Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	life_n	soul_n	5,160	5	5.5664	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90932	The preacher sent: or, A vindication of the liberty of publick preaching, by some men not ordained. In answer to two books: 1. Jus divinum ministerii euengelici. By the Provincial Assembly of London. 2. Vindiciæ ministerii euangelici. By Mr. John Collings of Norwich. / Published by Iohn Martin, minister of the Gospel at Edgfield in Norfolk. Sam. Petto, minister of the Gospel at Sand-croft in Suffolk. Frederick Woodal, minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk.	Martin, John, 1595 or 6-1659.; Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.	1658 (1658)	Wing P3197; Thomason E1592_2; ESTC R208851	240,824	381

is able to do the lesser therefore he is able to do the greater Now the office of a Deacon is inferior to the office of a Presbyter c. Answ 1. Our brethren use the same Argument from the lesser to the greater Affirmatively and take it from this very instance of Deacons Surely they might take such Coyn as they pay to others To Prove Ordination of Ministers to be an Ordinance of Christ in Jus Divin Minist p. 1. pag. 158. this very book they use this Argument In the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferior office and serving onely for the distribution of the temporal estates of people the Apostle requires that they should not only be Elected by the people but also ordained to this Office much more ought this to be done in the choice of persons who are called to the work of Preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries a service of all others of greatest weight and worth These are their own words in which the Reader may see that they argue not onely from the lesser to the greater but even to the greatest and that Affirmatively The Argument is the same and as forcible if we apply it to Election and say thus In the very choice of their Deacons which was but an inferiour Office the people had the power of Election much more ought they to have the choice of their Pastors who are to be exercised in the work of Preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries which are services of all others of greatest weight and worth 2. An Argument from that which is both lesser in it self and also in probability to that which is greater may not be valid Affirmatively we grant it is no good way of arguing to say because a man is able to do the lesser therefore he is able to do the greater Our brethren are mistaken if they think that we argue thus the people are able to chuse Deacons Ergo they are able to chuse Pastors That the people have abilitie to chuse their Pastors is not the immediate conclusion of our Argument from Act. 6. but that Christ hath granted the people a liberty or power to elect their Pastors this is it which we strictly conclude thence and in the second place we may argue That because Christ hath granted them liberty or power to chuse their Pastors therefore he hath given them ability to do it These are two distinct questions 1. whether the people have abilitie to chuse their Pastors 2. whether Christ hath granted the people or a particular Church liberty and power to chuse them It is the latter of the two which we determine Affirmatively from Act. 6. If their abilitie to chuse their Pastors be questioned we have many other Mediums to prove that by as John 10. v. 4. The sheep follow him i. e. Christ for they know his voice v. 5. And a stranger they will not follow but will flee from him for they know not the voyce of strangers and v. 14. 27. Whence it is evident that not only Church-officers as Pastors and Teachers but the sheep of Christ who are to be fed or Taught even they have abilitie to discern whether it be Christs voice or the voice of strangers which they hear whether they be such Teachers as they are to follow or such as they are to flee from and what can be required more to give abilitie for Election but a knowledge what Teachers they are to own and who are to be avoided our Brethren at other times will grant that the peoples choice maketh a man their Minister their Pastor and how could this be if they had not ability to chuse and why is it that they here argue against their having the whole and sole power of Election if Officers lay claim not onely to Ordination but also to part of Election it will be next unto nothing that they will leave to the people 3. An Argument from the Lesse to the Greater in probability or in the causes of it though the thing also be greater in it self yet is valid affirmatively in Divine things from that which is less credible lesse likely hath less apparent grounds and causes for it to that which is more credible more likely hath more apparent grounds and causes for it is a good way of arguing and that affirmatively and therefore it is not a certain rule which our Brethren give that Argumentum a minori ad majus non valet Affirmative The Scripture is frequent in such arguings as Mat. 6. v. 26. Behold the fowls of the Air your heavenly father feedeth them are ye not much better then they v. 30. If God so cloath the grass of the field which to day is and and to morrow is cast into the oven shall be not much more cloath you O ye of little faith Luk. 12. v. 6 7. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings and not one of them is forgotten before God but even the very hairs of your head are all numbred fear not therefore ye are of more value then many sparrows Luk. 11. v. 13. If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him The Argument from the Less to the Greater affirmatively is urged in all these instances from the Lords taking care of the Lillies of the field and the fowls of the air which are of less value he argueth that he will take care of his own people who are of Greater value or far better then they From earthly Fathers providing for their children he affirmeth with a much more that our heavenly Father will provide for his children things far Greater in themselves And the same is our Argument from Act. 6. If the Lord would have the people have the whole and sole choice of their Deacons who were to take care of their bodies and worldly goods much more would the Lord have the people have the whole and sole choice of their Pastors and Teachers who are to take care of their souls as Dr. Ames saith There are more and more weighty causes requiring the consent of the Church in appointing Pastors then in appointing Deacons Indeed the spiritual welfare of souls is promoted or hindred according to the sutableness or unsutableness of the Teachers as the comfort of the natural life would many times be lost if a man should be forced to take a woman to be his wife without chusing her or a woman were forced to have a man for her husband that she did not chuse yea though the parties might be gracious that were so taken unchosen So the comfort of the spiritual life would often be lost if such Pastors were obtruded upon Churches as they did not chuse and many temptations they might be exposed to in the case of unsutable Pastors more then in the case of unsutable Deacons and therefore the whole and sole power of chusing Pastors appertaineth to the Church

