Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	governor_n	supreme_a	3,829	5	8.9454	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45129	The healing attempt being a representation of the government of the Church of England, according to the judgment of her bishops unto the end of Q. Elizabeths reign, humbly tendred to the consideration of the thirty commissionated for a consult about ecclesiastical affairs in order to a comprehension, and published in hopes of such a moderation of episcopacy, that the power be kept within the line of our first reformers, and the excercise of it reduced to the model of Arch-Bishop Usher.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1689 (1689)	Wing H3679; ESTC R20326	63,242	94

perfect kind of Government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ which no doubt should have been done if it had been a matter necessary to the Salvation of the Church Secondly Because the Essential Notes of the Church be these only The true Preaching of the Word and the right Administration of Sacraments So that notwithstanding Government or some kind of Government may be a part of the Church touching the outward Form and Perfection of it yet it is not such a part of the Essence and Being but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of Government and therefore the kind of the Government is not necessary unto Salvation There is no certain kind of Government or Discipline prescribed to the Churches but that the same may be altered as the Profit of the Churches requires and out of Gualters he saith Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the People with whom it abideth and which seemeth to be most fit for the place and time and let no man here rashly prescribe unto others neither let him bind all Churches to one and the same Form. I do deny that the Scriptures do set down any one certain Form and kind of Government of the Church to be Perpetual for all Times Persons and Places without Alteration It is well known Tract 17. Chap. 2. Divis 29. that the manner and form of Government used in the Apostles time and expressed in the Scriptures neither is now nor can or ought to be observed either touching the Persons How then can the Government of the Church by Bîshops Archbishops c. be Apostolical or the Functions We see manifestly that in sundry points the Government of the Church used in the Apostles times is and hath been of necessity altered and that it neither may nor can be revoked whereby 't is plain that any one kind of External Government perpetually to be observed is no where in the Scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof is left to the Magistrate so that nothing be done contrary to the Word of God. This is the Opinion of the best Writers This was it's like Universally received by all the English Clergy in Whitgifts time Neither do I know saith the Archbishop any Learned Man of a contrary Judgment Either we must admit another Form now of Governing the Church than was in the Apostles time or else we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all Authority in Ecclesiastical Matters I am perswaded that the External Government of the Church under a Christian Magistrate must be according to the Kind and Form of Government used in the Common-wealth else how can you make the Prince Supream Governour of all States and Causes Ecclesiastical If you therefore will have the Queen of England Rule as Monarch over all her Dominions then must you also give her leave to use one Kind and Form of Government in all and every part of the same and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as she doth the Common-wealth in Civil Dr. Cosins Chancellor to this Archbishop in his Answer to the Abstract Pag. 58. asserts That all Churches have not the same Form of Discipline neither is it necessary that they should seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God. Dr. Low speaks to the same purpose Complaint of the Church No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word P. 64 66. only general Rules laid down for it Bishop Bridges God hath not expressed the Form of Church Government at least not so as to bind us What is here mention'd of Cosins Low and Bishop Bridges I have out of Dean Stillingfleet's Weapon Salve and out of a Learned MS. I have this following passage about Whitaker who making his Remarques on St. Hierom's teling us Whitaker De Ecles Regimin Contr. 4. q. 1. §. 29. p. 540. Col. 2. That the Difference between Presbyters and Bishops was brought in by Men long after the Apostles as a Remedy against Schism assures us That it 's a Remedy almost worse than the Malady for it begat and brought in the Pope with his Monarchy into the Church and this other of Bishop Morton telling the Papists That Power of Order and of Jurisdiction which they ascribe to Bishops doth de jure divino belong to all other Presbyters and particularly Morton 's Apol. Cath. lib. 1. c. 21. p. 55. That to Ordain is the jus antiquum the Ancient Right of Presbyters in fine That Dr. Laurence Humfrey and Dr. Holland Humf. against Campian Jesuit Part 2. p. 273. both of them Doctors of the Chair in Oxford did teach and maintain the same Doctrine Holland in the Act July 9. 