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	time_n	3,239	5	3.7702	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93888	An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.; J. T.; Turner, Samuel, D.D.	1647 (1647)	Wing S5516; Thomason E385_4; ESTC R201455	34,185	56

it And hence t is plaine that though we should yeeld that the Apostles only did institute Bishops yet in this Revel. Christ himselfe immediately in his own person and the holy Spirit withall did both approve and confirme them And the Learned observe that the Bishops of those Sees are therefore called Angels by S. Iohn who was born a Jew because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because the Bishops were those Churches Chiefes this truth appeares not only from those cleare Texts but from the mutuall consent and pactise for more then 1500. yeares space of all the Christian Church So that neither S. Hierome nor any other Ancient did ever hold orders to be lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in this last Century which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the authority of the Text it selfe But as t is a Maxime in Humane Lawes Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres Custome and Practice is the best Interpreter So no rationall man but will easily yeeld it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly aske What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts then that very same meanes whereby I know the Text it selfe to be Text Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles and if I therefore beleeve them to be written by that Apostle because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that beliefe and there 's no other rationall way of beleeving it why doe I not beleeve the same Christian sense which the universal consent assures me they were written in Shall I beleeve and yet disbeleeve that selfe-same consent which is the best ground of my beliefe This is as it were in cleare terms to say that I beleeve such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet I doe now hold the selfe-same man to be a lyar Men doe beleeve the testimony of universall consent in the sense it gives of single termes and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions without the help of this Consent which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute your error as by the authority of your consent Admit then of that Rule that consent universall is the best interpretation of Texts and then I am sure it is as cleare as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolicall Right yea and that proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearely appeare to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and Antiquity allowed of it Extra casum necessitatis For I aske upon what Text doe they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours words to the Eleven Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations and baptize them But in the institution of the Eucharist He spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drinke yee all of this Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spake those words unto the Eleven he spake them only as to lawfull Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they will say that the generall practise of receiving the Cup is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I thinke so too where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament But if a quarreler should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone whereof many were at that time at Corinth As when in the 5. Chap. he seemes to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person yet t is plain he meanes none but the men in government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appeare out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never tooke the words in that sense And if to stop the mouthes of wranglers we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of Universall consent and the Common practise of Christs Church then you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottome There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the consent and practise of the Universall Church hath still interpreted that Text And againe t is true There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for 1500. yeares together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ T is true that this precept Go ye teach c. runnes not in exclusive words yee Apostles or yee lawfull Ministers and none but yee yet extra casum necessitatis no man was allowed to baptise but a lawfull Minister so though these commands Lay hands suddenly on no man and Do thou ordaine Elders in every City runne not in verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclvsive sense no man for 1500 yeares in any setled Church was held rightly ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopall Order will appeare clearely by this that immediately from the times of Christ his Apostles yea within the reach of those times t was universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches so that no man can name a Nationthat was once wonne unto the Christian Faith but he shall soon find that there were Bishops so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause for an Effect that was so Universall Generall Councell there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might have thence obeyed her directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit for they were soone fallen into Factions but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountaine I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before S. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees as at

