Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	earth_n	heaven_n	loose_v	6,038	5	10.6252	5	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

a relation yet it doth not follow that it is so by whomsoever it be performed Obj. 2. Heb. 7. Without controversie the lesser is blessed of the greater Answ The Apostle asserteth Christ to be an High-priest after the Order of Melchisedec Heb. 6. ver 20. and giveth a reason of it Heb. 7. 1. and in the excellency and greatness of Melchisedec he setteth forth the excellency of Christ who is after has order ver 2 3 c. he proveth the greatness of Melchisedec and so of Christ because he blessed Abraham ver 6. and so must be greater then Abraham who received the blessing ver 7. without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater But what is all this to prove that preaching is an act of authority Doe preachers succeed Melchisedec or Christ Can they bless with a High-priests blessing Are they greater then Abraham as he that gave this blessing was There is a blessing of reverence and worship so men bless God Psal 68. 19. Blessed be the Lord who dayly Dickson londeth us with his benefits There is a blessing of Charity so men bless one another by mutual prayer Rom. 12. 14. Bless them which persecute you bless and curse not It is required as a duty not of preachers only but of all Christians thus to bless yet neither of these kindes of blessing do imply superiority or authority or that he is greater who blesseth then he that is blessed He that blesseth by an Original inherent power as Christ doth he is greater then he that is blessed and of such blessing the Text speaketh but he that blesseth Ministerially and instrumentally is not alwayes greater then he that is blessed nor is the blessing alwayes an act of authority Object 3. The Apostle suffers not women to preach because they may not usurp authority over the man 1 Tim. 2. but is commanded to be in subjection upon which place Oecum The very act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man Answ There is a plain distinction and difference made in the very text alledged between teaching and usurping authority for the words are these But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence 1 Tim. 2. 12. That particle nor doth plainly intimate that two things are forbidden 1. Teaching 2. Usurping authority And a womans usurping authority over her husband seemeth to be the thing directly forbidden by the Apostle rather then the usurping of authority over the Church and hence the words are nor usurp authority over the man and the reasons inforcing it from the mans being first created ver 13. and from the womans being first deceived ver 14. speak it to be an usurping authority over her husband rather then over the Church that is forbidden However there is no such thing found in the Text as that the act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man Object 4. The publick work of the Ministry of the word is an authoritative administration like unto that of Cryers Heralds and Embassadors to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus and therefore may not be performed by any but such as are authorized and immediately or mediately deputed by him 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. appears because in preaching the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven is used Answ 1. These titles we spake to in another place and thither we refer the Reader 2. A warrant from the written word to preach is authority enough and this we have shewn gifted men have If men who are not authorized by Christ to preach will do it and if this be an usurping of authority yet what is all this to prove either 1. That it is to usurp authority over the Church Or 2. That to preach without Ordination to the work is to usurp such authority over the Church These are the things which not being proved their Argument falleth 3. That there is a Key of Knowledge we grant Luk. 11. v. 52. which Christians who are not in Office may use 1 Cor. 12. ver 7 8. 1 Cor. 14. 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. And in Discipline the power of 1. Excommunication is the binding Key that which shutteth the Kingdom of Heaven the Church against offendors 2. Re-admission is the loosing Key or that which openeth the Kingdom of Heaven the Church to such as repent Matth. 18 vers 17 18. If he neglecteth to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Here the binding Key and the loosing Key are used about Church-censures and if both these were given to the Officers onely which we deny yet gifted men might preach neither can they gain any thing from the Keyes to prove that preaching is an Act of Authority much less to prove their Proposition Argum. 6. That which the Scripture reproves may no man practise But the Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching Therefore The Minor say they appears in that the false prophets are reproved Jerem. Jus Divin Minist p. 89. 23. 21 32. not onely for their false doctrine but also for running when they were not sent I am against them saith the Lord a fearful commination if God be against them who shall be with them The false prophets themselves accuse Jeremiah Jerem. 29. 27. for making himself a prophet which though it was a most unjust and false impuration yet it holds forth this truth That no man ought to make himself a prophet the false prophets themselves being witnesses The Apostles in the Synod of Jerusalem speak of certain men that went out from them They went out they were not sent out but they went out of their own accord and this is spoken of them by way of reproof And then it follows They troubled you with words subverting your soules He that preacheth unsent is not a builder but a subverter of souls Answ 1. We deny that the Scripture reproves the preaching of gifted men who are unordianed to Office This Argument if it were wholly granted yet it proves not at all what it is produced for Their proposition is That none may do the work of the Ministry without Ordination or being solemnly set apart thereunto Their Argument to prove this is The Scripture reproveth uncalled men for preaching therefore uncalled men may not preach We may grant that uncalled men may not preach and yet may assert that unordained men if gifted may preach For gifted men are called to preach though they be not ordained Let them prove that Ordination is the onely Call to preach if it were granted that Ordination is the Call to Office as elsewhere they endeavour to prove yet it would not follow that there is no Call to preach without that unless it can be proved that there is no preaching but by Office 2. The places alledged