1608. concluded that the contrary is most false against the Scriptures the Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England the Schoolmen Lombard Aquinas Bonaventure c. CHAP. IV. Dr. Willet 's Sentiments much the same with the foremention'd Bishops The Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter as of Divine Right declur'd to be Popish and oppos'd as such The special Consecration of Bishops was Ordained not by a Divine Law but by the Church for the Dignity of their Calling Saravia for no other Difference between a Presbyter and Bishop but in Degree Bancroft for a Priority in degree only holding with Dr. Robinson Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Fulk whose Authorities he insists on to Confirm his Opinion about a Gradual Difference between Bishop and Presbyter TO these I will add another namely In his Life of Willet Dr. Andrew Willet who as Dr. Smith observes is by Bishop Hall numbred amongst those Worthies of the Church of England Hall in his Noah 's Dove to whom he gives this Elogy Stupor mundi Clerus Britannicus This Dr. in his Synopsis Papismi is very large in discussing the Difference between a Bishop and Presbyter and in his Determinations in most things agreeth with the Learned Authors I have already quoted The grand Question under Debate is Willet 's Synops Papism Contr. 5. Quest 3. Concerning the Clergy Append. Whether the Difference between Bishops and other Ministers be grounded upon the Law of God and Institution of the Apostles The Papists Bellarmine saith the Dr. affirmeth Lib. 1. De Clericis c. 14. That the Jurisdiction of Bishops as now it standeth in their Church and the Difference between them and other Presbyters is Jure Divino grounded upon the Law of God and of such necessity that he holdeth the contrary to be Heresie and those to be Hereticks that hold this Difference to arise rather of a Politick Constitution of the Church to avoid Schism than of the Institution of the Apostles yea they hold them to be no Churches at all which are not under the Government of Bishops but of other Overseers and Superintendents Surely I see not

deny not but that there may be yea such a Priority as maketh one man amongst many a Principal Actor in those things whereunto sundry of them must necessarily concur so that the same be admitted only during the time of such Actions and no longer The Inequality they complain of is That one Minister of the Word and Sacraments should have a permanent Superiority above another or in any sort a Superiority of Power Mandatory Judicial and Coercive over other Ministers Thus you see how far the old Noncons could go and no farther and immediately after he tells us how much farther the Church of England at that time went for says he By Vs on the contrary side Inequality even such Inequality as unto Bishops being Ministers of the Word and Sacraments is granted a Superiority Permanent above Ministers yea a Permanent Superiority of Power Mandatory Judicial and Coercive over them is maintained a thing Allowable Lawful and Good. In two things Hooker differs from the old Noncons 1. They make the Superiority or Priority of Order to be but Temporary Hooker makes it Permanent 2. They deny the Bishops having a Power over other Pastors that is Mandatory Judicial and Coercive Hooker affirms it There is one thing more to be enquired into viz. whether He grants to Presbyters the Pastoral Office He calls them Pastors and in his very definition of a Bishop makes the Bishop to be a Pastor of Pastors and of Presbyters and he calls the Bishop but Principal Pastor and makes him to have a Chiefty in Regiment above Presbyters as if he held that the Presbyter had some tho' not so great a share in the Government and out of Austin That a Bishop is a Presbyter Superior and in several places a Bishop is of a Higher Degree than a Presbyter And altho' in his Third Book he makes the Episcopal Office to be a part of Church Polity perpetual as tho' the Episcopacy had been de jure Divino and Immutable yet in this Seventh Book in clearing the sense of St. Jerom he is expresly against the Immutability and Unchangeableness of the Bishop's Superiority as if he held it to be Apostolical in the same manner Bishop Downame doth of whom hereafter The words of St. Hierom on which he puts his own Comment are these As therefore Presbyters do know that the Custom of the Church makes them subject to the Bishop which is set over them so let Bishops know that Custom rather than the Truth of any Ordinance of the Lord's maketh them greater than the rest and that with Common Advice they ought to Govern the Church To this Hooker replies To clear the sense of these words therefore Laws which the Church from the beginning universally hath observ'd were some delivered by Christ himself with a Charge to keep them to the worlds End as the Law of Baptizing and administring the Holy Eucharist some brought in afterwards by the Apostles yet not without the special Direction of the Holy Ghost as occasions did arise Of this sort are those Apostolical Orders and Laws whereby Deacons Widows Virgins were first appointed in the Church This Answer to St. Hierom seemeth dangerous I have qualified it as I may by addition of some words of restraint yet I satisfie not my self in my Judgment it would