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

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57068	The tabernacle of God with men, or, The visible church reformed a discourse of the matter and discipline of the visible church, tending to reformation / by Richard Resbury ...	Resbury, Richard, 1607-1674.	1649 (1649)	Wing R1136A; ESTC R32282	56,135	82

scandalous sinner to personall leaven malice and wickednesse v. 8.4 The same to whom he gives direction for avoiding familiar society with a scandalous brother interpreting the meaning of a former Epistle v. 9 10 11. they are to judge of those within v. 12. and put away from among themselves that wicked person v. 13. Secondly for loosing 2 Cor. 2. the same whom he had formerly made heavy v. 1 2. by rebuking in the former Epistle that from their obedience and repentance he might have much joy of them when he should come to them v. 3 4. whom in part he clears v. 5. They are the many by whom the incestuous Person was rebuked v. 6. and they are to forgive and comfort him v 7.8 The same to whom the Apostle wrote to make proof of their obedience v. 9. with whom as he formerly joyned in binding so now in loosing v. 10 they are stil the same whom formerly he had made heavy and in whom now he rejoyced cap. 7. v. 8. to the end He that can now cast such a mist as shall darken so faire and cleare a context and make us meet with the officers only in all this missing the People I shall allow him this testimony he hath profited very well in the school of darknesse Some footstep of the Peoples power here we had in the ruines of discipline by the Prelates in that the absolved Party was wont to aske the Congregation forgivenesse 3. Every brother hath a power and his duty it is to admonish first singly then jointly before a witnesse or two the case so requiring and there is waight in that admonition for gaining a brother Mat. 18.15 16. how comes it to passe that after the offence is brought to the officers there is no waight in the publick admonition and consequently censure of the whole brotherhood The end of the Censure is to shame and humble the sinner and is there no waight in the solemne judgement of any nor all the brotherhood but only of the officers for this end 4. If this judgement belong only to the officers then Christ hath so instituted this Ordinance as many times it cannot obtaine its end without the sin of the Church this is cleare thus in case the Church or brotherhood apprehend the sentence unrighteous they cannot without sin withdraw from him the Party sentenced suppose by officers proceeding as wickedly as sometimes our Prelates and their creatures were wont to do passing sentence of excommunication for refusing impious Ceremonies or the like if they shal not withdraw the end is not obtained the sentence not obeyed but to say that Christ hath so instituted this or any other Ordinance is to taxe his wisedome and holinesse Quest Suppose some few apprehend the sentence unrighteous what shall they do Answ Modestly declare their dissent and for their parts forbeare to act it 5. That the Church or brotherhood hath some share in the power of the keyes appears by her honourable relation to Christ the Elders are stewards but the Church is his wife Object That is the universall Church Ans Every particular Church or company of combined Saints hath the whole nature of the universall Church and the same relation to Christ that all the Saints together have 1 Cor. 12.27 Object Then women and children should share in the power of the keyes for they are of the Church of beleevers Answ This is a most trifling objection 1. It is granted by many who make this Objection that the brethren have right to chuse their officers who yet deny women and children any share therein 2 A power may belong to such an Order yet not to all in that Order the Lords Supper belongs to the Order of beleevers not to officers only the children of beleevers are in Church-account beleevers yet the supper belongs not to them I will adde that honour which belongs to such an Order reflects upon them in that order who are yet debarred Personal application the honour of circumcision sealing up the Jews into Gods family had reflection upon their women they were of the circumcision in opposition to the Gentiles who were the uncircumcision though they could not be circumcised it is a priviledge and honour of our Nobility in England that they make one House of Parliament and who can deny that the wives and children of Nobles are concerned in this Honour though it belongs not to them to sit in the House Let us now adde the testimonies first of the primitive and then of the reformed Churches in some of their choicest Divines 1. For the primitive times Cyprian To the Presbyters and Deacons As for that which my fellow Presbyters Donatus and Fortunatus Novatus and Gordius wrote about I could write nothing in answer forasmuch as I have determined from the beginning of my Episcopacy to do nothing of mine owne mind or by mine own sentence without your counsell and the consent of my people But when I shall come to you he was now in exile by the grace of God we will then deale about those things in common which either are done or are to be done as mutuall honour requires Epist 6. at the end The like to this in the 18. Epistle about the demand of some of the lapsed that is those who had fallen in time of Persecution desiring to be restored having for that end obtained the Confessors letters the Confessors were such as were imprisoned for the truth This thing saith he since it belongs to the counsell and sentence of us all I would not judge it beforehand neither dare I challenge to my selfe alone a common businesse When some Presbyters had over-hastily received some of the lapsed to the Lords Supper He tels them they must make account to plead their cause before himselfe the rest of the Ministers the Confessors and the whole People Epist 10. When he yet in exile was consulted with by letters by his Presbyters about certaine who had fallen and were now returned desirous to be received againe of the Church he answers I cannot be judge alone in this case many of the ministers are absent and this case requires exact handling not only with my fellow ministers but with the whole People for the thing is to be weighed with well-poised moderation and so to be sentenced as may for after times settle an example about the ministers of the Church Epist 28. The ministery of Rome to Cyprian there being at this time no Bishop at Rome In this great businesse it seemed good to us which thou also hast formerly handled that the Peace of the Church be upheld furthermore so conference of counsels being had with the Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and in like manner with the standing People to handle the cause of the lapsed Epist 31. Cyprian to the People concerning Felicissimus and the five Presbyters of his faction By the Providence of God they undergo the punishment they have deserved that not being cast out by us they should cast

