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 church_n good_a 1,603 5 3.5505 3 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
A41212 A compendious discourse upon the case, as it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one hand, and again between the same Church of England and those congregations which have divided from it on the other hand together with the treatise of the division of the English church and the Romish, upon the Reformation / enlarged with some explicatory additionalls by H.F. ... Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662. 1655 (1655) Wing F790; ESTC R5674 55,518 166

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

prevailed as Tr. 1. c. 1. Secondly It is a Truth that the Saxons or English whatever preparation they had to it by the Vicinity and Acquaintance of the British Christians did indeed receive the Christian Faith from Rome through the godly care of Gregory the first then Bishop and the Ministry of Austin and others whom he sent to preach it here But then the untruth which they suppose and usually impose upon the unwary is palpable viz. That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to Faith and Worship is the same it was in Gregorie's time and that we by Reformation have cast off the Faith we received For first as to the maine and fundamentall Faith that makes a man or Church Christian no question but Austin and those that were sent preached that they baptized into which is the very same that we do still Then as for the matters of Faith and Worship which they and we differ in the Novelty is clear neither can they demonstrate that any point we cast off was a doctrine of Faith in S. Gregory's time Some things I confesse of misbelief and practise were then crept in and gathering strength but it is observable that in all their allegations of Fathers for the points we differ in their owne Gregory comes rarely in indeed that Purgatory was his opinion they have expresse proof not that it was an article of Faith in that Church On the contrary it is plaine that Communion in both kindes was the doctrine and practise of the Church in his time as it had been alwaies before that Image-worship is declared against in his answer to the Bishop of Marsellis the Title also and Jurisdiction of Vniversall Bishop which immediately concernes the Cause in hand is declared against in his contestation with John of Constantinople who affected it In a word had the Church of Rome continued the same for Faith and Worship as it was in Gregory's time and the Bishop of Rome taken no more to himself than the said Gregory did certainly it would not have come to a division neither would there have been cause for it §. VII Deniall of Obedience to Papall jurisdiction makes not Schismaticall Thirdly it is a Truth that the English Church still generally taken before Reformation acknowledged the Jurisdiction of that See but the Inference they make therefore it is Schismaticall in casting off or denying to yeild obedience thereunto is invalid for it supposes this untruth that we owed it of duty upon special relation viz. our conversion or receiving the Faith by the Ministers of that See To answer I. It seemes the Bishop of Rome makes his claim to England upon a double Title One of Vniversall Pastorship which extends to all Churches of what Plantation soever the Other of Conversion or Plantation which reaches to England and some other Nations and it seemes when these Titles are divided the first prevailes and swallowes up the other and so brings under his Jurisdiction all the Churches which other Apostles besides Peter and their Successors planted Whereupon it followes that the other Apostles shall not leave the like Title of Jurisdiction to those which succeeded them in the Churches they planted unlesse dependantly on Rome also that the other Apostles laboured dependently on Peter and as his Ministers and Commissioners plaated Churches for him to rule over as supreme general Pastor when as it is evident they were sent immediately by Christ with equall commission to plant Churches in all the world God teach all Nations Mat. 28. and As my Father sent me so I send you John 20. Therefore Peter and Paul when they made that agreement Gal. 2. departed to the work upon equal termes To establish this first and transcendent Title of Universal Jurisdiction they are bound to make good these several untruths That it was so with Peter in respect of the other Apostles That it is so with the Successors of Peter in respect of Those which succeeded the other Apostles in the Churches by them planted That the Power and Priviledge pretended to be in Peter was derived upon his Successors Lastly that it is derived onely upon the Bishops of Rome not of Antioch or elsewhere All these they are bound to make good yea and seeing all their Romish faith resting upon the pretended Priviledges of that Church is founded upon these false Supposals they are bound to make all good by apparent Scripture for they grant that the prime points of Faith necessary for all to believe as this is according to their doctrine are clearly conteined in Scripture But to shew this point of the Priviledges of that Church Infallibility and Vniversall Jurisdiction so conteined is impossible for them to do for when in this vast Controversie they leave nothing untoucht in Scripture or Fathers which may be drawn to make any seeming appearance for such priviledges they doe but give us words nothing of force to prove the thing indeed Some passages to this purpose in Tr. 1. c. 27. and in cap. 28. 