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	word_n	2,098	5	4.2654	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42789	Tentamen novum continuatum. Or, An answer to Mr Owen's Plea and defense. Wherein Bishop Pearson's chronology about the time of St. Paul's constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, is confirm'd; the second epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the apostle's latter imprisonment at Rome; and all Mr. Owen's arguments drawn from antiquity for Presbyterian parity and ordination by presbyters, are overthrown. Herein is more particularly prov'd, that the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, believ'd the divine right of bishops. By Thomas Gipps, rector of Bury in Lancashire.	Gipps, Thomas, d. 1709.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.	1699 (1699)	Wing G782; ESTC R213800	254,935	222

who exercised their Ministry among you blamelesly Brethren c. All that needs be answered hereunto is 1. Clement manifestly teaches elsewhere that the Schism arose on the account of one or two Persons p. 62. 'T is says He a shame an arrant shame and unworthy a Christians Conversation that the ancient and most firmly established Church of Corinth should raise Sedition against the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one or two Persons that there being a Difference among them about their Bishop that Generous Person it must needs follow that the Presbyters were involved in the Controversy and by Consequence that some of 'em were deserted and laid aside by those of the People who had an aversion to the Bishop that Generous Person so oft mentioned as well as to some of the Presbyters who stuck close to him 2. It may reasonably be thought that the two Persons here spoken of were the Bishop in Possession and the other whom the Corinthians would have advanced into his 〈◊〉 In short if 〈◊〉 if what on this Head has been offered for the clearing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning of the Epistle which to us at this distance is dark enough be of any moment it may then be allowed that Clement has intimated that there was at Corinth a Prelatical Bishop and that the Reason why he makes no plainer mention of him but was forced himself to interpose in procuring the Peace of the Church of Corinth was the Prejudices a great part of the Presbyters and People had conceived against their Bishop who was 〈◊〉 unable by his own Authority to allay the Heats and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'em and for that cause was advised by Clement Voluntarily to surrender his Office and depart It is not an uncommon thing for Authors to comprehend three Orders of Church-Officers in two Words or at least to mention two Orders only when yet they acknowledge a Third This Dichotomy is to be met with in the Scripture it self The three Officers of the Jewish Church are frequently expressed by Priests and 〈◊〉 wherein 〈◊〉 High-Priest who without controversy was a Third is included 〈◊〉 himself in this Epistle takes notice That the Priests and Levites came out of Abraham's 〈◊〉 meaning the High-Priest also as I presume will not be denyed For he also came out of the Loins of Abraham Clemens Alexand in his 〈◊〉 cited by Mr. O. speaks there only of the two Orders Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian Church and yet elsewhere he reckons up expresly the Bishops also with the other two In the former place 〈◊〉 Presbyters must comprehend Bishops at least they ought not to be excluded though the Author there omits them So 〈◊〉 in his Apologetick comprehends Bishops and Presbyters under one common Name Seniores yet he 〈◊〉 distinguishes the Three Orders in Lib. de Baptismo c. 17. Optatus Milevit an hundred times o'er acknowledges the three Orders yet once he contents himself to express 'em in two Words only Bishops and Deacons There are says he in the place cited on the Margin quatuor genera 〈◊〉 Four Orders of Men in the Church but he sums 'em up in three Words viz. Bishops Deacons and the Faithful It may deserve observation that at this time of the Day and with Optatus ordinarily Bishop signify'd the Prelate of a Church shall I then be allowed hence to infer there were either no Presbyters or no Prelatical Bishops according to this Fathers Judgment because forsooth He here mentions 'em not distinctly It cannot be fairly Collected hence as every one 〈◊〉 This is manifest that Optatus in those two Words Bishops and Deacons must understand the three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons else He loses one of his four Orders of Men in the Church Besides saying here sicut supra dixi he refers us backward to p. 16. and p. 51. in both which places he mentions 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Wherefore the Premisses considered 't is reasonable to believe that Clemens Romanus likewise did in the same manner express the three Offices of the 〈◊〉 Church in two Words comprehending the Prelate in Bishops and Deacons It ought not here to be forgot what St. Chrysostom has observed 〈◊〉 of old were called Bishops also and 〈◊〉 for in deed Presbyters in some things resemble both They Minister like Deacons unto the Bishop-whilst he Officiates and are subject unto him as the other are But they Minister in the Word