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	council_n	rome_n	4,497	5	7.4489	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85313	Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater power, and more eminent offices by divine right, then presbyterie. The arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his determination for such episcopacy are modestly examined. And arguments for the validity of presbyterial ordination added. With a brief discourse concerning imposed forms of prayer, and ceremonies. Written by G.F. minister of the gospel in defence of his own ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by Presbyters.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1660 (1660)	Wing F961; Thomason E1045_17; ESTC R208016	42,577	55

Church Are the Keyes given to Pastors to turn them but one way Ridiculous 5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted excepta Ordinatione c. It seems Jurisdiction was not excepted when they had engrossed Ordination Presbyters had that power and at first the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters thus he Tit. 1. 6. The Priests had that power not only to discern between Lepers and Lepers but as they could judge they could separate them from the Camp of Israel which did shadow out our excommunication 7. It seems very strange that when a Pastor who hath taught it may be baptized a person and now fallen into sin the Church and he have dealt with that person according to rule that now the Church must go to a Bishop to excommunicate this person to whom yet he never bare relation How came this Bishop to have power over this Church which he never saw it may be But let Dr. Fulks speak It is manifest that the Authority of binding and loosing committing and retaining pertaineth generally to all the Apostles alike and to every Pastor in his Cure Answ to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2. Bishop Jewel Reply p. 178. quotes Basil speaking thus Christ appointed Peter to be the Pastor of the Church after him and so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastots and Doctors A Token whereof is this that all Pastors do equally both bind and loose as well as he So Basil 8. In such Cities as Ephesus c. where the Church was one and divers Elders in common governed that Church let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronounce the sentence of excommunication I deny it not For his Proofs because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 So Tit. 1.11 Mouths must be stopped But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do who govern the Church in common that stopping may be meant partly if not chiefly there by Argument convince gainsayers v. 9. I must confess I cannot see the Logick of this Argument though it doth prove Jurisdiction does it prove Presbyters have not the power I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19 But because he doth not I let it alone His next is the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel c. 1. Answ Does this exclude the other Presbyters What mean those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. But to you I say If the King writes to the Speaker and reproves somthing amiss or complains somthing is not done does it lay the blame on him only and not on the Members of the House as well 2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which themselves had deserved excommunication who should have cast them out Are they Lords Paramount above all Christs Laws in his Church I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Churches obeying their Presbyters might have cast these Angels out or no way that I know of The Scriptures know no Archbishops though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun Let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters excommunicate a Presbyter the Church consenting Thus far the Dr. goeth and then undertakes to answer our Arguments but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before and I am loath to exceed in this discourse I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection where he tels us the necessity of Bishops in these respects 1. To ordain Ministers lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well Answ Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England than 24 Bishops of whom how few now were left Had the succession of Ministers depended upon them in what a sad case had the Church been 2. For the Governing of Presbyters lest by their impure manners heresies and schismes they should destroy the Church And are not Bishops equally liable to these Answ How shall the Church now be saved May we not read with our eyes in Histories and hear with our ears what Bishops have been Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament though some were wronged I know and do as much detest their ejectment to return again not one whit purged that we can fee 2. For Heresie and schism 1. We know what Bellarmine saith Certe Heresiarchae ferè omnes aut Episcopi aut Presbyteri fuerunt and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people saith he so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresie and causing schism as the Presbyters Hence he will have a Pope but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know much less Heresie 2. As for Heresie and Schism both name any National Church under Heaven more free from them than the Church of Scotland before these troubles began and yet there Bishops are not approved of 3. For Schism read but the life of Constantine and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism and the Concil Tolata 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops 4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them because Rome gave the cause I leave the Reader to enquire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in England 5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth when Schism was there both in his time and Clemens his time but Clemens mentions none Jerom saith indeed that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards I write not his known word posted But it is much that these ends of a Bishop which are so great for the good of the Church and it seems can be performed by none but him should not be foreseen by Christ at first and so this Bishop at first appointed but the ordinary main Stud of Christs House should be forgot to be set up till many years after the House was up Sure this means was none of his and so it proves 6. How can the Bishop be a fit means to cure Schism or prevent it I know no way but this that Presbyters must resign all their judgments up to his Chair and he infallibly determine which is right or wrong and so all must yield to his sentence This were brave indeed 7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand and his power from assisting Bishops let us now see how the Bishops will shew forth that wonderful vertue of Episcopacy in healing our Schisms I doubt our King who is as Constantine said of himself the Bishop extra

