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
A93888	An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.; J. T.; Turner, Samuel, D.D.	1647 (1647)	Wing S5516; Thomason E385_4; ESTC R201455	34,185	56

it And hence t is plaine that though we should yeeld that the Apostles only did institute Bishops yet in this Revel. Christ himselfe immediately in his own person and the holy Spirit withall did both approve and confirme them And the Learned observe that the Bishops of those Sees are therefore called Angels by S. Iohn who was born a Jew because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because the Bishops were those Churches Chiefes this truth appeares not only from those cleare Texts but from the mutuall consent and pactise for more then 1500. yeares space of all the Christian Church So that neither S. Hierome nor any other Ancient did ever hold orders to be lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in this last Century which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the authority of the Text it selfe But as t is a Maxime in Humane Lawes Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres Custome and Practice is the best Interpreter So no rationall man but will easily yeeld it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly aske What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts then that very same meanes whereby I know the Text it selfe to be Text Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles and if I therefore beleeve them to be written by that Apostle because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that beliefe and there 's no other rationall way of beleeving it why doe I not beleeve the same Christian sense which the universal consent assures me they were written in Shall I beleeve and yet disbeleeve that selfe-same consent which is the best ground of my beliefe This is as it were in cleare terms to say that I beleeve such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet I doe now hold the selfe-same man to be a lyar Men doe beleeve the testimony of universall consent in the sense it gives of single termes and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions without the help of this Consent which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute your error as by the authority of your consent Admit then of that Rule that consent universall is the best interpretation of Texts and then I am sure it is as cleare as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolicall Right yea and that proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearely appeare to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and Antiquity allowed of it Extra casum necessitatis For I aske upon what Text doe they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours words to the Eleven Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations and baptize them But in the institution of the Eucharist He spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drinke yee all of this Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spake those words unto the Eleven he spake them only as to lawfull Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they will say that the generall practise of receiving the Cup is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I thinke so too where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament But if a quarreler should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone whereof many were at that time at Corinth As when in the 5. Chap. he seemes to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person yet t is plain he meanes none but the men in government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appeare out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never tooke the words in that sense And if to stop the mouthes of wranglers we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of Universall consent and the Common practise of Christs Church then you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottome There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the consent and practise of the Universall Church hath still interpreted that Text And againe t is true There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for 1500. yeares together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ T is true that this precept Go ye teach c. runnes not in exclusive words yee Apostles or yee lawfull Ministers and none but yee yet extra casum necessitatis no man was allowed to baptise but a lawfull Minister so though these commands Lay hands suddenly on no man and Do thou ordaine Elders in every City runne not in verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclvsive sense no man for 1500 yeares in any setled Church was held rightly ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopall Order will appeare clearely by this that immediately from the times of Christ his Apostles yea within the reach of those times t was universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches so that no man can name a Nationthat was once wonne unto the Christian Faith but he shall soon find that there were Bishops so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause for an Effect that was so Universall Generall Councell there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might have thence obeyed her directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit for they were soone fallen into Factions but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountaine I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before S. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees as at