because that particular Church to which he is an Officer may belong to that Catholick-Church and yet his office may extend no further then his particular congregation he may have no relation so much as in actu primo to any other Church He cannot be denyed to be set in the Common-wealth who is set in any one place or Parish which is in it and so an Officer may be said to be set in the Church-catholick who is set in any particular Church which appertaineth to that universal and yet the office may be bounded by that particular Church may reach no further and therefore the being set in the Church-catholick cannot enforce a relation as an Officer to to that Church without which no double relation As for Ephes 4. The Apostle speaketh either 1. Of the mystical body one in spirit and faith over which never any were set as Officers in the whole part of it being in heaven when the Apostles were on earth nor in part if so then with or without its own act not without for as office and authority is Christs gift as our fountain so the Churches call is the means thereof answer of the Assembly to the reasons against the instance of the Church of Jerusalem p. 12. not with its own act for they that never met nor can meet unto a Church act put forth none Ergo though Officers be given for the mystical Church yet they have not relation to it as Officers over it in the Lord. Or 2. Of the integral body which is one by consent and agreement as the body of Antioch is one and the body of Ephesus is one the unity of the Spirit to be kept there c. We see no absurdity to say God hath given to or set in the Church viz. this and that Church Apostles Evangelists for the edifying of the body sc this and that body And whatever we have in notion we can find no Church in existence or action but must be a particular Church as it is proper to say Satan persecutes man though there be no Catholick man to persecute because he persecutes this and that man so to say God careth to edifie the Church the body though no Catholick body or Church but this and that particular Object 2. If a Minister when he removes or is removed from his particular Congregation ceaseth to be a Minister then it will follow 1. That if the Church that called him prove heretical and wickedly separate from him that then the sin of the people should nullifie the office of the Minister Or 2. If the Church refuse to give him competent maintenance and starve him out from them or if the major part unjustly combine together to vete him out that then the covetousnesse and injustice of the people should make void the Function of their Minister Or 3. By this Doctrine there will be a door opened for the people of a City or a Nation to un-minister all their Ministers which things are very great absurdities and contrary to sound Doctrine Ans 1. As to the two former particulars though such Churches do hainously sin against the Lord and commit wickedness at a great height and must expect that the Lord will reward them according to their works for separating from and nullifying of the office of such as Christ hath set over them upon such accounts yet we know not but that in such cases the sin of the people may nullifie the office of the Minister it doth debar him from the exercise of his office and why may it not make void the office Suppose upon taking up some wicked principles they cruelly murther or take away the life of their officer surely he ceaseth then to be an officer and if their sin can nullifie his office in such a way why not by an unjust separation from or rejection of him 2. If a peoples sinful rejection of their officer doth not nullifie his office we suppose the reason is not because his office-power extendeth beyond that particular Congregation but because he is de jure and of right still over that Church as its officer though he be hindred by their sinful actings from the exercise of his office amongst them as a lawful Prince may by an unjust invasion be disabled for the exercise of Government in his Kingdom though he yet be the Supream Governour and may recover his right when he can But if a Minister voluntarily removeth or be rejected by the people when either of these are upon just grounds then surely the relation between them ceaseth and so he ceaseth to be an officer 3. As to the third thing they grant that a peoples rejection of a Minister maketh him cease from being their Minister and this openeth as wide a door for the people of a City or Nation to un-minister themselves or to leave themselves without any Ministers as the other assertion doth to un-minister their Ministers if the people of a City or Nation will be so wickedly disposed as to withdraw subjection from or reject all from being their Ministers what advantage can there be in their having the name of office upon them when they cannot exercise their office there and if they be unjustly rejected and lose their office thereby they may become Officers again in other places as well as if they be but put out from being their Ministers Object 3. Because there is no Scripture to warrant the iteration of Ordination Jus Divin Min p. 147. in case of removal The Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every Church and Titus was left in Crete to ordain Elders c. but there is no mention made of any command for reiterated Ordination neither indeed can it be for Ordination being a setting a man apart to the Office of the Ministery as we shall hereafter prove and not onely to the exercise of it in such a place though the local exercise should cease yet his office still remains and therefore needs not be reiterated Answ 1. There is no Scripture that we can find to evidence that a man is an Officer to any more then a particular congregation and if his office extendeth no further then in case of removal he ceaseth to be an officer or becometh no officer And here 2. All those Scriptures that warrant the Ordination of any Officers do warrant the iteration of Ordination in case a man becometh an Officer again to any other Church As in a corporation if Bayliffs or other Officers having served their whole time do become no Officers and afterward the same persons come into the same Offices again the same Law that required such ceremonies to be used in the investment of all such Officers doth require the iteration of such ceremonies upon a new entrance into those Offices though the Law doth not require it under the notion of an iteration So all those Scriptures that warrant the ordaining of all Church Officers must needs warrant the re-ordaining of such as after a