30. II. As to his second Title from Plantation of the Church here We doe not find that the Converting of any Nation to the Faith gave a Title of Jurisdiction to that Church from whence that Nation received the Faith for we doe not see it was held for any Rule in the distribution of Provinces and the limiting or extending the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction We doe not find that the ancient Councils which provided therein had any respect to such Title but to the constitution of the Empire rather and the Provinces thereof and that the alteration which has been anywhere since made in the bounds of National Jurisdiction followed the division of Kingdomes into which the Empire was broken which appears in the severall Councils of Toledo above mentioned under their severall Kings without dependance on Rome And if we look into the Saxon Church and Councils gathered and published by the industry of Sir Hen Spelman it will appear that all the Application made unto or intercourse had with Rome did not speak a due subjection but at most a voluntary adhaesion not acknowledgment of that Jurisdiction but of their fair respect such as any Church ought to have to that Church from which it received the faith so long as that Church continues safely in the faith it propagated and so in a condition of giving advise and direction to and of receiving due respect and complyance from those among whom it planted the faith But as Errors prevailed in that Church of Rome so in this and among the rest that usurped Jurisdiction Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the 7. about 400. years after Gregory the first did lay on that yoak and began to bring the necks of Kings and Princes under it too and still by their power does the Bishop of Rome hold his jurisdiction over the Churches within their Dominions as Spain France c. But such Princes as came to understand their owne right not onely
Romanists alledging that the present Sects of these dayes may plead against the Church of England from which they have divided what the Church of England can against the Roman for as it was above premised the case betweene English and Romish Church is as between two Nationall Churches having full authority for publick Reformation but the case between the English Church and those that have divided from it is between a Nationall Church and the members of it by which appears they could have no sufficient Authority for publick Reformation without and against the Authority in being to pull down and set up as they have done and it will appear they could have no just Cause for so much as a Separation from the Communion of this Church §. IX Grounds laid for convincing them of Schism Now for making good the charge of Schisme against them we will premise some undeniable Truths which speak the Authority of Church-governours the obedience due thereunto the condition of Schism and the danger and guilt of it I. That the Church of Christ is a Society or Company under a Regiment Discipline Government and the Members constituting that Society are either Persons taught guided governed or Persons teaching guiding governing and this in order to preserve all in Unity and to advance every Member of this visible Society to an effectuall and reall participation of Grace and Union with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no lesse account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4. 11 12 13 16. and Heb. 13. 17. and he that will not hear the Church be as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 16. II. That every Nationall Church has power as to determine in matters of Faith according to Gods word so to determine in things indifferent Rites Ceremonies matters of order as in prudence it sees most fit for the better and more convenient performance of Gods worship or administration of Discipline and Government This is plain by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. The Rule above delivered speaks to this purpose That the Church propounding or determining matters of Faith or of the substance of Worship ought to manifest it out of Gods Word cannot doe it besides the same as the 20 Act of our Church hath it and we may expect such manifestation or proof before we yeild the absolute assent of belief unto any thing so propounded But in the Churches determination of things in themselves indifferent and enjoyning the observation of Rites and Ceremonies it is enough that the particular be not against Gods Word and he that will not yeild obedience to it is bound to shew it plainly contrary to the Word or else stands guilty of disobeying the known precepts of the Word which command obedience to Authority I will not be enough to say The Governours of the Church did not hold to their Rule for this Rite or Ceremony is not to edification is not decent it might be better otherwise For this is to set a mans owne judgement against that of the Church in matters of prudence a spice of that pride and self conceit which is the Mother of all disobedience Schism and though a private judgement might truly say some things might be better done in and about Gods Worship or Service yet unlesse such a one can say as truly those things are unlawfull to be done and that by direct warrant from Gods Word he ought not to disobey III. When the Apostle used an argument from Custome against certaine disorders We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11. 