be a right in the King as inherent in his Crowne that ecclesiasticall appeales may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he please for their finall decision I say consider the Presbyterian government in the English Parliament sense and in the sense of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scotish forme as appeares by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances so that their aime is not only to set up a new Government but in plain tearmes a new supremacy And hence to say truth he must see very little who discernes not that though the Presbyterian party seemes to strike at the Bishops yet their maine aime is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their owne Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the People against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the meane time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no lesse then indeed Kingly Presbyters We acknowledge the Protestants of Germany the Low countryes and part of the reformed Catholique Protestant Church though they had no Bishops c. Though we maintain Episcopacy to be of divine right i. e. of divine institution yet hence it doth not follow that Germany are no Protestant Churces No it must be a crime of a most horrid taint that makes a Church run into non ecclesiam For though that of the Jewes was bad and Idolatrously bad yet God seriously protests he had not sent her a bill of divorce Nay no learned man of judgement durst ever yet affirm that the Roman Church her selfe was become no true part of the Church Catholique and yet she breakes a flat Precept of Christ drinke yee all of this and shall we be thought to deny the same right to christians without Bishops when they breake but Christs institution No Churches they are true parts of the Catholique Church but in point of ordination and of government Apostolicall they are not I am certaine the King would never have given way to the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be jure divino c. Grant it were so yet of all mankind are Kings onely bound that they must not change their opinions or if perhaps they have done ill must they for their repentance be more lyable to reproach then Subjects are for their crimes The King would not have given way to the Presbyterians and Independents to exercise their Religion here their own way as by his Messages when such a tolleration in the face of such a divine Law must needs be sinfull There is a great mistake in this Argument for to tollerate doth not at all signifie either to approve or commend their factions neither of which the King could at all do to those Schismatiques without sinne But it meerely implies not to punish which Kings may forbeare upon just reason of State as David forbore to punish the murtherers of Joab and we our selves in our English State have no punishment for all sorts of Lyars and yet their sinne is against a flat Law divine We affirme then Episcopacy to be of divine right that is of divine institution and that must needs tacitly imply a divine Precept too for to what end are things instituted by God but that it is presumed it is our part to use them And to what end should some men be appointed to teach and to govern but that its clearely implyed then there are other men too that ought both to heare and obey He that institutes or erects a Bridge over a broad swelling stream needs not you will think adde an expresse command that men should not walke in the water Thus when our Lord and Saviour made his institution of that great Sacrament of the Eucharist he gave command indeed concerning the Bread Do this in remembrance of me and concerning the Cup Drinke yee all of this But he gave no expresse command to do both these together and yet his institution hath been still held to have the nature of a command and so for a thousand yeares the whole Church of Christ did ever practise it save only in some few cases in which men supposed a kind of necessity I say then Episcopacy is of divine right instituted by Christ in his Apostles who since they took upon them to ordaine and to govern Churches you need not doubt they received an authority from their Master to do both for since men will not thinke they would breake their own rules No man taketh this upon him but he that is called of God as Aaron was Episcopacy then was instituted in the Apostles who wer Bishops et aliud amplius and distinguished by Christ himself from the Seventy who were the Presbyters So the most ancient Fathers generally or if you will take S. Hierom. opinion who was neither a Bishop nor in his angry mood any great friend to that Order they were instituted by the Apostles who being themselves Episcopi et amplius did in their latter dayes formalize and bound out that power which still we do cal Episcopacy And so their received opinions may stand together for Episcopatus being in Apostolatu tanquam consulatus in dictatura as the lesser and subordinate power is alwayes in the greater we may truly say it was instituted by Christ in his Apostles who had Episcopall Power and more and then t was formalized and bounded by the Apostles themselves in the persons of Timothy and Titus c. So that call the Episcopall order either of Divine right or Apostolicall Institution and I shall not at all quarrell at it For Apostolicall will seeme Divine enough unto Christians I am sure Salmatius thinks so a sharpe enemy to the Episcopall Order if saith he it be from the Apostles t is of Divine right thus we find the power of ordination and of jurisdiction to be given to those men alone For then that power is properly Episcopall when one man alone may execute it so S. Paul to Timothy Lay hands suddenly on no man 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands in the singular number thou thou alone without naming any other Against an Elder receive not an accusation in the singular number too thou receive not thou alone but under two or three witnesses and then the Text is plaine He and he alone might do it So to Titus for this cause and that thou and thou alone shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordaine Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. where plainly those two powers of government and ordination are given unto one man So S. Iohn to the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 3. when he presumes all the governing power to reside in the Angels of those Churches and only in them alone as all Ancients understand

