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	see_v	1,737	5	3.7569	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88948	A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1647 (1647)	Wing M1275; Thomason E386_9; ESTC R201478	144,474	133

as we see that in some case one may be a Pastor without ordination whereupon it must needs follow either that one may be a Pastor without any authoritative calling or else that ordination is in effect but the same with imposition of hands and so there is no such difference between them as is pretended But so many Pastors send a Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never chuse him Answ Take your own words for answer pag. 496. We never read that in the Apostles Church a man was obtruded upon the people against their will and therefore Election by the people in the Apostolike Church as Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Rev. 2. 1 2. Act. 20. v. 28. must be our rule Any election without the peoples consent must be no Election for if it please not the whole multitude as Act. 6. 5. it is not a choise And in pag. 465. he tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to chuse their own rulers and officers and that Christ hath provided the same in an eminant manner for his Church And therefore for this passage that many Pastor may send a Pastor to be Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never choose him we desire that he would take his own money for payment CHAP. XXV Whether a Ministers calling consist in Election or in Imposition of hands and whether of those is greater and whether is prior or posterior Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Act. 13. 1 2 3. do prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbytery and that such imposition of hands is not a consumatory rite or benedictory signe Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbytery ordain him afore the People chuse him and whether otherwise the people doe send a Minster to themselves and whether the people of God may not aswell discern a mans fitnes to be ordained as his fitnes to be elected PAg 493. If the people may elect Officers then in some cases they may ordaine them also because Ordination is lesse then election and dependeth upon it as a necessary antecedent and it is nothing but a consummation of election or the admission of a person into the possession of that office whereto he had right before by election If then a single Congregation may elect which is the greater they may ordain which is the lesse And for this he alledgeth the Answer pag. 46 47. And then gives answer thereto in these words Ordination is the more and Election the lesser for Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Answ Take Ordination as we take it for Imposition of hands on a Church officer and then we think it is lesse then Election as being but a Rite or Ceremony used at a Ministers entrance into his Office but not at all of the essence thereof Nor are we alone or the first that have so thought For to omit others he that wrote the book called the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus affirmeth pag. 114. That it is no essentiall but a ceremoniall part of Ordination which may be sufficiently made without it and saith that Angelus de Clavasio Peter Martyr and others both Papists and Protestants affirm the same And in pag. 116. he saith it is an act of service or Ministery not of Authority and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony alledging Dr. Ames others for the same tenent But now election is more then a ceremony that may be omitted Mr. Rutherford himself being judge for in his pag. 496. He tells us that in the Apostolike Churches a Minister was never obtruded upon the people against their will but that they still had the election of their Ministers and this he saith must be our rule so that any election without the peoples consent must be no election for if it please not the whole multitude it is not a choise And in p. 202. he tells us out of Chrysostome that all Election of Pastors is null without the consent of the people Whereby it seems that Election is something essentiall and so consequently more then imposition of hands which is but a Rite or Ceremony which may be absent and yet a man have all the essentialls of a Minister notwithstanding As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. the imposition of hands of the Presbytery there spoken of I conceive could not be any act of superior authority but onely an approbatory signe or rite which might be used by inferiours towards your superiours For Timothy being an Evangelist how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him or give office or authority to him Besides it is not said that Timothy received his gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but by the Prophesie and by the laying on of Pauls hands and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery Now between those two phrases by the laying on of hands and with the same there is great difference the one importing some cause or authority or power the other importing no more but an approbatory rite or a signe used in a solemne commending of one to God by Prayers Altare Damascen pag. 161. of which more is to be seen in the plea for the Churches in New England part of the second chap. 12. quest 2 4. For ought I see the Authors might argue thus The people may ordaine Ergo they may preach and baptise for all the three are Presbyteriall acts given to men in Office Answ We read in Mornay de Ecclesia chap. ● that of old time it was an argument rise in the Church he may baptise he may administer the Lords supper Ergo he may lay on hands but such arguing as Mr Rutherford useth they may lay on hands ergo they may baptise this we remember not that we have read in any authors except in him Nor doe we think the consequence the same inasmuch as in the one the argument proceeds from the greater to the lesse and in the other from the lesse to the greater and yet affirmatively in both Thus the argument is understood by the forenamed author of the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus who in pag. 100. speaking of these words of Mornay layes down the argument thus He can baptise he can consecrate and administer the Lords supper which are the greater and more honorable actions Ergo he may lay on hands which is the lesse and this kind of arguing for my part I think to be good but for that of Mr. Rutherfords I see no more consequence therein then if one should say he that may doe the lesser may doe the greater also in which I see no strength of consequence at all Pag. 493 494. Whereas some say Act. 6. 3 4 5. Election of seven men to be Deacons goeth before Ordination or Imposition of hands v. 6. Answ Election of the people goeth before Ordination in the