and Sacraments as well as the Bishop does and have under him the over-sight of some part of the Flock for which reason they may not incongruously be called Bishops But Blundel and his Followers I remember to reconcile unto their own Hypothesis the different way of the Fathers reckoning up the Ministerial Orders of the Christian Church asserts that sometimes they conform their Language to the Scripture and Apostolical Age At other times to their own Customs and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions In the former case they use the Dichotomy mentioning only Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons in the latter they divide 'em into three Ranks Bishops and Priests and Deacons But this device will not do their Work and must be laid aside for the following Reasons 1. St. Cyprian against whose Testimony for Episopacy this Distinction was principally levelled and framed though He often falls into the Dichotomy yet asserts the Divine Right of Bishops Cum hoc igitur sicut omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur divina lege fundatum sit The Government of the Church by Bishops is says He founded upon a Divine Law That the Praepositi here are meant Bishops is not to be doubted of if we look backward unto the foregoing parts of this Epistle He begins it thus Our Lord whose precepts we ought to Reverence and Observe establishing the Honour of the Bishop and the Churches affairs says c. And again he adds Hence the Ordination of Bishops and the Affairs of the Church pass through the course of 〈◊〉 and Successions so that the Church is established on Bishops and every Act of the Church is governed per eosdem Praepositos by the same Praepositi that is Bishops If then Bishops were by Divine Right in the Judgment of Cyprian he must speak in the Language of the Apostolical Age where the Divine Right ends as well as his own when he reckons up the three distinct Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But of this see more in Mr. Dodwell's 10th Cypr. Dissertation Nor can these Praepositi and Episcopi be understood of Presbyters for Cyp. whatever any may fancy of Praepositi never calls Presbyters Bishops Nor could he conformably to his own Writings He professes thus of himself and other Bishops Neq enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops But if the Presbyters were Bishops then Cyprian was a Bishop of Bishops 2. Optatus in the same Breath in one

was no Ordination but conferring the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit which Philip could not do Mr. O. forgot to take notice of the whole Argument but Answers it by halves I urg'd that Philip had the extraordinary and Miraculous Gift of the Spirit which was usually conferred by Imposition of hands that though he had this Gift yet he could not give it that therefore they who have a Gift yet may not have power to conferr that Gift and by consequence that those Persons who are ordain'd to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments it does not follow that they can Ordain which was the thing to be prov'd There is nothing that I perceive meriting any Reply until we come to that piece of Discipline 1 Cor. 5. where we read of the Incestuous Corinthian Excommunicated as I contend by the Authority and Command of St. Paul But Mr. O. insinuates that the Apostle reproves the Corinthians for not excommunicating the Sinner themselves 1 Cor. 5. 2. Ans. This verse proves it not The expression is in the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Offender might be taken away By whom Why not by the Apostle He may as well be thought to chide 'em for not informing him of the misdemeanour to the end the Offender might be delivered unto Satan by St. Paul himself The whole Story as we shall shew Countenances this Interpretation Ay but says the Minister the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to avoid disorderly walkers v. 13. Ans. But this is by the Apostles express commandment still Besides to put away from among themselves that wicked Person is not to deliver him to Satan or to expel him the Church but Not to eat with him v. 11. that is not to have any Familiarity with him in civil Conversation In this the Apostle does indeed declare v. 12. that the Corinthians had power to Judge with whom they might be Familiar and with whom not But it does not hence follow they had power to Excommunicate Now that it was St. Paul who judged and decreed and gave theSentence of Excommuncation against the Offender will appear plainly if we read the first part of the 3 d verse with the 5 th v. for all the rest is a Parenthesis Thus then let us put 'em close together v. 3. For I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have determined already then v. 5. to deliver such an one unto Satan For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Excommunication most certainly proceeded from the Apostle It is also worthy consideration that the Corinthians did not receive again into their Communion this Excommunicated Person until the Apostle had absolved him and then besought them to confirm their Love towards him 2 C. 28. 10. In the next place I am accused of altering and perverting the Text. 