Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	call_v	council_n	1,851	5	6.9164	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

what is this to the Bishop of Rome for it is granted by all that after this time he was first settled in the See of Antioch but it is questioned by many whether ever he was fixed in the See of Rome Or if he was why should his Successors in the latter place have a better Title to it than those in the first But 3. If we will suffer St. Cyprian to be his own Interpreter he will fully clear the matter where having occasion to explain those words of our Saviour to Peter St. Cypr. de Unitat. Eccles Edit Oxon. p. 107. he concludes The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined with him in the same fellowship of Honour and Power Where it is plain he gives no Supremacy to St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles much less did he intend any to his Successors But St. Cyprian must not escape thus he is again pressed to speak in this Cause For in his 73. Epist saith the Vindicator he hath these words Christ gave this power to Peter upon whom he built the Church To this I answer That this Epistle is an Answer to one sent him by Jubaianus concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks Against which it is objected by Jubaianus That we are not to enquire by whom a person is Baptized since he that is Baptized may receive Remission of Sins if he believe In answer to this Objection St. Cyprian after he had for some time discoursed of the Faith of those who are without the Church and the Efficacy thereof at last concludes But it is manifest where and by whom that Remission of Sins which is given in Baptism can be given For the Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and from whence he shows the Original of Vnity that Power that whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And after the Resurrection he also spoke to the Apostles saying As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them John xx 21. and said Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retained Where you see he joins St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the same fellowship of Honour and Power with this only difference that it was given to St. Peter first and afterwards to them all jointly And at last he concludes which was all that he aimed at By this we understand both where and by whom Remission of Sins in Baptism can be given viz. In the Church and by the Pastors of the Church And now what is all this to the Supremacy either of the Bishop or Church of Rome But he hath not yet done with St. Cyprian he must come upon the Stage again to justifie what he saith Epist 55. where we find these words They are bold to carry Letters from schismatical and profane Persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the Priestly Vnity hath its rise In answer whereunto it may not be amiss to give you a short Account of the whole matter The Story is this Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters with him had made an horrible Schism in the Church of Carthage contending for the reception both of Hereticks and Apostates into the Church without any form of Ecclesiastical Discipline These were opposed by St. Cyprian of whose Opposition they were so impatient that at last they proceeded contrary to all Rule and Order to chuse a new Bishop and fix'd upon one Fortunatus Hereupon St. Cyprian calls a Council of African Bishops in which the cause was heard and these Schismaticks censured This so inflamed their turbulent and unquiet Minds that they resolve to carry the matter to Rome and accordingly Felicissimus and others of the Party were sent with Letters from their mock-Bishop Fortunatus to Cornelius Bishop of Rome And this is the carrying of Letters to St. Peter 's Chair c. that St. Cyprian here speaks of So soon as they were come there and had made known their business Cornelius by Letters acquaints St. Cyprian with it and he in this Epistle returns him an answer Whence we may Note That it was not St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops of Africa but the schismatical mock-Bishop Fortunatus and his adherents that appealed to Rome Nor doth Cornelius take upon him to cite St. Cyprian and the African Bishops to appear and answer the matter before him but only in a Brotherly and friendly manner by letters acquaints him with it And so far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the Bishops of Africa that the highest titles that he gives him in this whole Epistle are only Brother and Most dear Brother He also takes upon him sharply to reprove him for his pusillanimity and lowness of Spirit at the threats and menaces of those wicked Men He instructs him what he should do and directs him how to behave himself towards them He acquaints him that the cause was already judged in Africa and as good as tells him that he ought not to meddle with it For saith he it is determined by all of us and it is both equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard where the crime was committed Every Pastor hath his portion of the Flock which he ought to rule and govern and to give an account thereof not at Rome but in Heaven not to Cornelius but to Christ to the Lord. Those therefore who are under our Jurisdiction ought not to run about i. e. they ought not to apply themselves to any foreign Jurisdiction but to plead their cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime So far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or Power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the African Bishops But he calls the Church of Rome The Chair of Peter and the principal Church 'T is true he doth so but that he never intended thereby to ascribe unto her a Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Churches I take to be very plain from the account I have now given you of his sentiments out of this very Epistle But having already accounted for these expressions I am not willing to repeat the same thing over again but shall rather referr you to what hath been already said His next evidence is Greg. Naz. Hom. de Cre. Epist Doar We do not contemn nor revile that great Pastor who governs that magnificent City we know him to be honourable we acknowledge him the Head we desire he will shew himself an indulgent and tender Father and diligently take care of the whole Church To this I answer That if by Head he mean the chief Ruler and Governour we grant that he is so in his own province and that he take care of the whole Church of that Province committed to his Charge we think is his duty and with Nazianzen we

they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he