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
A89568	The humble answer of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament, at the treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight. To the second paper delivered to them by his Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. about episcopall government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to print this copie, entituled The humble answer of the Divines, &c. Richard Vines,	Westminster Assembly; Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655, attributed name.	1648 (1648)	Wing M757; Thomason E468_21; ESTC R204007	22,916	44

〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 And whereas your 〈…〉 of their work 〈…〉 in the Apostles we could wish that you had declared whether it belong to their Mission or Unction for we humbly conceive that their Authorative Power to do their Work in all places of the world did properly belong to their Mission and consequently that their Office as wel as their Abilities was extraordinary and so by your Majesties own concession not to be succeded into by the Bishops As to the Orders of standing Officers of the Church your Majesty doth reply That although in the places cited Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 8. there be no mention but of the two Orders only of Bishops or Presbiters and Deacons Yet it is not thereby proved that there is no other standing Office in the Church besides which we humbly conceive is justly proved not only because there are no other named but because there is no rule of Ordeyning any third no Warrant or way of Mission and so the Argument is as good as can be made a non cause ad non effectum for we do not yet apprehend that the Bishops pretending to the Apostolick Office do also pretend to the same manner of Mission nor do we know hat those very many Divines that have afferted two orders onely have concluded it from any other grounds then the Scriptures cited There appears as your Majesty saith two other manifest reasons why the Office of Bishops might not bee so proper to be mentioned in those places And wee humbly conceive there is a third more manifest then those two vizt because It was not The one reasun given by your Majesty is because in the Churches which the Appostles themselves planted they placed Presbiters under them for the Office of Teaching but reserved in their own hands the Power of Governing those Churches for a longer or shorter time before they set Bishops over them Which under your Majesties favour is not so much a reason why Bishops are not mentiioned to bee in those places as that they indeed were not the variety of reasons may we say or conjectures rendred why Bishops were not set up at first as namely because fit men could not be so soon found out which is Epiphanius his reason or for remedy of Schisme which is Jeromes reason or because the Apostles saw it not expedient which is your Majesties reason doth shew that this cause labours under a manifest weaknesse for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of Governing we grant it they could no more devest themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could loose their Apostleship had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more pa●ted with their power of Governing then they did in seting up the Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the Office of Teaching and that both the Keys as they are called being by our Saviour comitted into one hand were not by the Apostles divided into two Nor do we see how the Apostles could reasonably commit the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus Act. 20 and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in Ordinary in his own hands who took his solemn leave of them as never to see their faces more As that part of the power of Government which for distinction sa●e may be called Legis-Lative and which is one of the three fore-mentioned things challenged by the Bishops viz giving Rules the reserving of it in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties Iudgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops of 〈◊〉 and Creete to whom the Apostles gives Rules for ●●●ring and Governing of the Church Nor is there ●●y more reason that the Apostles reserving that part of the Power of Governing which is called E●●cuti●● in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought 〈◊〉 should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of Power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at the first then that they never did And since by your Majesties Concession the Presbiters were placed by the Apostles first in the Churches by them planted and that with Power of Governi●● as wee prove by Scripture you must prove the 〈…〉 of a Bishop over the Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times or else we must conclude that the Bishop got both his Name and Power of Government out of the Presbyters hand as the Tree in the ●●ll m●ns out the stones by little and little as i● 〈◊〉 grows As touching Phillippi where you Majesty saith it may be probable there was yet 〈◊〉 Bishop it is certaine there were many like them 〈…〉 at Epheful to whom if only the Office of Teaching did belong they had the most labori●us and honorable part that which was less honorable being reserved in the Apostles hands and the Churches left in the mean time without ordinary Government The other reason given why two Orders only a●● mentioned in those places is because he wrot in the 〈◊〉 to Timothy and Titus to them that were Bishops ●● there was no need to writ any thing concerning the 〈…〉 Qualification of any other sort of 〈◊〉 then such as belonged to their Ordination or inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons only and no Bishops The former reason why two only Orders are mentioned in the Epistle to the Philip●●ans was because there was yet ●● Bishop this latter reason why the same two onely are mentioned in these Epistles is because there was no Bishop i●●● Ordained we might own the reason for good if there may bee found any rule for the Ordination of the other order of Bishops in some other place of Scripture but if the Ordination cannot be found how should we find the Order and it is reasonable to think that the Apostle in the Chapter formerly alleadged 1 Tim. 3. where he passes immediatly from the Bish to the De●●on would have 〈◊〉 exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whither the Bishop ●ver Presbyters or the Presbiter Bishop to have avoyded the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the 〈◊〉 of the Presbiter-Bish if there had bin some other Bishop of 〈…〉 And wheras your Ma● saith there was no need to writ to them about 〈…〉 in a distinct sence who belonged not to their Ordination and inspection We conceive that in your Majesties judgment Bishops might then have Ordeined Bishops like themselves for there was then no Ca●●● forbiding one single Bish to ordain another of his own rank and ther being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient as those ancient Fathers that call him Arch-Bishop think he did to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this reasoning his against the principles of those 〈…〉