be altered Now whereas Jerom doth term the Government of Bishops by restraint an Apostolical Tradition acknowledging thereby the same to have been the Apostles own Institution it may be demanded how these two will stand together namely That the Apostles by Divine Instinct should be as Jerom confesseth the Authors of that Regiment and yet the Custom of the Church be accounted for so by Jerom it may seem to be in this place accounted the Chiefest prop that upholdeth the same To this we answer That as much as the whole Body of the Church hath Power to ALTER with general consent and upon necessary occasions even the Positive Laws of the Apostles if there be no Commandment to the contrary and it manifestly appears to her that change of times have clearly taken away the very reason of God's first Institution as by sundry Examples may be most clearly proved what Laws the Universal Church might change and doth not if they have long continued without any alteration it seemeth that St. Jerom ascribeth the continuance of such Positive Laws tho' instituted by God himself to the Judgment of the Church For they which might Abrogate a Law and do not are properly said to Uphold to Establish it and to give it Being The Regiment therefore whereof Jerom speaketh being Positive and consequently not absolutely necessary but of a Changeable Nature because there is no Divine Voice which in express words forbiddeth it to be changed He might imagine both that it came by the Apostles by very Divine Appointment at the first and notwithstanding after a sort said to stand in force rather by the Custom of the Church choosing to continue it than by the necessary constraint of any Commandment from the Word requiring Perpetual Continuance thereof Thus Hooker who a little after says Bishops albeit they may avouch with Conformity of Truth that their Authority hath thus descended even from the very Apostles themselves yet the Absolute and Everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any Commandment of the Lord doth injoyn And therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath Power by Universal Consent upon urgent cause to take it away if thereunto she be constrained through the Proud Tyrannical and unreformable Dealings of her Bishops Wherefore lest Bishops forget themselves as if none on Earth had Authority to touch their States let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of Custom whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the Regiment of her vertuous Bishops doth still uphold maintain and honour them in that respect than that any such true and Heavenly Law can be shewed by the Evidence whereof it may of a Truth appear That the Lord himself hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the Regiment of Bishops in what sort soever they behave themselves This Answer of the Learned Hooker makes it manifest that tho' he held the Institution of Episcopal Superiority to be Apostolical yet he was not of Opinion that 't was unalterable And altho' he held it Apostolical yet suggests as if there had been a Church Government instituted before the Episcopal took place The Apostles of our Lord says he did according unto those Directions which were given them from above erect Churches in all such Cities as received the Word of Truth the Gospel of God All Churches by them erected received from them the same Faith the same Sacraments the same Form of Publick Regiment The Form of Regiment established by them at first was That the Laity or People should be subject unto a College of Ecclesiastical Persons which were in every such City appointed for that purpose These in their Writings

they term sometime Presbyters sometimes Bishops That in process of time the Apostles appointed under them Bishops of an Order Superiour above Presbyters the cause wherefore they did appoint under themselves such Bishops as were not every where at the first is said to have been those Strifes and Contentions for remedy whereof whether the Apostles alone did conclude of such a Regiment or else they together with the whole Church judging it a fit and needful Policy did agree to receive it for a Custom no doubt but being established by them on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for the ordering of Christ's Church it had either Divine Appointment beforehand or Divine Approbation afterwards This passage of Hooker moves me to think he very much agreed with his most Reverend Metropolitan Archbishop Whit gift who vehemently asserts an actual change of Church Government in the Primitive Times as well as the changeableness of it in all Ages of the Church There are other intimations in this Learned Author which oblige me to conclude that the Church of England was not in his days come to a steady Resolution either about the Nature of a Particular Church infimae speciei or of the whole belonging to the Episcopal Office. Touching the Nature of a Particular Church of the lowest Rank whether Parochial or Diocesan was not much with him for speaking of the Dissimilitudes which in some respects are found to be between the present Bishops and the Bishops in the Primitive times he grants that many things there are in the State of Bishops Lib. 7. Sect. 2. p. 4. which the times have changed