sinned in it and they had no Divine allowance therein but these had a Divine allowance to preach Act. 11. 21. 3. The Question is when is there such a case of necessity when is the case so extraordinary as a man may lawfully preach without Ordination who otherwise should sin in preaching without it Surely when Ordination can be attained in Gods way those who are required to submit unto it may not lawfully be without it upon any pretence of necessity or an extraordinary case And if Ordination cannot be had in Gods way or according to his will and appointment then the case is extraordinary and necessity may be pleaded for being without it as well as if it could not be had at all for a man sinneth who taketh up an Ordinance of Christ out of Christs Way or not as he hath appointed and it were to be under a necessity of sinning to be obliged to do any thing out of Christs Way Now we find no rule for Ordination to Office-work without Election from a Church as antecedaneous thereunto and it were to go out of Christs Way and to act not according to his Will and appointment to be ordained to Office-work before such a Call from a Church and therefore all gifted men lie under such a case of necessity or it is an extraordinary case until some Church of Christ hath given them such a Call and so they may preach until then without Ordination 2. They that preach in such an extraordinary case either they are Officers or no Officers First If they be no Officers then preaching is not an act peculiar to Office then there is a difference between preaching by Office and preaching by Gift then there is a notion besides Office under which men may warrantably preach and this will be applicable to gifted men as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith it is a contradiction that the formal act should be before the form be introduced That which one who is no Officer may do cannot be an act of Office in it self but as performed in this or that manner Let not gifted brethren then be charged with assuming the Office of the Ministery or intruding into the Office because they preach if they do no more then persons who are no Officers may do then there is no usurpation of the Office in doing of it That which can be done in any case lawfully by a person that is no Officer cannot without contradiction be said to be an act peculiar to Office or an act of Office in it self Preaching it self then is not an act of Office but preaching in such a manner or under such a relation And let not gifted brethren be denyed liberty to preach but onely to preach Office-wise seeing Preaching may be by a person not in Office Secondly If those that preach in such extraordinary cases be Officers then 1. Ordination is not essential to Office Office nor any other thing can subsist or be without its essentials if essentials Matter and Form be not found the compositum is denyed to have a being If Office may be preserved in being where Ordination is not then Ordination cannot be essential to Office much less be the formal cause of it As well may there be a man without a reasonable soul as Office without Ordination if Ordination be the formal cause of Office Take away the essence of Office and the formal cause or that which is constitutive thereof and there can be no Officer 2. Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination or else men may preach who are not sent and men may believe without hearing a Preacher sent and then that Rule is not universal Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Then if men baptize without Ordination their acts may be valid according to their own arguing for say they Those that may preach may baptize Matth. 28. 19. And by the way why may not Baptism be valid when performed by persons whose Ordination by the corruptness of it is a nullity as well as when by persons who are altogether without Ordination Argum. 5. From Gospel-Rules about Prophesying All that are Prophets may publikely preach But some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets Ergo Some men who are not ordained Officers may publikely preach The Major That all that are Prophets may publikely preach is proved 1 Cor. 14 29. Let the prophets speak vers 31. For ye may all prophesie one by one Here is an universal liberty given to all the Prophets to exercise their gifts publikely in a setled Church vers 23. If therefore the whole church be come together into some place vers 24. if all prophesie This prophesying therefore was publikely in a Church-meeting and not onely some but all the Prophets have a liberty of prophesying granted to them vers 31. We do not say that all hath reference to every member of the Church of Corinth as if all the people of the Church might prophesie whether they had the gift or no we grant the liberty doth not extend so far and therefore many Arguments used by our Brethren to prove that all doth not include every member in the Church of Corinth do not touch us That all the Prophets in that Church had the liberty of prophesying granted to them is as much as we assert and this our Brethren cannot deny The Minor That some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets we prove thus All that have the gift of Prophecie are Prophets But some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of Prophecie Ergo Some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets The Major That all who have the gift of Prophecie are Prophets is evident 1. From their denomination the name Prophet is properly applicable unto all that have a gift of Prophecie yea the reason of that name must be either onely because they do actually prophesie and that cannot be because they must be Prophets before they can warrantably do that or because they have a gift to prophesie How can they be denyed the name of Prophets who enjoy that gift which giveth the denomination 2. From the Apostles calling prophesie a gift 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have the gift of prophesie and Rom. 12. 6. Having then gifts differing whether prophesie let us prophesie Those that have the gift of prophesie are commanded here to prophesie 3. From their being no Church-Officers who are by the Apostles called prophets and are commanded to prophesie that some of these prophets were no Church-Officers we shall endeavour to prove by and by And if they were not prophets by Office then they must be prophets who have the gift of prophesie Either an Office or a Gift must give the denomination If the gift be enough to give the denomination then all that have the gift of prophesie are prophets To clear the Minor viz. That some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie There are three things necessary to be proved 1. That prophesie