〈◊〉 heavy charge which ought not to be passed over lightly The Accusation is that v. 4. I have put the Words thus Of my Spirit whereas the Translators leaving out of render the place thus My Spirit not Of my Spirit Ans. Since the Grammatical construction will bear it there is no reason of accusing me of perverting the Text. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put absolute and into a Parenthesis Upon this supposition then thus the Words may be laid In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and my Spirit or of my Spirit which is the same thing when ye are gathered together c. So that Mr. O. could not have any just pretense for his Accusation whatever becomes of my Interpretation of the Text. This perhaps he may call into Question and my purpose now is to vindicate it I cannot reconcile my self unto that Opinion which Couples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus more plainly in English When ye and my Spirit are gathered together Paul was now at Ephesus both Body and Spirit I can form no Idea of his Spirit assembling with the Corinthians at so great a distance True he tells 'em that he is present with 'em in Spirit but Corrects himself immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As though I were present So that the Sense is St. Paul was present with 'em in Heart and Affections studying their welfare wishing them well and praying that their Souls might be Saved and their Church Edified in Peace and Purity Or why not present among 'em by his Authority As we say the King is every where present in his Dominions by his Influence and Providence But that the Spirit of Paul should be gathered or assembled with the Corinthian Congregation is a too harsh and improper Expression at least in my Fancy and Opinion especially since so Commodious and agreeable Sense may be given of the Words Nor let any one suspect me to have advanced this Interpretation to serve a cause which stands in no need of it For if it shall still be thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be coupled then the latter Words must import the Apostles Authority as I formerly expounded it And least the Apostle should seem too assuming in thus insisting on his own ' Authority with great caution he adds With the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. As if he had said my Authority but in Conjunction with and subordination to the Power of Christ. For so the Apostle was wont oftimes carefully to prevent mistakes left he should be thought to haveUsurpt his Power Thus he 2 Cor. 10. 8. speaking of his Authority adds Which the Lord hath given us c. And Chap. 2. 10. which comes nearer to our purpose when he had granted the Absolution of the Excommunicated Person I forgave it says he in the Person of Christ. Upon the whole matter thus much at least may be said of this Instance of Ecclesiastical Discipline that St. Paul directed and commanded it which is all I need to be concerned for For then it can be no president for a College of Presbyters much less for a particular Minister of one single Congregation to Excommunicate which was the thing I intended to Evince I proceed now to the Story of 〈◊〉 's Ordination briefly related 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. of which in the first place I delivered this as my own settled Opinion That Timothy underwent two Ordinations the one for Presbyter the other for 〈◊〉 or Supreme Ruler of the Church of 〈◊〉 One of my Reasons for this was because Paul himself seemed to me to have been twice Ordained once Act. 9. 15 〈◊〉 17. and again Chap. 13. the first unto the Ordinary Ministry of the Word the second unto the Apostle of the Gentiles Against this Mr. O. Argues 1. That Paul was more than an Ordinary Minister of the Word Gal. 1. 1. meaning before he received that Imposition of hands Act. 13. that is from the time of his Conversion Ans. He might as well say that Paul was an

that was made Bishop by the Pope among the Scots whereas in former times Bishops were taken out of the Culdees and Monks the People chusing them Here then the Witnesses do not agree among themselves For Fordon says without Bishops and Major Presbyters only but Boethius plainly intimates the Scots had Bishops in former times though not of the Roman Stamp nor thence sent unto the Scots Palladius was the first of the Roman Bishops not the first Bishop Whoever chose'em is nothing to our purpose The Scots had Bishops before Palladius according to Boethius who were pickt out of the Monks and Culdees But he says not Ordained by them It may as well be affirmed that because our Bishops at this Day are taken out of the Presbyters that therefore they are Ordained by them Lastly The said Archbishop Usher there produces another Testimony out of John Baly who Writes Palladius was sent among the Scots that he might establish the Episcopal Order among them after the Roman Fashion for He adds the Scots had before that time their Bishops and other Ministers as it was among the Britains after the Asiatick Manner But it pleased not the Romans the Popes who affected Ceremonies and hated the Asiaticks But though the Scots were Anciently the Inhabitans of Ireland yet says Mr. O. these Authors call the Ancient Inhabitants of the now Scotland by the Name they were known in their own days and to them Palladius is thought to have been sent True But 't was their ignorance or worse