3. 8. A man any man though an Ammonite or a meere Philistine no Pagan that must be the sense will doe it to his God which you Jewes doe to me for the Law written in his heart and he can goe by no other that law controlls this offence and so plainly tells him that because his God may be robb'd he may therefore have a Propriety And if Sacriledge be a sin against the Law Morall it will follow that what wee read in the Old Testament against that sinne must be as morall and that whereby we Christians are as much obliged as by what we read against theft or against adultery save onely in those passages which are particularly proper unto the policie of the Jews and we may let them goe for Judiciall These Assertions being premised I returne to the Epistler who conceives it to be no sacriledge to take away the Church Lands Nor do I saith he herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practise of former times not onely by acts of Parliament in the times of Queen Elizabeth King James and so King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house as well as H. 8. but even by the Bishops themselves c. He will not ground his opinion upon the practise and indeed he hath little reason for it For if from a frequent practise of sinne we might conclude it were no sinne we might take our leaves of the Decalogue and as our new Masters do put it out of our Directory because our intent is to sinne it downe and therefore I shall say no more of such Lawes of Hen. 8. then I would of Davids adultery a that t is no ground at all to make men bold with their neighbours Wives Queene Elizabeth made a Law so you have told me Sir for I do speake nothing in this kind but from you that Bishops might not alienate their Mannors Castles c. but only to the Crowne but if she sometimes tooke order that Church men should not be Bishops untill they had first made such alienations as I have heard you say they did I know not how to defend it but must withall tell you that if Princes or Subjects resolve to sell the Church preferments t is great odds but that in a Clergy consisting of above 16000. Persons they shall not want Chapmen for them For King James I must highly commend that most Christian Prince who you say amongst his first Lawes tooke away that of Queen Elizabeth not can I well tell why this Epistler here doth quote that King for his purpose unlesse it were only for the alienation of York House but I must informe him that that Act was lawfull because 't was for the advantage of the Archiepiscopall See there being cleare Text for it That the Levits themselves might change what was theirs by a Divine Law so they gained by the permutation and this answer will serve for what King Charles did about Durham House But he thinks it an Argument That even by Bishops themselves Deanes and Chapters c. such things were done Alienations made and long Leases granted True Sir for those Clergymen were but men and their sinnes can at all no more abrogate Gods Law then can the sinnes of the Laity yet I could name you Church-men of great note who totally refused to be preferred by that Queene to any Bishopricke at all because they would by no meanes submit their conscience unto the base acts of such Alienations and one of them was Bishop Andrews I could tell you too that those long Leases he speakes of might have one cause more then the Marriage of the Clergy for when they saw men so sharply set upon the inheritance of the Church when they saw a Stoole of wickednesse set up of sacrilegious wickednes that imagined mischiefe by a Law some not the worst of men thought it fit to make those long Leases that the estate of the Church might appeare the more poore and so lesse subject unto Harpies and then their hope was at the length at least after many yeares spent it might returne whole unto their successours He goes on But to deale clearely with you Doctor I do not understand how there can be any sacriledge properly so called which is not a theft and more viz. a theft of some thing dedicated to holy use a Co●●munion Cup for instance or the like and th●se you know must be of things moveable 〈…〉 civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or 〈…〉 by alienating Church Lands I pray aske your friend Holborne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question It seemes Sir they are very merry at London or at least this Epistler thinks so for being winners he might perhaps conceive they make themselves pleasant at a Feather And that this Argument is as light a thing appeares before from my third Assertion for can any man thinke in earnest that t is Sacriledge and so a sinne to take a Cup from the Church and t is none to take away a Mannour as if Ahab had been indeed a thiefe had he rob'd Naboth of his Grapes but Eliah was too harsh to that good King because he only tooke away his Vineyard Indeed there is such a nicety in the Civill Law that actio furti lyes only against him who has stolne Rem mobilem for Justinian it seemes in the composition of his Digests which he tooke from the writings of the old Jurisprudentes thought it fit to follow Ulpians judgement and yet Sabinus in his booke De Furtis a man of note amongst those men was known to be of another opinion Non tantum sayes he rerum moventium sed fundi quoque et aedium fieri furtum a theft properly so call'd may be of things immoveable I would gladly know of the Epistler whether he thinks all men both Divines and others bound to frame all the phrases of their speech according to the criticismes of the Civill Law as it s now put out by Justinian If not why may not some use the word furtum in Sabinus his sense as well as others may in Ulpians and then sacriledge may be properly called a theft and as properly in immoveables or if we will needs speake according to his sense whom Justinian hath approved I do not well see how men can spoile the Church of her Lands and at the Civil Law escape an action of theft for it lyeth against him that takes the trees the fruits and the stones and I am confident there is no Church-robber but he intends to make use of these kinds of moveables otherwise what good wil the Church-land do him And if he does make this use a thiefe he is in the Civill Law phrase then in the very sense of this Epistler himself he is without doubt a sacrilegious person but where I wonder did that Londoner learne that Furtum strictè sumptum was the genus of sacriledge so that where there