Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	new_a	testament_n	word_n	5,021	5	4.1195	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80164	Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici revindicatæ: or The preacher (pretendedly) sent, sent back again, to bring a better account who sent him, and learn his errand: by way of reply, to a late book (in the defence of gifted brethrens preaching) published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk, Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk, Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk: so far as any thing in their book pretends to answer a book published, 1651. called Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici; with a reply also to the epistle prefixed to the said book, called, The preacher sent. By John Collinges B.D. and pastor of the church in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1658 (1658)	Wing C5348; Thomason E946_4; ESTC R207611	103,260	172

not have opposed it But affirming it is no relate to the work but only to the Church I must profess my self dissatisfied 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the Church Vniversal or only to the particular Church Our Brethren say Only to the particular Church If our Brethren would have been content with a division again that the Minister should be related to both we should have granted it or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholick Church as had constant standing Catholick Officers we know no such Church and should not have disputed de or pro non ente But as they state it I must profess my self also in this of another mind viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church And therefore to triall we must go In the opening of the term Ministry Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly domination Mat. 20.25 26 27. that those who do acts of ministration are Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words used in Scripture to express Ministers and Ministry are applied in Scripture to others beside Ministers in Office that their constant performing acts of ministration entituleth them to the denomination of Ministers and their work should be called Preaching as we usually call them Bruers or Bakers who brew or bake constantly and therefore Christians should so call them This is the sum of what they have p. 2. 3. To all which I shall crave leave to answer For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distinction which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will bite him 1. That the terms Minister Ministry and Office are of various interpretations both in civil and sacred usage is unquestionable These terms therefore falling into the questions the explication and limitation of them to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary An accurate discourse of a question requires that no signification of the terms in it be omitted in the Explication In plenâ tractatione vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda say Logicians 2. For the first term therefore Minister that it is a Latine word none can doubt nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master so called either because he is to his Master a manibus an hand servant quasi manister as Perottus will have it or because he is less than his Master quia minor in statione which is Isiodore's notion and preferred by learned Martinius In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and prophane Authors Infimi homines ministros se praebent saith Tully l. 1. de Orat and again lib. de Amicitiâ Libidinis ministri so Ovid illo dicunt Mactata Ministro Corpora 3. The holy Penmen of Scripture either moved from the congruity of the native signification of the word or the notion of it accrewing by general usage have sometimes used it to signifie one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ in the great work of Preaching the Gospel at lest our translators interpreting what they wrote in another language have done so The original words which they have so interpreted are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are of as various signification and two of them at least as variously applied by those holy Penmen as the word Minister is by other Authours The first word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who roweth in a Boat or Ship under another and thence any one who is servant to another is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testament and I think but two of those Texts can be interpreted of Preachers they are Acts 26.16 1 Cor. 24.1 In the first Paul saith God raised him to be a Minister in the latter they are called Ministers of Christ for I cannot believe that the phrase Lu. 1.2 can be interpreted of Preaching Ministers for I think they had no Text before that time but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christs words and actions and so were Servants to the holy Penmen in communicating what they saw and heard to them There are indeed two other Texts which some may mistake into this sense Lu. 4.20 Acts 13.5 In the first it is said Christ clozed up the Book and gave it to the Minister in the latter John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas Those who write about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer belonging to the Temple something I think akin to our Parish Clerks who was wont to bring and carry away the Book of the Law to or from the Priest or Levite or other person that expounded In all other Texts of the New Testament where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Mat. 26.58 Mar. 14.54 it signifieth Civil Officers either domestick as Servants or Politick state Officers such as jailers pursevants or the like in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In its native force it signifies no more than a servant call'd so either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some would have it or which pleaseth Eustathius better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect It is in Scripture applied to Christ Ro. 15.8 and the Apostle using this word saith of him Is he the Minister of sin 2. To Magistrates Rom. 13.4 To ordinary Servants in a Family Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11 Mark 9.35.10.43 Jo. 2.5.9 To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ John 12.26 Phoebe is call'd thus Ro. 16.1 Deacons by Ossice in the Church have their name from this word and it is applied to express those Officers Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8.12 It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel To Paul and Apollo 1 Cor. 3.5 To Tychicus Eph. 6.21 Col. 4.7 To Timothy 1 Thes 3.2 These again are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3.6 Of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.15 Of Christ 2 Cor. 11.33 Of the Church 0.0.0.0 Our Brethren p. 2. tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often applied to Saints no Officers But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1 for that so they may consider that no Preaching Saint in Scripture who was no Officer was ever so called though if he had it had not signified much as to the present question for any one that served but his Masters Table was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our Brethren do only urge the common usage of the word then they do but play with an Equivocal term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies in Scripture The third word used is

that a Church must be an united company if you had told us in what sense you understand united we could better have told you our minds at least I could have better told you mine concerning it People may be united by cohabitation by common profession by mutual consent this you seem to understand this again may be either explicitly by Covenant or implicitly by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell this being premised Brethren I conceive 1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company either as to an union of judgement or practice the rout Acts 19. called by this name were not 2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ called by this name in Scripture were united but neither by cohabitation nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this 3. There is no need that every particular Church if not organized and under the exercise of Discipline should be united by consent as to practice in the same numerical Administrations every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent you often read of the Church in a particular house Col. 4.15 Rom. 16.5 Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved 4. Indeed it seems reasonable that a particular Church organized and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administred should be a company united by consent for my own part I can allow you this though I know some of my Brethren will not 5. That this Vnion must needs be by an explicite Covenant or consent is neither to be proved by one Text nor yet by one sound reason and to impose this as necessary is a meer humane invention and not to be indured because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it But lastly we heartily wish that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such as seeing no command of God for it shall not think fit to submit to it Thus far I can yield our Brethren that a particular Church is an united Company And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches not as some would ridiculously fasten upon us because they live within such local limits but because they are societies of baptized persons who by a tacit and implicit consent have united themselves waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship And this Vnion holding we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches although as the Church of Corinth corrupted in some of their members and therefore not to be separated from nor disowned as no Churches but to be purged and the old leaven put out that they may be a new lump 5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ and this for the glory of God c. I freely grant nay it may be I will grant more viz. that they must be a people who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren if I tell them I have almost made my head ake with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle save one and do what I can I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse or is brought in upon any easier terms then they say The Fellow brought in Hercules viz. by head and shoulders for undoubtedly if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason it would never have come there The passage is this But we shall say no more of this Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this The Scripture doth hold forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government May be they would have said must be had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it I must profess my self dear Brethren to be so ignorant that I can neither understand the sense of this passage either copulatively or disjunctively will you give me leave to sift it a little possibly though it all looks like chaff some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it But we shall say no more of this you say Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth Of this of what You had before been speaking of the Papists making their Decrees and humane inventions equal with the ten Commandments and told us you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased and that Christ hath ceased from his work c. Now you tell us you shall say no more of this your Brethren viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven what 's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with Gods word Do any of us make them so Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books Doth the same truth relate only to what follows that we are not all of a minde as to the Divine Right of Church-Government what needed our Brethren have added this in this place or what is the meaning of those words But we shall say no more of this and then adding the other as a reason But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven They are fouly to blame then for I should think Popery as to Government better than Presbyterie if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven But it is yet more wonderfull Brethren which you tell us that the Assembly did not so believe yea expressed as much for they only say Many particular Congregations may be united and you note they would have said must be if they had so judged Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be but they have also in the same place proved that it was so both in the Church of Jerusalem and also in the