Church rightly constituted hath in it the power of a whole Church therefore 't is not a part whatever our Brethren deny us in our Congregations yet may they obtain a concession for a National Church-constitution we doubt not but they would be therein Independent and not allow the Authority of any Nation or of all the Nations in the Christian world to impose a form of order or Government upon them wherein they are not satisfied acting in all Church-work not as a part but a whole which they could not regularly doe if but a part of a Catholick Church 2. Every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is we profess we know not 3. There is no Universal visible meeting to worship God Ergo no Universal visible Church The Synagogical meetings of the Jews were the meetings of several parts of that Church and there never was in them the power of the whole Church and we know not how it can be stiled a National Church unless it be from a national meeting Statis temporibus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being never used either in a civil sense as Act. 19. 32 41. or a Sacred sense but propter Conventum either in fieri or in facto esse because the persons were met or under engagement to meet together yea the Church of the first-born however dispersed and scattered upon the Earth yet doth as an invisible Church meet invisibly and in Spsrit to perform the acts of worship required of such a Church we are confident whatever it be is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assembling together is the formal reason of that denomination which is Coetus convocatus or the Congregation as 't is every where Coetus à Coeundo translated by Mr. Tindal in his translation of the New Testament 4. There are no distinct Officers appointed for such a distinct Church ergo there is no such Church Diocesan Bishops Provincial Arch-Bishops National ●atriarchs universal Popes would surely have been found in the Scripture had a Diocesan Provincial National or Universal Church been found there 5. There is no Church greater then that which hath the power to hear and determine upon offences committed in the Church but that Church is particular Mat. 18. 17. We know dissenting parties lay claim to this Text on both sides we say but this If it means the Congregation it excludes all other if it means the any other it excludes the Congregation which is unscriptural irrational absurd Obj. If notwithstanding all this some may judge that although Churches do not meet in their members actually yet they may meet in their representatives which being met may be called The Classical Provincial National Universal Church Answ We answer each of us in the words of Zuinglius to a like argument Representativam credo veram esse non credo i. e. That such a Church is a representative I believe but I believe not that it is a true Church 3. It 's a holy company a company of Saints Rom 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. said therefore to be in God the Father and in Jesus Christ 1 Thes 1. 1. 1. It 's the Kingdom of Christ the Body of Christ the Church of Christ yea Christ 1 Cor. 12. 12. implying neerness of relation unto him but none visibly related unto Satan as the visibly uncalled are can be respected as visibly related unto the Lord Jesus therefore not of his Kingdome Body Church c. 2. The visibility of that which constitutes a member of the invisible Church declares a man meet to be received unto Communion in the visible but the Heavenly Call constituteth a member of the invisible Church ergo the visibility of that Call declares a man meet to be received unto Communion in the visible the members whereof are Saints by calling no Churches of Christ by institution but are Churches of Saints by constitution 1 Cor. 14. 33. 3. Every Body is to be considered first in its essential state before it can be determined such a body in its integral or organical state as man is compounded of soul and body and so constituted an essential whole who hath further more eyes and ears hands and feet parts and members which put him under another notion yet cannot all his parts and members which are integral compleat him in the being of a man Univocally if he be deficient in any part which is essential so is every aggregate in forming a flock of sheep 't is necessary to consider the nature of the creatures to be formed and none not sheep can be numbred to such a flock in forming a Church of Saints 't is necessary to consider the nature of the members to be formed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints visibly can be numbred to such a Church Invisible unbelievers may as well belong to the invisible Church as visible unbelievers to that which is visible We forbear multiplying arguments for further proof because we have the consent of our Brethren in the general as to the necessity of Saintship the whole strife being at the door of visibility and about the rule for the judgement thereof which some mistaking have their charity so large as to embosome nations of men Separatim conjunctim as Saints upon the account of a bare dogmatical faith especially if it be not contradicted with enormous scandals reckoning it among the errours of Jus Divinum Regim Eccles preface the Independents that they affirme the matter of the visible Church must be to the utmost judgement of discerning such as have true grace real Saints Concerning therefore a judgment of visible Saintship we are thus minded according to rule 1. Errours of judgement overturning the foundations of faith are inconsistent with grace Saintship Tit. 3. 