est Timotheum Titum Jacobum multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis c. yet adds in the conclusion quasi affixos Well then certum est but how I pray certitudine fidei divinae else 't is not certain to us in this controversie I regard not mens words without Scripture but what mean these words quasi affixos this quasi spoils the certainty for if but quasi affixi they were but quasi Episcopi as I could soon prove from the Scriptures and the Canons of Councils I wonder the Dr. should say that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and that propriè dictus I see Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reason why James spake next to Peter because James was Bishop of Jerusalem where the Council was held But 1. He was an Apostle one of the Pillars Gal. 2.9 whose sentence in this question swayed the Synod but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome because he was an Apostle and so not fixed 2. If James were a Bishop why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15 For in v. 4 6 23. we have mention made of Apostles and Presbyters but not a word of a Bishop this is very far from this certainty 'T is certain indeed he was no Bishop As for Timothy and Titus there hath been a huge stir about these I have heard that Mr. Prin hath written a Treatise which he cals the unbishopping of Timothy and Titus and that so strongly that as none yet ever went about to answer him so none can I could never see the Book but refer the Reader to him I shall be the briefer I see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus because he said 1 Tim. 1.3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopprick And Titus because he said Chap. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions Could not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others or if not with others Ministers and Titus left at Crete to do the same but it must follow necessarily Ergo they were constitued fixed Bishops of those places But the Fathers say they were Bishops that 's a proof not sufficient to make jus divinum The Papists and Dr. Hammond say they were Archbishops both alike for truth Do the Fathers speak properly when they say so It was the saying of a great Bishop that Histories are not curious in calling men by their Ti●les Sure I am that Paul gives him another title of which presently If the Fathers did so might they not be deceived with the subscriptions of the Epistles which this Learned Dr. meddles not with knowing they were not Canonical Name I pray the most ancient Fathers and tell us if they call these so in your sense Sure I am that Ignatius cals Timothy a Deacon and joynes Linus with him Epist ad Tral p. 71. But what if the Fathers call them so if I find strong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers if a hundred Fathers say they were ordinary Bishops I regard them not Searching the Scriptures we find for Timothy that 1. He is often joyned with Paul in the Inscription of his Epistles as Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 1. Thes 1. 2 Thes 1. Philem. 1. 2. We find him journeying with Paul and sent up and down by Paul 3. He is bidden to do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken largely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used but thrice in the New Testament is never taken but for a peculiar Officer He was one of those Paul mentions Eph. 4.11 To confine the word Evangelists to those who wrote the Gospels is absurd Matthew and John I hope were Apostles and Philip was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 yet wrote no Gospel If he were no Evangelist but bidden to do the work of one this is strange an inferiour order do the work of a superiour However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well though they be of an inferiour Order But if Timothy must do the work of an Evangelist he must not fixe at Ephesus No more fixed at Crete was Titus though for a time left at Crete In 2. Cor. 8.23 Paul cals him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words sutable to an Evangelist sent up and down by Paul as we may observe in the Epistles and journeying with Paul After he was at Crete Paul sends to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 which was six hundred miles distant from Crete as Bunting saith p. 566. How long he stayed with him or whither he went next I find not But towards the end of Pauls life 2 Tim. 4.10 11. he was at Rome with Paul and by Paul sent to preach in Dalmatia saith Lapide How these things sute with a Bishop in our sense I know not Hence Junius Zanchy Polanus Beza Calvin Diodati and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangelist As for Evangelists Ensebius will give us some light to understand them Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 37. He speaks of divers then who obtained the first step of Apostolical succession and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal men builded the Churches every where planted by the Apostles c. Taking their journey fulfilled the work and office of Evangelists that is they preached Christ unto them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith These men having planted the Faith in sundry new and strange places ordained there other Pastors committing unto them the tillage of the new ground passing themselves unto other people and Countries being holpen thereunto by the Grace of God which wrought with them for as yet by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously so that innumerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Almighty c. Thus Eusebius If this description of Evangelists sute any doth it not Timothy and Titus who were indeed divine Disciples of Paul a principal man sent up and down by him and if these wrought miraculously must it be denied of Timothy and Titus as for the gift of Tongues that was also needful for men travelling and preaching in so many several Countreys I find some forced to yield they were Evangelists at first but afterwards were made Bishops of these places 1. Was the being made a Bishop a degree above an Evangelist Answ was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer then some truth may be in this I find Concil Sard. Can. 13. that the Bishop must ascend

