Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	bishop_n	church_n	ordain_v	4,727	4	9.0001	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61495	A discourse of Episcopacy and sacrilege by way of letter written in 1646 / by Richard Stewart ...	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.	1683 (1683)	Wing S5519; ESTC R15105	29,953	44

ask what better way there can be for interpreting Texts than that very same means whereby I know Text to be Text to wit The Consent of the Church Shall I believe and yet disbelieve that self-same Consent which is the best ground of my belief This is as 't were to say that I believe such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet now I do hold the self-same man to be a Lyar. Men do believe the Testimony of Universal Consent in the sense it gives of Singular terms and why not in the sense it gives of Sentences and Propositions Without the help of this Consent which indeed is the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Resurrection of the Body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute their Errour as by the Authority of this Consent Admit then of that Rule that Consent Universal is the best interpreter of the Text and then I am sure that it is as clear as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolical Right And that Proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearly appear to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptism without a Lawful Minister which yet is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and antiquity allowed it Extra casum necessitatis For I ask upon what Text do they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours Words Go teach all Nations and Baptize them but in the Institution of the Eucharist he spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drink c. Mat. 26. I demand then how shall we know that when our Saviour spake those words to the Eleven he spake them only as to Lawful Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake them at large as to them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they l say that this general receiving the Cup is manifest from the 1 Cor. 11. and I think so too where St. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at the Sacrament But if a quarreller should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbitery only whereof many were at that time at Corinth as when in Chap. 5. he seems to chide the whole Church for not Excommunicating the Incestuous Person yet t is plain that he means none but the men in Government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appear out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never took the words in that sence And if to stop the mouth of the contentious we must be constrained to quote the Authority of Universal Consent and of the common practise of Christs Church then you 'l easily see that those two Propositions named do stand fast on the same bottom There can be no Baptism without a lawful Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the Practise and Consent of Universal Church have still interpreted that Text. And again 't is true there can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop for so those Texts out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for One thousand five hundred Years together by the Consent of the whole Church of Christ. 'T is true that this precept of Christ Go ye teach all Nations and baptize them runs not in exclusive words ye Apostles or ye lawful Ministers and none else yet extra casum necessitatis none was allowed but a lawful Minister so that though those commands Lay hands suddainly on no Man and do thou Ordain Elders in every City run not in Verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and Preaching them in an exclusive sense no man for One thousand and five hundred Years in any setled Church was held rightly Ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopal Order will appear clearly by this That immediately from the times of Christ and his Apostles yea within the reach of those times it was Universally spread throughout the whole Church so that no man can name a Nation that was once converted to the Christian Faith but he shall soon find there were Bishops So that there must needs have been an Universal Cause for an Effect that was so Universal General Council there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might thence have obeyed their directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians would submit for they were soon fallen into factions but either the Authority of Christ or his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountain I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before St. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above Twenty-eight Bishops appointed to their several Sees as at Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch Rome Ephesus Crete Athens Colosse and divers others a Catalogue whereof I shall be ready to attend you with when you shall be pleased to command it And hence it will be plain how great a Corruption nay how flat a sin is brought into Christs Church when Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs 't is as gross as if the Laymen should be allowed to baptize where a Presbyter stands by Nay more 't is as bad as if the Order of Presbytery should be thrown down that Laymen might Baptize What is this but wilfully to run into necessity which may thence create an Apology 'T is a Corruption far worse than if a Church should audaciously attempt to put down the Lords day since the Observation of that time is neither built on so clear a Text nor on the help of so Universal consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can think it sinful to part with the Lords day though the Institution of it be merely Apostolical they must needs confess that there is at least as much sin nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops And then the Oxford Doctrine he abuses and talks of as Transmitted for Orthodox Truth will it seems prove no less in earnest Secondly For the point of Sacriledge and the better to clear this I must premise these directions 1. That God accepts of things given Him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as Old Testament 2. That God gets that Propriety in those things He holds as well by an Acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a Command that such things should be presented unto Him 3. To invade those things be they moveable or unmovable is expresly the Sin of Sacriledge 4. That this Sin is not only against Gods positive but plainly against the Moral-Law For the