nothing being more clear than that the Ancient Inhabitants of the now Scotland were Britains and Picts not Scots This is fully made out in the Historical Account of the Church-Government c. as well as by Archbishop Usher's Authorities to whom I refer the Reader Whereas Bede l. 5. c. 10. relates how that Columba was the first Teacher of the Christian Faith among the Tramontane Picts to the North Mr. O. thus glosses on that Passage He was the first Bede knew of implying there were others before that Bede knew not of Ans. At this rate all Authorities may be eluded And all the Testimonies produced by Mr. O. in favour of his Cause may easily be laid aside Bede 〈◊〉 no other yet the contrary is true thus I may say Fordon and Major talk of Presbyters and Monks among the Scots without Bishops That is that they knew of but however there were Bishops among them Bede himself gives not the 〈◊〉 occasion for this gloss but is as positive herein as any Writer can be And he is a better Witness in these Matters than Fordon Major and Boethius These talk of matter before their time a 1000 Years without any Authority to back their Relations Bede of things which happened but about 140 Years only before his time For 〈◊〉 flourished Anno 560. and Bede was born Anno 707. and flourish'd 735. In short then Bede might well understand what happened at 〈◊〉 and among the Northern Picts the English Saxons having so lately received Christianity from the Bishops sent hither by Columba and his Successors Mr. O. goes on to acquaint us Christianity was much more Ancient in the North of the now Scotland and that 't is proved by Bishop Cowper Ans. Bishop Cowper laboured under the common Disease of easily believing and advancing the Antiquity and Honour as he thought of his own Nation He brought no Testimony of Credit but that out of Theodoret which belongs unto the Southern Britains for of Tertullian's we have before Treated But Mr. O. would be resolved in some Queries First When the Fathers mention Joseph of Arimathea Simon Zelotes c. to have Preached the Gospel in Britain what reason have we to exclude North Britain The zeal of those Apostles and Apostolical Men and their Charity would Prompt them to endeavour the Propagation of the Gospel throughout Britain and part of the now Scotland belonged then to the British Kings Ans. I know no Father that mentions Joseph of Arimathea and Simon Zelotes except haply Dorotheus who is the Father of a Thousand Lyes or Fordon Major Boethius Fleming Balaeus and such other later and Legendary Writers I can give several good reasons against the North Britains being so early converted and good ones too as I think Britain Anciently was divided into very many petty Kingdoms None of the Princes received the Faith very early that we know of save Lucius perhaps The Romans never penetrated into the now Scotland till a good while after and it was by their means in part that Christianity spread its self The Picts in North Scotland never stoop't to their Yoke which rendred their Conversion more difficult And something I hope in this point may be ascribed unto the Secret Will and Providence of God Can Mr. O. give me any other Reasons than such as these that the Saxons and Angli in Germany who over-run Britain were no sooner converted tho' Tertullian reckons the Germans in General to have been Christians in his time Nor were the Apostles themselves nor the Apostolical Men always Successful in their endeavours St. Paul was forbid to Preach in Asia Acts 16. 6. 'T is a wretched way of proving a matter of Fact in Question from such slender Probabilities By the like Arguments one might prove that all Europe Asia and Africa embraced the Gospel a Thousand Years since even the most Northern Scythians the most Eastern Indians and Seres and the Africans about the Cape of Good-Hope In short though Paul plants and Apollos Waters yet 't is God who gives the Increase 'T is certain the Apostles themselves did not always take Fish where-ever they cast their Net Our Lord foretold them as much directing them therefore to shake off the dust of their Feet as a Testimony against them that rejected their Doctrine But enough of Mr. O's first Query Secondly He asks if the North Britains received their first Conversion by Men sent from Rome as seems from Bede E. H. l. 3. c. 4 How came they to keep their Easter after the Eastern Manner Ans. This is accounted for by the Bishop of St. Asaph and Mr. O. ought to have acquiess'd or else refuted the Bishop and not thus frivolously repeated the bare Objection about Easter without Vindicating it against the Bishop But he seems to read Books on purpose to furnish himself with little Objections not with a disposition to hearken unto Reason but to Spin out and continue disputes for Ever Besides the North Britain here so called by Mr. O. is by Bede in his History described to be the most Southern part of the now Scotland adjoyning vnto England and called Galloway or Annandale on this side Edenburgh But what is this to the Northern Tramontaene 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh whither we say the Romans neither Gentiles nor Christians nor the Christian Religion ever reached before Columba settled at Hy who also came thither not from Rome but Ireland Mr. O. farther pleads these words of Bede