles that thus the Apostles received it give due honour to our Bibles and the Apostles with our Lord when we cast by that and use another For the honor of my Bible which I take to be the rule for my Religion and for the honor of the Apostles who first received it and were the Lords Pen-men I would chuse rather to use this gesture because I would surely give as much honor to my Bible as a Turk to his Alcoran For CHRISTMASSE-Day Mr. Baxter hath spoken very fully to it in my apprehension some of the Arguments he useth against it were in my own thoughts he hath added more and shewn more Learning and Reading than I am acquainted with If the Day be kept to shew our Love to Christ or our Thanks for Christ Did not the Apostles love him as much as we were not they as thankfull for him as we did they not exceed us abundantly in both and had not they the same cause for a day that we have Yet we never finde that they kept such a day For us to seem to be more wise more holy more enlarged in love to Christ than the Apostles is so abhorred in my thoughts that this is it which hath kept me off from observing the Day as some men do though I condemn not other Godly men who do keep it To conclude 1. In things belonging to God if we keep close to the Holy Scriptures there is no danger Why do we not chuse the safest 2. If we set up that in his Church for which we have not good warrant from the Word there may be danger 3. To force others to yield to that in Religious things for which there is not sufficient warrant in the Word or else to force them from their Ministry and worship of God is certainly very sinfull and therefore very dangerous FINIS