16. he plainly shews what force the Customes of a Church so they be not against Gods Word have to binde the Members of that Church as from Introducing any New Custome without Authority so to observe such Customes as the Church hath and he that will not is reckoned by the Apostle there among the Contentious or disturbers of the peace of the Church for against such he urges that Much more are we to take notice of the strength of Universall Tradition the Custome and Practice of the whole Church in all Ages for of this we shall have occasion below against the Contentious IV. In the same Epistle for it is mainly spent upon this Argument he commends Charity as a Remedy against that Pride which upon conceit of Knowledge or Spiritual gifts cap. 12. pufft them up and made them swell one against another and despise one another the ready way to Division and breaking all asunder This Charity not that which does workes of mercy or relieves the poor as we see by ver. 3. cap. 13. but which bindes together the body of the Church Edifying it selfe in Love as Eph. 4. 16. Charity in opposition to Schism this I say he commends and by severall properties discribes It vanteth not is not puffed up ver. 4. not against Equals much lesse in setting our private judgement against our Governors It thinketh no evill ver. 5. It receives satisfaction easily from Equals interprets their Words and Actions to the best much more the commands and doings of our Governours Charity seeks not her owne endureth all things ver. 5 7. suffers much rather than come to open difference and contention with Equals so will peaceable Charity suffer much ere it come to a division from the Church much lesse will it seek that which is anothers that especially which belongs to the Governours their power meanes preferments Thus Schism takes beginning from Pride and self-conceit goes on by uncharitablenesse to enormous excesse of disobedience and injustice and renders all Knowledge Faith and other good workes for want of this Charity unprofitable nothing worth as the Apostle in that Chapter often tells us V. The Apostle when he set Titus over the Churches of Crete directs him in the use of his power as to this point of dealing with the Contentious Tit. 3. 10 11. A man that is an Heretick reject being self-condemned Every Schismatick is this Heretick for so the word Heresie and Heretick signifies and according to the use of it then implyed one that obstinately stood out against the Church or that lead any Sect after the strictest Sect or Heresie of the Pharisees Act 26. 5. after that which they call Heresie Act. 24. 14. a Factious company divided from the Church so they called or accounted of Christians and Gal. 5. 20. we have it reckoned among the workes of the Flesh Debates Contentions Heresie So here Heretick that leads a Faction a Sect or that wilfully followes or abets it A Man therefore that is a Heretick contentious disobedient to the Order and Authority of the Church reject for he is self-condemned having both passed the Sentence upon himself by professing against or dividing from the Church and also done execution like that of the Churches censure and excommunication upon himselfe by actuall separation or going out of the Church A fearfull condition Now the application of the Premises to the convincing
Churches as Jerusalem Antioch Rome Ephesus Corinth and this practice and succession setled before St. John the Apostle dyed All which as it clearly shewes those severall Angels of the severall Churches to whom our Saviour by Saint John did write could be no other then such Bishops having chief care of and rule in those Churches therfore more chargeable with the Corruptions prevailing in them So doth it clearly convince that plea of the Adversaries which amounts to a charging the first Bishops with Usurpation and invasion upon the right of Presbyters or particular Congregations to be a conceit altogether unreasonable for it is beyond all Imagination that Saint John would have suffered such an invasion or that those first Bishops who conversed with the Apostles and were their disciples should make such an invasion and immediately subvert the Apostolicall order pretended for the Presbyterian Consistory Or that those first Bishops being holy men and many of them Martyrs for still we finde the heathen Persecutors sought chiefly after the Bishop of the Church that the chief Pastor being smitten the flock might be more easily scattered should be so ambitious and unjust or lastly that the Presbyters then should be so tame as not once to complain of the wrong done them or to transmit their Protestation against it to Posterity To conclude this Tryal by Scripture It comes to this issue The Adversaries were bound to shew direct Authority of Scripture against Episcopal Government it being in possession established by the continued Authority of this Nationall Church and which