3. 8. A man any man though an Ammonite or a meere Philistine no Pagan that must be the sense will doe it to his God which you Jewes doe to me for the Law written in his heart and he can goe by no other that law controlls this offence and so plainly tells him that because his God may be robb'd he may therefore have a Propriety And if Sacriledge be a sin against the Law Morall it will follow that what wee read in the Old Testament against that sinne must be as morall and that whereby we Christians are as much obliged as by what we read against theft or against adultery save onely in those passages which are particularly proper unto the policie of the Jews and we may let them goe for Judiciall These Assertions being premised I returne to the Epistler who conceives it to be no sacriledge to take away the Church Lands Nor do I saith he herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practise of former times not onely by acts of Parliament in the times of Queen Elizabeth King James and so King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house as well as H. 8. but even by the Bishops themselves c. He will not ground his opinion upon the practise and indeed he hath little reason for it For if from a frequent practise of sinne we might conclude it were no sinne we might take our leaves of the Decalogue and as our new Masters do put it out of our Directory because our intent is to sinne it downe and therefore I shall say no more of such Lawes of Hen. 8. then I would of Davids adultery a that t is no ground at all to make men bold with their neighbours Wives Queene Elizabeth made a Law so you have told me Sir for I do speake nothing in this kind but from you that Bishops might not alienate their Mannors Castles c. but only to the Crowne but if she sometimes tooke order that Church men should not be Bishops untill they had first made such alienations as I have heard you say they did I know not how to defend it but must withall tell you that if Princes or Subjects resolve to sell the Church preferments t is great odds but that in a Clergy consisting of above 16000. Persons they shall not want Chapmen for them For King James I must highly commend that most Christian Prince who you say amongst his first Lawes tooke away that of Queen Elizabeth not can I well tell why this Epistler here doth quote that King for his purpose unlesse it were only for the alienation of York House but I must informe him that that Act was lawfull because 't was for the advantage of the Archiepiscopall See there being cleare Text for it That the Levits themselves might change what was theirs by a Divine Law so they gained by the permutation and this answer will serve for what King Charles did about Durham House But he thinks it an Argument That even by Bishops themselves Deanes and Chapters c. such things were done Alienations made and long Leases granted True Sir for those Clergymen were but men and their sinnes can at all no more abrogate Gods Law then can the sinnes of the Laity yet I could name you Church-men of great note who totally refused to be preferred by that Queene to any Bishopricke at all because they would by no meanes submit their conscience unto the base acts of such Alienations and one of them was Bishop Andrews I could tell you too that those long Leases he speakes of might have one cause more then the Marriage of the Clergy for when they saw men so sharply set upon the inheritance of the Church when they saw a Stoole of wickednesse set up of sacrilegious wickednes that imagined mischiefe by a Law some not the worst of men thought it fit to make those long Leases that the estate of the Church might appeare the more poore and so lesse subject unto Harpies and then their hope was at the length at least after many yeares spent it might returne whole unto their successours He goes on But to deale clearely with you Doctor I do not understand how there can be any sacriledge properly so called which is not a theft and more viz. a theft of some thing dedicated to holy use a Co●●munion Cup for instance or the like and th●se you know must be of things moveable 〈…〉 civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or 〈…〉 by alienating Church Lands I pray aske your friend Holborne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question It seemes Sir they are very merry at London or at least this Epistler thinks so for being winners he might perhaps conceive they make themselves pleasant at a Feather And that this Argument is as light a thing appeares before from my third Assertion for can any man thinke in earnest that t is Sacriledge and so a sinne to take a Cup from the Church and t is none to take away a Mannour as if Ahab had been indeed a thiefe had he rob'd Naboth of his Grapes but Eliah was too harsh to that good King because he only tooke away his Vineyard Indeed there is such a nicety in the Civill Law that actio furti lyes only against him who has stolne Rem mobilem for Justinian it seemes in the composition of his Digests which he tooke from the writings of the old Jurisprudentes thought it fit to follow Ulpians judgement and yet Sabinus in his booke De Furtis a man of note amongst those men was known to be of another opinion Non tantum sayes he rerum moventium sed fundi quoque et aedium fieri furtum a theft properly so call'd may be of things immoveable I would gladly know of the Epistler whether he thinks all men both Divines and others bound to frame all the phrases of their speech according to the criticismes of the Civill Law as it s now put out by Justinian If not why may not some use the word furtum in Sabinus his sense as well as others may in Ulpians and then sacriledge may be properly called a theft and as properly in immoveables or if we will needs speake according to his sense whom Justinian hath approved I do not well see how men can spoile the Church of her Lands and at the Civil Law escape an action of theft for it lyeth against him that takes the trees the fruits and the stones and I am confident there is no Church-robber but he intends to make use of these kinds of moveables otherwise what good wil the Church-land do him And if he does make this use a thiefe he is in the Civill Law phrase then in the very sense of this Epistler himself he is without doubt a sacrilegious person but where I wonder did that Londoner learne that Furtum strictè sumptum was the genus of sacriledge so that where there