Acts 14.23 that now a single Bishop can ordain alone The Dr. forgat himself much but this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction he had need to prove to reside as he saith in illis solis else he hath lost his cause But see how much authority he opposeth what woful mischief might this soon produce to the Church 5. It may as strongly be gathered that to preach in season and out of season as do all Bishops to meditate to read to oppose hereticks c do only belong to Bishops because these Commands are given the first I am sure only to Timothy as to gather because Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act that therefore Presbyters must not impose hands Why this proper to him above all the rest 6. Consider I pray that which is added 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins whether it may not infer the contrary thus Timothy though other Ministers may be rash and not consider what they do in Ordination but would ordain unfit unworthy persons yet do not thou lay on hanas suddenly do not thou partake of their sins in rash Ordinations joyning with them A man may partake of the sins of Ordainers as well as of the Ordained I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith nor to the Context if that sense be given Why saith the Dr. Could not the Ministers of Ephesus ordain before Timothy arrived or of Crete before Titus came thither I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the first time of his preaching there Answ and having laid the Foundations of Churches as Jerom saith left Titus there ut rudimenta nascentis Ecclesiae confirmaret ipse pergens ad alias Nationes c. But however 1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question 2. There being abundance of enemies and errours spread about as we see it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 These men being so able and qualified above others might very well there be lest for a time as to oppose the heresies and errours so to look to the Ministry that none but sound and able men came into it but because these being Evangelists were far more able does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them 3. Remember that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles Presbyter and Bishop signifie the same degree and the same office Had not the Churches been in danger Timothy had not need been there so this denies not their power The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority 1. From that Saying of Jerome Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat Answ Jerom speaks de facto the Bishops had engrossed this power but he does not say de jure it ought to be so for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same 2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom saith Bish Downam that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery And in the year 398 about which time Chrysostom flourished that fourth Council of Carthage which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination was held However this is but humane 2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria who ordained Presbyters but their Ordination was made void and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture Answ and yet there is somthing more to be said about this For 1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Augustine and others One of his Opinions Augustin mentions but what more he held I know not 2. He was a man infamis ambitione say the Historians and would make himself a Bishop as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates whence they call him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum whence the general Council commanded ut se pro Presbytero haberat qualis antea fuisset 3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus ordained alone there are none mentioned that joyned with him 4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus and about whom there was so much trouble was not chosen of a Church for so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 570. Now for a Heretick alone ambitiously making himself a Bishop to ordain a person not elected by a Church is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church The Dr. before he hath done does allow this which is so proper to Bishops to be common to Presbyters in some cases then it seems the power may be ours and whether our case be not as weighty I will consider anon The Third and last is The power of Jurisdiction over both Laick● and Presbyters and instanceth in Excommunication He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example he might have added the 23 Canon Concil Carthag 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita but for the censure this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication nor are Judges in it so he saith 2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters For the first Presbyters have the power of Excommunication 1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers Heb. 13.17 and the people commanded to obey them they must feed the flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.1 So 1 Thes 5.12 They are over them in the Lord. 2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out yet they had the power of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.7 12 13. purge judge put away Had they done it before Paul would not have written so sharply 3. Those who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Jurisdiction but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes not denied by the Papists Sent. l. 4. dis 18. S. 14. but affirmed insomuch that Estius moves this Question Vtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommunicandi and tels us some were of that opinion Now by soli● Estius does not mean whether they alone without a Bishop For the question he is about is this Penes quos sit excommunicandi potestas and his scope is to prove that others besides Priests have the power but for the Priests that is taken for granted that they had the power and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5 13. And Augustine l. 3. contra Epist Parmen c. 2. Aquinas he also tels us Supplem q. 22. ● 1. that some were of that opinion that the Parochial Priests might excommunicate but thinks his own opinion to be more rational that the Bishop should do it had his distinction a foundation in Scripture 4. Those that have power to take into the Church have power to cast out of the