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	order_n	1,432	5	5.7981	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47432	An answer to the considerations which obliged Peter Manby, late Dean of London-Derry in Ireland, as he pretends, to embrace what he calls, the Catholick religion by William King ...	King, William, 1650-1729.	1687 (1687)	Wing K523; ESTC R966	76,003	113

inclinations did comply in earnest what an idle Question is it to ask By what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Order When she concurred in all he did and approved nay made all the Alterations in her Liturgy Sacraments and Constitutions that were made The true Question therefore is Whether the Church of England had full power to Reform her self without the consent of the Pope For it is into his Supremacy all this Banter of Mission and indeed the whole Faith of the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholick is resolved If the Church of England was not subject to the Church of Rome she had sufficient power to Reform her self and the only thing for which she is accountable to God the World and her Subjects is the Goodnes● of the Reformation If that was a good work Cranmer did well in advising and she in decreeing it but if the Errors removed by the Reformation were not real but only pretended as Mr. M. would perswade us but will never be able to prove Cranmer indeed was answerable for giving her ill Councel but she her self is accountable for the removal of them for it was Her Act. 'T was by Her Authority and Mission though Mr. M. cannot tell it Page 2. that Anno 154● the word Sacrament in the sence which the Church then gave of it was restrained to Baptism and the Lords Supper and sure the Church of England had Authority enough to explain her meaning by what words she thought fit Let him shew if he can that there were more Sacraments as she understands the word Sacrament ever owned in the Catholick Church than those two allowed by her Lastly to shew that it was not Cranmer's private Opinion influenced the Church 't is observable first that he had several private Opinions two whereof Mr. M. lays to his charge in his Preface which were absolutely condemned by the Church and the contrary established as her Doctrine which he himself signed 2ly That the Bishops and Clergy of England had unanimously entred upon the Business of the Reformation in the time of Cranmer's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Warham Anno 1531. by the Submission of the Clergy to the King and acknowledging his Supremacy and again Anno 1533 by consenting to an Act against Appeals to Rome wherein the Nation was declared to be an entire Body within it self with full Power to do Justice in all Causes Spiritual as well as Temporal And this before Cranmer was Arch-Bishop so far was he from condemning or imposing on the Church from whence he had his Mission § 8. The fourth set of Questions concerning Mission is on this head whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by vertue of s●ch Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church or Preach against her Sacraments or Liturgy notwithstanding her Censures His design in this Question is to shew that the first Reformers had no more Authority to Preach against the Romish Church then such a Presbyter has to Preach against our Church I cannot understand how a man can forsake the Church of England and Preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Mission nor consequently how any Man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by vertue of his Popish Mission pag. 2. Why may not a Presbyterian having the same Authority of Scripture which Cranmer pretended to Preach against the Superstition of the Common Prayer as well as he against the Idolatry of the Mass pag. 6. and more to the same purpose pag. 12. In Answer to this I will shew first why a Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof he is a Member in contradiction to her Censures And secondly that this was not the first Reformers Case 1. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church of which they are Members Because there is a Regular way in which they may endeavour a Reformation If they find any thing amiss in her Discipline or Doctrine they may make their Application for redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being Subjects to usu●p their Governors Power For this is the case of private mens reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King a remedy generally worse than the disease However in both Cases private men may sue for Redress and in their proper Stations endeavour it But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be Censured and Suspended he is thereby discharged from the Execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it then one must make a Rebellion in the State to re-gain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects amongst us that either have no Ordination or Appointment to their Offices from the Church of England and Ireland or else abuse the Power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against M. M. and his Party who without any Mission from these Churches do according to their private sence take a Commission from a Foreign Bishop and Church to Preach against the declared Doctrine of that Church to which by the Law of Christ they are Subjects Them we count those Rebels who when censured and condemned by their own Churches and Governors against all the known Laws of our Church flee from her Tribunal and appeal to Foreigners And what Rebels or Hereticks will ever be convicted p. 4. if they may chuse their own Judges as those do We do not deny the Orders of the Church of Rome we own that she can make Priests Bishops but let Mr. M. shew that the Pope could ever give them Power to exercise their Office in these Kingdoms since it is directly against the ancient Laws and Practice observed and enacted by our Ancestors and in force at the Reformation If a man like not the Orders therefore of his own Church he must be without Orders except he would be a Schismatick and Deserter as Mr. M. has made himself And this is sufficient to shew that the Case of the first Reformers was vastly different from the Case of the present Dissenters which is the second thing I am to prove The whole strength of Mr. M's Paper doth really depend on this Parallel and whoever reads it will find that the only considerable Argument he produce is that the first Reformers Mission could not be good because the Presbyterians have as much to say for Theirs And that he can find no difference between these two only that the first Reformers were Authorized by Act of Parliament I have heard it given as the Character of wit that it finds out the likeness of things whereas it is the work of Judgment to find out the differences Now Mr. M. having whatever his Judgment may be a great

