Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	ordain_v	titus_n	2,698	5	10.8309	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88947	A modest & brotherly ansvver to Mr. Charles Herle his book, against the independency of churches. Wherein his foure arguments for the government of synods over particular congregations, are friendly examined, and clearly answered. Together, with Christian and loving animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said booke. All tending to declare the true use of synods, and the power of congregationall churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne officers, and censuring their offendors. By Richard Mather teacher of the Church at Dorchester; and William Tompson pastor of the Church at Braintree in New-England. Sent from thence after the assembly of elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about church-government.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.; Tompson, William, d. 1666.	1644 (1644)	Wing M1274; Thomason E37_19; ESTC R16954	50,642	62

therefore follow that in some case it may be performed by such as are not in office because the case may so be that otherwise it cannot be performed at all so that either no Officers must be ordained nor any imposition of hands used at all or else imposition of hands in some case may be performed by them that are not in office Now that it cannot alwayes be performed by Officers three instances make it manifest First when there are no Officers of any other Church to be had as at the first rise of the first Christian Church in a Pagan Countrey far remote from all Churches as here in America by the English in the case which you put of a company of Christians by shipwrack cast upon an Iland where no Pastors were Secondly when those that may be had are so exceedingly corrupt and the Churches to whom they do belong that it could not be convenient to make use of them but very dangerous to fetch ordination onely from them as at the first reformation after the times of Popery when there were none to be had but from the Popish Bishops and Priests from whom to receive ordination were as much as to say either that the Ministers of Antichrist may ordain Ministers to the Church of Christ or else that Popish Bishops are true Ministers of Christ And sure if Christians might not have any Ministers unlesse ordained by the Popish Bishops the case were as pittifull as if sheep might have no Shepheards but such are appointed to them by the Wolves Thirdly when those that are more desireable have no sufficient calling to dispence ordination in another Church which is the case when they are not requested thereto For sith ordinary Elders are not like Apostles to feed all flocks but that flock of God which dependeth upon them 1 Pet. 5. 2. that flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them over-seers Acts 20. 28. Therefore wee doe not understand how they can assume authority and power unto themselves to ordain Elders to other Churches whereof themselves are neither Elders nor members unlesse they had a calling thereto by the request of that Church where the Elders are to be ordained So that by these instances it appeareth that sometimes officers of other Churches are not to be had sometimes those that may be had are as ill as none and not to be depended on or desired and sometimes those that are more desireable have no sufficient calling to ordain Ministers in any other Church and therefore in such cases as these sith Officers must not be admitted without imposition of hands imposition of hands must be performed by non-Officers But you will say we read in sundry places where imposition of hands was performed by Elders and not one place in all the new Testament where it was performed by others Whereto we answer That all this is true but nothing against what we have said because which was our third particular to be cleared the true reason of this that is here alledged was not as if ordination by non-Elders were in every case unlawfull But because in those times Elders were not wanting for there were the Apostles and Apostolicke men who were Elders in all Churches And we do willingly grant that where a Church is furnished with Elders imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders and so much the examples in the New Testament doe evince But we have also shewed from Numb. 8. that if there be no Elders as at the first nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches then imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by others But you will prove that it doth not belong to the congregation with or without a Pastor to ordain Elders because the rules of direction how to proceed in ordination and the Epistles wherein those rules are are not written or directed to the whole Churches of Ephesus or Creet but to Timothy and Titus only as their inscriptions speaks Answ. If this be a sufficient reason to prove that the people may not in any case meddle with ordination then by as good a reason a man may prove that ordination belongs not to the Presbytery nor to the Synods but onely to one man as the Prelats would have it for a man may turn the reason against your selfe and say The rules of direction how to proceed in ordination and the Epistles wherein those rules are are not directed to any Presbytery or Synod at Ephesus or Creet or anywhere else but onely to Timothy and Titus who were each of them but onely one man But look how you would answer this plea for Episcopall ordination the same answer may be given to yours And for us we cannot but approve the answer given to this kind of reasoning by the refuter of Doctor Downhams Sermon at Lambeth who in his Reply part 2. pag. 107. doth shew that the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus were not provided for Bishops alone nor Elders alone but for a mixt state wherein many Presbyters under the guidance of one Pastor or President doe administer and execute all matters with the peoples consent and approbation In which affirmation he alledgeth the consent of most best Divines of later times instancing in Calvin Beza especially the Apostles own warrant in the close of thoses Epistles with these words Grace be with you or with you all 2 Tim. 4. 22. Tit. 3. 15. And by this saith he it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy Titus was intended to be of common use not only for other ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Now if what was written by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of common use to all the Saints then there is no reason that you should appropriate those rules onely to the use of Presbyteries and Synods no more then others only to the use of Prelats especially this being considered withall that if once the Saints be excluded from being at all concerned in those rules they that would appropriate them to one man have a fairer colour for their plea then they that would appropriate them to a Presbyterie or Synod consisting of many because Timothy or Titus to whom those Epistles are by name directed are not many persons but either of them one onely But it appeares say you that we read in Scripture that this part of Jurisdiction was dispensed by the Eldership onely and that a consociated Eldership pag. 27. Answ. That it was dispensed by the Eldership we willingly grant but that it was dispensed by the Eldership onely and that the Eldership by which it was dispensed was a consociated Eldership that is to say a Synod neither of these doe appeare at all Nay we suppose the contrary to both these may appeare For as for the former we have shewed the contrary already and for the latter we will onely

