Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n authority_n church_n reason_n 1,519 5 4.9993 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A39997 A counter-essay, or, A vindication and assertion of Calvin and Beza's presbyterian judgment and principles drawn from their writings, in answer to the imputations of a late pamphlet, entituled, An essay concerning church-government ... attempting to fasten upon them an episcopal perswasion ... / by a minister of the true Presbyterian Church of Scotland, established by law. Forrester, Thomas, 1635?-1706. 1692 (1692) Wing F1594; ESTC R35532 63,101 86

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

to the end of the World is to be understood We have also demonstrate this and this only to be Calvins sense by a large account of the series and contexture of Calvin's discourse in the Chapter where this passage stands so that Calvin doth palpably contradict this mans sense of the president Bishop Calvin asserting the temporary expired state and nature of the Apostolick Office as above that of the Pastor and likewise in the citation of this Pamphleter immediately preceeding that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are the only Officers that have a Divine standing Right of perpetual necessity That as Calvin makes the Bishop and Presybters Office one and the same so he makes it in this distinct from the Apostolick and Evangelistick that the one is ordinary and perpetual the other not the one imports a fixed Charge over a definite Flock the other not the one is suited to the Churches state when exedified the other to its state in fieri c. Thus we have both admitted the Major in a sound sense and everted it in his sense Assumption But the President Episcopacy understand this still according to his mold and pleading is that Government which is of Divine Right Answer This Assumption I deny for proof whereof he referrs to the preceeding Corollarie immediately before everted and upon which we have demonstrat the Antithesis of the Conclusion which this man draws out in his Demonstration brought to fortifie the same Thus his Assumption is found nought Conclusion Therefore the want of the President Episcopacy is prejudicial to the cause of Christ evanishes into smoak To which I oppose as before this Antithesis and Counter-Corollarie Counter-Corollary The want of the President Episcopacy pleaded for by this man is not in the sense of Calvin and Beza prejudicial to the cause of Christ or the Christian Religion For proof of which I offer a Demonstration in his own mold thus Demonstration The want of that Government which in the sense of Calvin and Beza has no Divine Right or Warrand is not according to them prejudicial to the cause of Christ or the Christian Religion This is his own Proposition upon the matter for if this Divine Right be the adequat ground rendering this want pernicious then the negation of this Divine Right must have the contrary effect and in sound methods of reasoning bear the contrary Conclusion by the Rule of Opposits I subsume Assumption But the President Episcopacy pleaded for by this man is a Government of the Church which has no Divine Right in the sense of these Divines This I proved in his own mould as he refers for proof of this Divine Right to the preceeding Corollary I refer for evincing this negative to the confutation of his Positive or Affirmative and the discovery of its falshood immediately premised Whereupon I draw out a contradictory conclusion to his therefore the want of the President Episcopacy pleaded for by him is not in the sense of Calvin and Beza prejudicial to the cause of Christ or the Christian Religion which was to be proved or if he will listen to another Demonstration he may have it thus Demonstration Major If the Churches having the President Episcopacy pleaded for by him being the sense of Calvin and Beza prejudical to the cause of Christ then the Churches want of it cannot be thus prejudicial This Major I am hopeful common reason and learning will not suffer him to deny Since the denyal thereof would cause so many clear Rules of even natural far more this Gentleman 's acquired and habitual Logicks I subsume Assumption But so it is that the existence of that President Episcopacy which he pleads for in the Church is in the sense of these Divines prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This I prove thus That Episcopacy which in their sense imports an usurped unlawful Dominion over Pastors and impeaches their Authority allowed them of God which has thus given a rise to the destructive Antichristian ●yranny over the Church the existence of that Government in the Church must needs be in their Judgement prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This Proposition I am confident he will not deny I subsume But the President Episcopacy which he pleads for is in the judgement of Calvin and Beza of this nature and issue Therefore it is in their Judgement the Churches prejudice to have been burthened with this Government The Minor is above fully proved First as to Calvin in that as he clearly asserts all Pastors to have one and the same Function so the encroachment of one under the peculiar title of Bishop upon this their equal Authority we heard him expresly condemn upon Phil 1. And next for Beza we heard him clearly assert that the Episcopus humanus and the begun encroachments thereof upon the Collegiat Authority of Pastors in Churches Government gave the rise to the Oligarchical and Antichristian tyranny which was the native issue and effect thereof upon Rev. 2. 24 26 And let any judge if an Episcopacy with such a pretended Ap●stolick Official preheminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors as this man has shappen out be not of this mould in Beza's and Calvins Judgement so that we may again safely conclude upon the whole that therefore the existence of this President Bishop in the Church to which our Pamphleter has endeavoured to draw the Patrociny of Calvin and Beza in these distorted places above examined is by them condemned as an Idol of jealousy prejudicial to the Cause of Christ and the Christian Religion which was to be demonstrated FINIS