with that Scripture either for one purpose or another and therefore cannot be truly said to have used the words alledged in way of cleering Doubts concerning the same And albeit in another place cap. 3. pag. 22. et sequ I doe purposely speake to that Scripture yet in that place there is no mention at all of the words by him alledged nor of any such like and where such words are to be found there that Scripture is not mentioned at all Now who knoweth not that a man may be much wronged when the words which hee hath spoken are taken and applyed to such a purpose for which he did never bring them nor intend them But to let this passe let us heare what our Reverend Author saith against the words alledged in his Answer The cause of Appeales saith he is not because inferiour Iudicatures may erre for so wee might appeale from all Iudicatures even from a generall Councill for it may erre Pag. 315. lin ult Answ Is not this the very same that was said in the Answer Pag. 13 14. The pages which hee here undertakes to answer is it not there said As for Classicaticall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases of deficiency and possibility of Partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations may not be indep●ndant but there may be Appeales from them the Synods being subject to the like there may bee liberty of Appeales from them also For as the Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denyed but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre yea generall Councils may erre and so by this reason not Synods nor generall Councils may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction but there may be liberty of Appeales from them also These are our words in those very Pages which here Mr. Rutherford pretends to Answer and disprove or confute But in stead of a Confutation we see we have nothing but a plaine Confession or affirmation of his owne that the thing is even so as was affirmed by us before Now why hee should make a show of taking away or weak'ning that which we had said and then in stead of accomplishing what he undertakes to doe no more but onely to say the same thing againe which wee had said before what reason I say he had for this I know not but plaine it is that for the particular in hand the Answer which he pretends to weaken is not yet weakned at all but rather strengthned and confirmed by his apparent yeelding the Cause and affirming the same that was before affirmed by us But saith hee Pag. 316. The true cause viz. of Appealing to higher Courts is 1. Because they doe not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many eyes see more then one and doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right Object 3. Because wee conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Answ These three Reasons seeme much what the same or to hang one upon another for therefore they doe more seldome erre because they are not so disposed and inclined to erre and they are not so inclined because they are more in number and because there is in them more equality and lesse partiality So that upon the matter it is but one reason viz. because though they may erre yet not so frequently and likely as the Congregation Yet be they three Reasons or be they but one let us consider what force there is in this sa●ing to take away entirenesse of Iurisdiction from a Congregation and to establish the necessity of appealing from the same unto a Synod for this is the thing that should be cleared First of all it may be a question whether Synods doe more seldome erre then the Presbyteries of Congregations And the reason of the doubt is because the Promise of the presence of Ch●●st is not made meerly to multitude or greatnesse of number but if they bee but two or three gathered together in his Name his Promise is that hee will be present in the midst of them Math. 18. 20. Now the Promise of his presence being to so small a number gathered together in his Name why may not a Congregation and its Presbyterie being so gathered though they be a lesser number then Synods and Councels yet bee partakers of the benefit of this Promise for the preserving of them from Error as well as those greater Assemblies 〈…〉 not but in multitude of Counsellers there is safety nor doe I doubt but Synods and Council● gathered together in the Name of Christ may expect the per●●●●ance of this Promise of our Saviours presence But the thing I doubt of is this whether a Congregationall Church of Saints furnished with an able and ●aithfull Presbyterie for of such onely doe I speake may not by vertue of this Promise bee as frequently preserved fro● Error as those greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils Posito that the Synods and Counci●ls did as frequently come together as the Congregation doth For otherwise I grant the Synods meeting more seldome may erre more seldome but let the Comparison be equall in respect of the time of Assembling and comming together and then I doubt whether Synods 〈◊〉 preserved from Error any oftener then the fore-mentioned lesser Assemblies It is well knowne what N●zianzen said of Synods or Councils in his time viz. That hee had never seene good and happie end of any of them and that evils were not so much redressed as increased thereby Epist ad Procop●um Quae Est numere 42. Referr Whitak De Concill Q. 1. cap. 3. True it is Nazianzen lived as Dr. Whi●●● observeth Pessimis turbulentissimia Ecclesiae Temporibus in very corrupt and troublesome Titues when by reason that Valens the Emperour was averse from the Truth H●retickes much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increased and this might make the good man something more to dislike all Councils then there was cause Neverthelesse his words doe apparently witnesse that in his time Synods and Councils did not seldome erre but very often so that hee for his part had never seene good that had come by any of them Then which saying I suppose one would not speake more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbyterie and therefore by this testimony of his my doubt is increased whether the matter be in 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford doth say viz. That Synods and Councils doe Rariùs erra●● more seldome erre then such a particular Congregation as here I am speaking of But suppose it were so as hee doth affirme and I will not deny it onely as I said I doubt of it yet I doe not see what great matter hee can gaine thereby for the furthering of his purpose that there must be liberty of Appeales from particular Congregations unto Classes and Synods as unto higher Courts For if this be the reason 〈◊〉