is more by the perpetuall practice of the Catholick Church against this it was expected they should bring some places of Scripture forbidding that power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be committed to speciall hands such as Bishops properly taken or commending it to the Consistory of Presbyters or some instances at least of that power exercised by such a company Whereas all they can evince out of Scripture is that there were Presbyters strictly so taken and of the inferiour rank which being granted them we shew there was a Prelacy still over such Presbyters still there were special men that had an inspection and rule over them and when the Apostles went off the practise of the Church shewes the power was left in the hands of special men called Bishops properly So that the Government of the Church by Bishops appears as was said above conformable not onely to the Universal practise of the Church after the Apostles time but also to the Word of God i.e. to the practise and patterns we have there 1. of our Saviour appointing twelve Apostles and besides and under them seventy Disciples of a lower rank 2. of Apostolical practise by which we find the power exercised by special Elders viz. the Apostles themselves or other choice men appointed thereunto by them whereas all Elders had power of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 3. of the several Angels of the several Churches to whom the Epistles were directed Rev. c. 2. 3. which is the last instance in holy Writ to this purpose §. XV Episcopacy most agreeable to the reason of Church-government Lastly The Government of the Church by Bishops was said above to be most agreeable to the reason of Church-government for preserving Unity and excluding Schism This is very obvious in the writings of the Fathers St. Cyprian had much to do with the Novatian Schismaticks of his time which caused him to write many Epistles upon that occasion and a Book intituled De Vnitate Ecclesiae wherein he shewes the Unity of the Church as to the preventing of Schisme stands much upon this that there be one Bishop in one Church St. Hierom whom they of the Presbyterian perswasion take for their best friend because he strives to advance the Order of Presbyters as much as he can yet as he denies the power of Ordination belongs to Presbyters so he acknowledges that Bishops were appointed over Presbyters to keep out Faction and Schism that the people should not say as they did at Corinth I am of Paul I of Apollos I of this Teacher I of that And for his saying of Presbyters that they did anciently communi consilio with joint advice rule the Churches is not to be understood exclusivè to the Bishop for such a time was never known in the Church but joyntly with him as his Council so were the Presbyteri Civitatis to the Bishop and their advice was more used and there was more cause for it before the many Canons and decrees of Councils gave rule in most particulars what the Bishop should do as it was by that time S. Jerom wrote and whatever he saith for the advancing of the order of Presbyters it is but to set them above all Deacons even those that immediately attended on the Bishop and it seems carried themselves too high it is not to equal them to Bishops whose Prelacy St. Jerome acknowledged and thought it very necessary for this purpose of keeping out Schism which the Parity of Presbyters would expose it to And I would appeale to the reason of any of that perswasion whether it were not more convenient and necessary for keeping all in order to have one aged grave learned and experienced in the way of the Church to be the standing Moderator of the Classis or company of Presbyters than to change their Moderator year by year and leave the place open to every young unexperienc'd Presbyter that can make a faction to advance him unto it I have heard this inconvenience complained on by some of the new erected Classes whereas a Bishop being such a Moderator as is fixed and above all competition is more enabled to keep all ordinary Presbyters in their station and within their bounds And then again I would demand whether the Apostles who complained of Divisions as in the Church of Corinth and of false Teachers there and elswhere were not careful to provide the most reasonable Expedient in government against them It cannot be denyed and upon this score and to this very end of preserving Schism it cannot be thought otherwise but that the Apostles gave beginning to this Government throughout the Church 1. Notwithstanding those of the Classicall perswasion bear themselves much upon Mr. Blondels Collections whose pains might have been better implyed to the use of the Church upon some other Argument For in this it is impossible to drive out of Antiquity though ransaked over again any more to the purpose of the Presbyterian claim than has been already acknowledged and the weakness of it discovered viz. That it seems to be the judgement of some Fathers that the name Bishop was at first common to all Elders and that those Bishops mentioned Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. were Presbyters or Elders of the second rank But what advantage is this to the cause they would establish without proving also that the power of Ordination and Government which we appropriate to