saying That many a Parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient Bishopricks were To Men that have any part of Skill what more evident and plain in Bishops than that Augmentation and Diminution in their Precincts Allowances Privileges and such like do make a Difference indeed but no Essential Difference between one Bishop and another But a Learned Nonconformist assures us That he shall try among other things Treatise of Episcopacy chap. 5. pag. 49. whether the Name of a Bishoprick will make a Parsonage and a Diocess to be Ejusdem speciei and whether Magnitude do not make a specifick Difference between the Sea and a Rivulet or a Glass of Water or between a Ship and a Nutshell And I may add that if there be no Essential Difference between a Bishoprick no larger than a Parsonage and a Diocesan Bishoprick the Controversie between the Church of England and generality of Nonconformists may touching Church Government be determined by such Condescensions made by the Church to the Dissenters as are short of an Essential Alteration to Episcopacy Let there be as many Bishopricks as there are considerable Parsonages or Parishes indowed and a Provision made for the Presbyters who are to assist the Bishops in the Government of these little Churches and a Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters or a Chiefty in the Regiment will be no longer a bone of Contention As to what belongs to the Episcopal Function as Different from the Presbyters it 's held by some that Ordination Confirmation and Jurisdiction are proper to it Let us see then Hooker's Judgment for the first Point There may be saith he sometimes very just and sufficient Reasons to all Ordination made without a Bishop Lib. 7. Sect. 14. pag. 37. The whole Church Visible being the true-Original-Subject of all Power it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Bishops alone to Ordain Howbeit as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed so it may in some Cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary wayes The Power of Ordination is appropriated to the Bishop by the Churches Allowance and no otherwise and the same Church allowing Presbyters to Ordain their Ordination is Good so that Ordination is not proper to a Bishop quarto modo for it doth not Convenire to him semper soli and therefore he adds in the next Page That we are not simply without Exception to urge a lineal Descent of Power from the Apostles by continued succession of Bishops in every Effectual Ordination Lib. 7. Sect. 6. pag. 14. For the second Point I make not Confirmation part of that Power which hath always belonged only unto Bishops because in some places the Custom was that Presbyters might also Confirm in the absence of a Bishop Touching the last Point How Bishops together with Presbyters have used to Govern the Churches under them Lib. 7. Sect. 7. pag. 17. It is by Zonaras saith he somewhat plainly and at large declared That the Bishop had his Seat on high in the Church above the Residue which were present that a number of Presbyters did always there Assist him and that in the Oversight of the People those Presbyters were after a sort the Bishops Coadjutors The Bishops and Presbyters who together with him governed the Church are for the most part by Ignatius joyntly mention'd They are Counsellors and Assistants of the Bishop Thus this great Man grants That tho' Government in general be necessary to the Church yet no one particular kind of Government is so That the Scriptures do not make the Episcopal Government unalterable That the Power of conferring Orders is not by a Divine Law so appropriate to the Bishops that in no case an Ordination by Presbyters can be valid That the Church Visible is the true-Original-Subject of all Power and can alter the Government of the Church That Confirmation is not essential to the Office of a Bishop That Presbyters have a share in the Government That the Difference between the Bishop and Presbyter is in the Degree the Bishop having a Chiefty in the Government and Presbyters the Bishops Coadjutors Assistants Advisers and Counsellors The Learned Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester speaking of the Controversie between the Old Nonconformists and the Church of England Perpetual Government of the Church expresseth himself in these words Thus far we joyn That to prevent Dissention and Confusion there must needs Epistle to the Reader even by God's Ordinance be a President or Ruler of every Presbytery which Conclusion because it is warranted by the Grounds of Nature Reason and Truth and hath the Example of the Church of God before Vnder and after the Law we accept as Irrefutable and lay it as the Ground-work of all that ensueth But whether this Presidentship did in the Apostles times and by their Appointment go round by course to all the Pastors and Teachers of every Presbytery or were by Election committed to One chosen as the fittest to supply that Place so long as He discharged his Duty without blame that is a main point betwixt us But more particularly he adds In the Apostles I observe four things needful for the first Founding and Erecting of the Church and four other Points that must be Perpetual in the Church of Christ These are the Dispensing