was the means of Paul's escape Finally there is not any supreme Judicatory upon earth neither Civill nor Ecclesiasticall but if they consist of many persons and be not absolute and meere Monarchies consisting of one alone the members thereof may be divided among themselves and yet they must be the finall Judges to determine matters within themselves if the matters must be determined at all so that this which you seeme to reject as an absurditie that parties should be Judges is in some cases and namely when the supreme Judicatory is divided into parts about matters arising among themselves a matter of unavoidable necessity and cannot be otherwise This communion and mutuall assistance in government God as by his Word so by the very light of Nature teacheth all societies whatever whether Common-wealths or Armies Vniversities or Navies pag. 7. Answ. Either this passage means that all Common-wealths c. are taught such communion and assistance in government with other Common-wealths c. as that none of them have entirenesse and supremacie of jurisdiction within themselves but are dependant on other the like societies for the same or else that the members and parts of a Common-wealth c. are taught such communion and assistance in government as not to be entire of themselves but to depend upon the whole society of which they are members and parts If it be taken in the latter sense then the thing is most true but no prejudice to our cause at all for we grant the same of the parts and members of a Congregationall Church c. But it must be taken in the former sense if it make any thing against us and in this sense it will not hold true for it is well known that Common-wealths and Universities as the Common-wealth of England for example and the University of Oxford have no such communion and assistance in government with other Common-wealths and other Universities but that they have entirenesse of jurisdiction within themselves and the same may be said of Armies and Navies The members of all these societies doe depend on the societie of which they are members But that is nothing against us If the Societies did depend upon other the like Societies this indeed were against us But this cannot be proved so to be Not that therefore this government of Churches should as those end in a Monarchy on earth Answ. We suppose it is a clear mistake to say that the government in all those societies doth end in a Monarchy For whatever may be said of the rest Common-wealths you know there are sundry whose government is either Democraticall or Aristocraticall and doth not end in any Monarchy at all witnesse for example the Low Countreys But if Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods because the very light of Nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all Societies whatever then we see not how it will be avoyded but by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy upon earth if it were once proved that the light of Nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end For there is as good reason for this as for the other And the old plea for Bishops and Popes ut capite constituto schismatis occasio tolleretur will not be easily avoyded If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other Societies the same must be observed in the government of Churches You say indeed that this will not follow Because the Churches Monarch or Head is in Heaven and such an one as though in Heaven yet still present by his Word and Spirit here on earth too to all the offices of a Monarch pag. 7. But this we conceive doth not remove the difficultie partly because the objection is for a visible Head and not an invisible and partly because the time hath been when there was one High-Priest upon earth in whom you say pag. 6. that all appeals and judgements were to determine And yet at that time the Monarch or Head of the Church was in Heaven and present on earth too by his Word and Spirit to all the offices of a Monarch as truly then as now Whereby we may see that if you will goe by the light of Nature it is not the presence of Christ in Heaven and his spirituall and invisible presence with his Church on earth that will take away the necessity of a visible Head upon earth A surer answer to this plea is to flye to the institution and appointment of God whose wisedome and will it was to appoint one High Priest upon earth in former times but hath not done the like in these dayes CHAP. III. Containing an answer to the second Argument taken from Matth 18. Tell the Church THat this is spoken by our Saviour in reference to the Jewish Church-government is the joynt judgement of Ambrose Theodoret among the ancient Melanchton Strigetius Peretius Aretius and even Mr. Johnson himselfe And if so then our Saviour here sufficiently confirmes to us as lawfull and conveyes to us as usefull so much of the Jewish Church-government as includes an Independencie and liberty of Appe des therein pag. 9 10. Answ. By dependencie here spoken of must be meant dependencie upon the government of a Synod and by Appeal must be meant Appeale from a particular Congregation unto that Synod or otherwise the Argument concludes besides the Question And the words being thus understood the forme of the Argument must be to this purpose viz. If that which is here spoken by our Saviour be spoken in reference to the Jewish Church-government then particular congregations must depend upon the government of Synods But the first is true Therefore the second is true also But for confirmation of this Minor Proposition you bring no other proofe but onely the testimonies of a number of Authours all cited before by Mr. Paget in his Defence pag. 46 47 c. And for the consequence of your Major you bring no proofe at all Neverthelesse we are willing to consider what strength there may be in the Argument and to that purpose we must enquire into your meaning in this phrase of Reference to the Jewish Church-government whereby we conceive you intend one of these two either that the word Church in our Saviours rule Tell the Church doth signifie the Elders and Governours alone as sometimes the like word is used in the old Testament or else that no new rule is prescribed hereby our Saviour but the very same that was formerly given to the Jews Mr. Paget who also takes his second argument from this place of Mat. 18. doth understand our Saviours words in this later sense But whether way soever you intend our answer is briefly thus First that though we will not now deny the minor Proposition yet this we may say That it is not so evident of it self but that it needs some better proof then by you is given for the confirmation of it for of it self it is