his page 482. alledging Mr. Tompson and me pag. 16 17. Hee reports us to say that though some have appealed as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a generall Councell yet not from a Congregation to a generall Councell Answ As he one of these pages hath nothing at all concerning this matter and therefore might well have been spared so neither of them both doth make any mention of Luther either of one purpose or other and therefore it is some marvaile why he should be mentioned as thus spoken of by us who do not speak of him at all so much as one word for any purpose whatsoever Nor do the rest of the words of appealing from a Congregation to a generall Councell agree with ours as we have set them downe in the 16. page alledged and therefore that our mind and meaning may appeare let me relate our own words which are these How this example sc of Cramners appealing to Councell related by Mr. Fox doth suit the present question we do not understand for his appeale was not from a particular Congregation but from the Pope nor was it from a Synod but to the next generall Councell which from that day to this hath not yet been assembled nor called If we must hold a necessity of appeales to such a Iudicatory as Cranmer appealed unto then the supremacy of Synods provinciall and nationall is utterly taken away These are our words in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford now what doth he answer thereto In matters doctrinall saith he some as Luther and others have justly appealed from Congregation to a generall Councell though Luther and Cranmer did it not Answ Say it be true that Cranmer did it not yet for Luther how can it be that he should be an instance both of such as did it not and of such as did it for Luther and others have justly done it and yet Luther and Cranmer are two of them that did it not these are sayings which seem not to agree Againe if Luther did so appeale why is no proof alledged for Confirmation of what here is affirmed which if there had been we might have considered thereof But sith there is not we may be allowed to forbeare assent till that which is here nakedly affirmed be further strengthened by some proofe or other to make it good Lastly if Luther or others have justly appealed from a Congregation to a generall Councell then why will it not be lawfull for others upon like occasion to do the like And if so then as we argued in the answer the supremacy of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries is utterly taken away and so by this meanes causes and controversies may still be depending and never come to be determined so long as this world shall endure which whether it be agreeable to the wisdome of Christ and good of his people let the wise judge Though verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell there may be some meerly doctrinall power if such a Councell could be had and that is all Answ For my part I am altogether of the same minde But here I have a quere or two to propose to our reverend Brothers serious consideration first of all how this passage doth agree with that which himself hath written pag. 387. where he saith It may be made good that a power Dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of Jurisdiction and that we read not of any society which hath power to meet to make lawes and decrees which have not power also to back their decrees with punishment Yea he saith further that if the Jewish Synodry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods law in point of conscience and what not farre more may they punish contraveners of the law For Anomothetick power in a society which is the greater power and is in the fountaine must presuppose in the society 〈◊〉 lesser power which is to punish Anomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring So that whereto in the place we have in hand he saith there may be in a generall Councell some 〈◊〉 doctrinall power without any power of jurisdiction to censure in this other place he saith these powers do not differ in nature nor can the former be without the latter but doth alwayes presuppose the same as that which is lesser and which it cannot want Now how these things do agree I am not able to understand next of all how doth this passage we have in hand agree with that which is written p. 308 309. Where he saith it is by accident and not through want of inate and intrinsecall power that the court of a Catholick Councell can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise the power which Christ hath given to her and what that power is he expresseth in two or three lines proceeding viz. A power of jurisdiction to Excommunicate and relax from Excommunication even nationall Churches If the Lord should be pleased to give the Christian Churches a generall Councell this day might lawfully in a jurisdictiall way declare the faction of the Romish pretended Catholicks to be mysticall Babylon which in Excommunication in the essence and substance of the act And againe This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a generall Councell And in page 304. He tells in that a power of jurisdiction though he call it extraordinary and remote and which is but rarely to be put forth in acts is given to the Catholick visible Presbytery of the whole Catholick visible Church In all which places he plainly affirmeth there is a power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls in a generall Councell which in the place we have in hand he doth as plainly deny Thirdly if there be no power of jurisdiction to censure scandals in a generall Councell then how shall it appeare that there is such power of Jurisdiction in the Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries which are farre lesse Yea and that there is in these Presbyteries a power Independent and Supreame without appeale to any other For such power there must be in some of them if there be any power of jurisdiction in them at all sith we are told there is no power of jurisdiction in the generall Councell to appeale unto Now how shall it appeare that any such Independent supream power of jurisdiction is given to any of those Presbyteries where are the texts of Scripture that speak of such power For our parts we know of none but do still think that this power is placed by Christ in a single Congregation and its Presbytery and are the rather strengthened in this apprehension for that the reason which is wont to be given against the Congregations power and wherein our Brethren are wont to place their greatest strength sc that appeals are juris naturalis and that defects in the parts are to be supplyed