as Roman but Christian Bishops their Orders are Christian Orders and those we hold sufficient to all intents and purposes of the Reformation and must do so till Mr. M. or some body else prove them insufficient He objects pag. 2. That the first Reformers were Ordained Roman Catholick Bishops and made themselves Protestants which proceeds on an ignorant supposition that every man is ordained to preach the Tenents of his Ordainers or else must have no Mission whereas the Ordainers are only Instruments but the Power is from Christ and they are no more accountable to their Ordainers upon the account of being Ordained by them then a man is accountable to a Lord Chancellor for the use of his Power because he set the Seal to his Patent by which he claims his Power In short a man is Ordained neither a Protestant nor a Papist but a Christian Bishop his Mission is a Christian Mission let him be sent by whom he will and whoever gave him his Mission if he teach any Doctrine but Christs he is accursed Hence when the Donatists were very earnest to know the Ordainers of St. Augustine and other Catholick Bishops they answer We are not satisfied how the cause of Truth is concerned who was the Ordainer of any one since God is shewn to be our Father And when they press still to know the Ordainers St. Augustine answers I see they insist on trifles 'T was on this Principle that Baptism and Ordination by Hereticks were allowed in the Catholick Church to such as came ever from those Hereticks even because they were Baptized Christian Proselytes and Ordained Christian Bishops and they were never thought to go beyond their Mission because they renounced the Errors of their Ordainers If it be replied that Hereticks making themselves of Hereticks Catholick Bishops change for the better but Papists making themselves Protestant Bishops change for the worse I answer this quits the Plea of Mission and brings the Mission to the trial of the Doctrine If then Cranmer and the rest of the Roman Catholick Bishops made themselves only truly Catholicks they made themselves nothing but what Christ had obliged them to in their Consecration He is the Father of Truth the Children of Truth are owned by him as honestly begotten and no By-blows as Mr. M. would insinuate p. 2. in which he has exactly transcribed not only the Argument of the Donatist Petilian against the Catholicks but his very words The true Question is therefore whether Cranmer and the first Reformers embraced and vindicated the Truth in their Changes and let him joyn issue on this Point when he pleases we are ready to answer him § 6. To his second Question Who authorized the first Reformers to Teach their Protestant Doctrine and Administer their Protestant Sacraments I Answer No body but himself would have asked such a foolish Question since the Protestants pretend to no Doctrine or Sacraments peculiar to themselves or that may be called Theirs but only to the Doctrine Sacraments of Christ received in the Catholick Church If the Protestants were guilty of any fault it was not making new Doctrines or Sacraments but rejecting those that some counted old and so their Crime was not the wanting Mission or Authority to do what they did but not using their Authority to its full extent to do and teach more If they had power given them to Administer seven Sacraments and administred only two as Mr. M. says then it is a foolish thing to doubt their Authority to Minister those two whereas they are rather accountable for their not Holding and Administring the other five but the truth is they received in their Ordination power from Christ to administer neither Protestant nor Popish but Christian Sacraments and Mr. M. neither has nor can make it appear that they Administer any other or omit any that Christ has commanded He is aware of this Answer in his fifth Page and gives a reply to it I pray saith he the Reader to remember that this was the very Answer of Luther Socinus Zuinglius Calvin and most other Reformers Let me pray the Reader to observe that this is nothing to the purpose if it were true since we are not to believe every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God. The false Prophets pretended to Revelation as well as the true was neither therefore to be believed the false Reformers as well as the true pretended to preach no new Doctrine or administer new Sacraments but only the Doctrine and Sacraments of Jesus Christ Are neither therefore in the right May not a good Answer be abused and misapplyed To clear therefore this matter we own what he contends for that both true Doctrine and external and lawful Mission are generally necessary to a regular preacher of the Gospel pag. 5. and if either of these are wanting the person is not to be received Which appears in the Prophets he mentions from Jer. 23. ibid. who wanted not an external Mission whatever Mr. M. imagines for the Prophets are the Pastors of the people against whom God pronounces a Woe verse 1. and 2. of that Chapter they are joyned with the Priests verse the 11. and 34. and their fault was not preaching without any Mission at all but preaching false Doctrine for which no man can have a Mission but even the Pope himself when he doth so is to be rejected as a Seducer If these very Prophets whom Mr. M. imagines to have had no Mission had taught true Doctrine God would have approved them verse 22. But if they had stood in my Councel and caused my people to hear my words then they should have turned them from their evil ways that is God would have given them success and when God says verse 32. I sent them not nor commanded them it doth not relate to preaching for God had commanded the Priests and Prophets to preach but it relates to the causing my people to err by their Lyes and Lightness which is a good Argument against those that seduce the people with Legends and Lyes and Revelations and false Miracles and Doctrines of Profit and Gain whatever their Mission be Now these two things being necessary to a true Teacher we affirm that the first Reformers in England had both not only the Licence and Approbation of the Church as he states it pag. 15. but her Ordination Appointment also according to the known rules of constituting Pastors which some other Reformers do not pretend to and therefore all the Question is concerning the other Character of a true Pastor preaching true Doctrine If the first Reformers had preached Popish Doctrine and administred Popish Sacraments I do not find but Mr. M. would have thought they had Mission enough but I Answer that was not Christs design in appointing Bishops but his design was that they should administer his Sacraments and teach his Doctrine This all Bishops are impowered and obliged to do and therefore till he