answers all cavils started to obscure his doctrine touching the equality of Bishops and Presbyters by divine institution and whereas in the close of all he seems to parallel the Bishop and his Presbyters with Moses and his seventy Judges that this in parallel is according to the custome of the Church not according to scripture rule is evident by the words immediatly foregoing CHAP. IX WE returne now to his Epistle to Evagrius and come to the instance of the Church at Alexandria further confirming the equality of Presbyters and Bishops when he had said as formerly we quoted in prevention of an objection but that afterwards one was chosen who should be set before the rest it was done for the remedy of schisme least every one drawing the Church of Christ to himselfe should break it in pieces he addes for at Alexandria also from Mark the Evangelist untill the time of Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwayes named one the Bishop who was chosen out of themselves and placed in an higher degree as if an Army should make a Generall or the Deacons should from among themselves chuse one whom they knew industrious and call him Arch-Deacon For what doth a Bishop Ordination excepted that a Presbyter may not do The summe of these words is as at Ephesus and Philippi in the Apostles time the Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same so after their time till about two hundred and sixty years more or lesse after Christ they remained equall in office at Alexandria what change soever was made sooner in some other Churches occasioned by schismes amongst them only for more orderly Proceeding one of the Presbyters was chosen by the rest to be in degree above the rest but not in office or distinct Power as having no peculiar Ordination and this man they called the Bishop that this is the true meaning of the words it appears upon distinct consideration of them here we must remember that his Prevention of the Objection follows immediately his Scripture testimonie and the instance of Alexandria immediately follows that Prevention 1. The Conjunction also or and joyns this example of Alexandria to the former of Ephesus and Philippi For at Alexandria also 2. He makes a difference betwixt Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops and those before them from Mark the Evangelist whom they called Bishops 3. He shews what the difference was that whereas Heraclas and Dionysius were by peculiar Ordination made Bishops as in office and Power above Presbyters as the like custome had obtained earlier in other Churches as appears in Cyprians Epistles they that were before were only chosen by the Presbyters placed in an higher degree and called Bishops but had no peculiar Ordination and therefore no peculiar office That they had no peculiar Ordination is manifest 1. By the Persons by whom they were set in an higher degree they were only the other Presbyters But 1. Presbyters alone say the advocates of Episcopacy may not ordaine a Presbyter much lesse a Bishop 2. If they might ordaine a Bishop much more might they ordaine a Presbyter and then what place for the office of a Bishop in the Church above the Presbyter Ordination being one maine peculiar challenged to the Bishop Had it then been peculiar Ordination that had advanced these above the rest and so invested them with a peculiar office it must have been Bishops not Presbyters by whose hands they were lifted up 2. By the explication subjoyned in two comparisons 1. As if an Army should make a Generall Here the Army chusing the Generall answers to the Presbyters chusing the Bishop so called As Jerome speaks He that is Generall only upon those termes hath no peculiar Commission it belongs to the Prince or State to give that neither had he that was Bishop any peculiar Ordination according to the mind of this comparison which the next comparison holds forth more clearly suppose the Deacons should agree among themselves to chuse out one whom they would call Arch-Deacon here neither is nor could be any peculiar Office or Ordination conferred upon this Arch-Deacon Hence Jerome concludes having no distinct Ordination they had no distinct Power or Office and that is the true meaning of those words for what doth a Bishop Ordination excepted that a Presbyter may not do This is usually otherwise interpreted viz. that a Presbyter may do all that a Bishop may do only the act of Ordination excepted he may not ordain And 1. they that are for the divine right of Episcopacy will have the exception to be by divine institution but this is clearely to interpret this clause contrary to Ieroms whole discourse both the Scope and Arguments of it 2 Pleading the equality of Bishops and Presbyters or their identity rather instanced in Imposition of hands by the Presbytery 3. This interpretation overthrows his discourse in this very instance of the Church of Alexandria whence it is inferred as we have seen by the naturall explication of this discourse But 2. they that are against Episcopacy understand Ierome to speak of the Practice of the Church in his time as if he should say there was no difference formerly now there is only this and that not by divine institution but by the custome of the Church A Bishop ordains which a Presbyter may not do This interpretation may stand with his former discourse and with the truth and this passing there is nothing for Episcopacy by divine right therefore to grant this looseth nothing of the cause in hand but the truly naturall interpretation following upon the former discourse which hath concluded what is here inferred seems to be that formerly given Ordinarion excepted signifying without Ordination conferred Ordination here passively not actively taken Summe up the discourse in this instance of Alexandria Every distinct Church officer hath a distinct Ordination but these Bishops so called in the Church of Alexandria till Heraclas and Dionysius had no distinct Ordination from that of Presbyters therefore they were no distinct Church-officers from them Hence we have light discovering the truth against the three Pretences from antiquity pleading the divine right of Episcopacy 1. It is alledged that such and such Apostles and Evangelists were ordained Bishops of such and such Churches among the rest Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria that they ordained their Successors and so Episcopacy hath run downe in a constant course from the Apostles times Answ 1. This story overthrows it selfe as is observed by the learned 1. What place is there for ordaining Apostles and Evangelists Bishops over such and such Churches who as Apostles and Evangelists had already in every Church what power soever a Bishop can claime in any Church to which he is ordained 2. Ordination is from the lesse to the greater if an Apostle or Evangelist first be afterwards ordained a Bishop then is the office of an Apostle or Evangelist inferiour to that of a Bishop Answ 2. That there was no such Succession of Bishops ordaining Bishops