10 11. 2. Errours of life everturning the foundations of holiness are inconsistent with grace and Saintship Gal. 5 19 20 21 24. and thus far we suppose our Brethren will walk with us 3. Total ignorance of the way and working of Christ in the heart is inconsistent with grace and Saintship 1 Pet. 3. 15. We ask our Brethren what rule they would walk by in applying comfort to particular souls if they would not enquire after truth of grace what experience of sins burthen what experience of Christs relief yea further we would know what reason they have to justifie a practise of enquiring after truth of grace in order to Communion in the Lords Supper and yet condemn us for the same practise in order to the Communion of Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministry printed 1650. Saints who write thus He that would come to the Sacrament must examine himself 1. In general whether he be worthy to come c. 2. In particular whether he have true faith in Christ without which he cannot worthily eat this

to prove that Ordination ought to be with imposition of hands And because we have spoken briefly to that already and shewed that it is like laying on of hands was of extraordinary use for the conveyance of gifts or onely an indifferent significant Ceremony to declare who the party was that was solemnly ordained and so may without sin be omitted or the end of it may be attained without its use by some other sign it may be declared who the person is also because themselves do not assert it to be any more then an inseparable Adjunct to Ordination therefore we shall not spend time about this onely take a Rule which may serve as part of an answer to most if not all their Arguments for imposition of hands viz. That it is usual in Scripture to expresse things by that which is neither necessary nor of constant use about them So Chain is put for bondage and suffering Act. 28. 20. I am bound with this chain Jud. ver 6. Key is put for power authority Government Isai 22 ver 21 22. Rod is put for correction 1 Cor. 4. 21. Prov. 13. 24. The crosse is put for suffering and persecution Mat. 16. 24. A chain is not necessarily or constantly used in bondage nor a key in the exercise of power or Government nor a rod in correction nor a crosse in persecution yet because sometimes such instruments were used in such cases therefore the Holy-Ghost expresseth those things by them So though imposition of hands be neither of necessary nor of constant use about Ordination yet the whole of Ordination may be expressed by it hence Pauls forbidding Timothy to lay hands suddenly doth not imply that it was his duty to lay on hands or that he must necessarily and constantly use that ceremony but that it was duty to ordain men which they assert to be the thing notified by laying n of hands which answers their second Argument so the whole work of Ordination may be comprehended under the ceremony of imposition of hands 1 Tim. 5. 22. and yet it may not be of necessary and constant use about it any more then in the former instances the putting a chain for bondage and key for the whole of Government and rod for all correction and crosse for all afflictions c. will imply that they necessarily and constantly belong to them which answers their third and fourth Arguments It is sufficient that imposition of hands was sometimes used about Ordination to render the whole of it expressed thereby but it doth not prove the constant use of the ceremony to be necessary but only of Ordination which is the thing signified by that ceremony We proceed to their fourth Assertion viz. That Ordination of Ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of Jus Divin Min. p. 181. the Presbytery After a brief explication of the word Presbytery c. they come to that which as they tell us they especially aim at in this fourth Assertion and they give it under this following Proposition Propos That Ordination of Ministers doth belong to Church officers and not to a Church without officers And that Ordination by people without Ministers is a perverting of the Ordinance and of no more force then baptisme by a midwife or consecration of the Lords Supper by a person out of the office We shall give some Arguments to prove the lawfulness and validity of the peoples Ordination and then answer their arguments against it Our Proposition is this Pro. That in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers We say in a Church that hath no officers for if a Church hath officers in it they may go before the Church in Ordination as well as in Praying on other occasions and Preaching c. that onely officers must act in it in such a case is not clear to us as suppose a Church hath but two officers in it we do not see any necessity that the whole work of the day must lie upon them onely but some believers i. e. such as have most of the spirit of Prayer being desired may lend assistance but whether that may be or not it is sufficient to our present purpose and to any case that necessarily falleth out in the congregational way if it can be proved that when a Church hath no officers of its own then some believers being deputed or chosen thereunto by the Church may ordain without the necessary concurrence of any officers And we say some believers may ordain without officers not must for we do not reckon Ordination an act of Government and therefore Churches may for ought we yet see hold communion each with other in it as well as in solemn prayer upon upon any other occasion and so officers of other Churches may act in it yet not qua officers but qua gifted and men gifted may without any officers ordain for it is a matter wherein the Church hath its liberty who it will depute thereunto when it wanteth officers and it is not necessarily confined to officers as if none else might act in it If a Church hath officers the Law of their relation to the Church putteth them under obligations to go before the Church in Ordination as well as in other duties as Preaching administring of the Sacraments c. and therefore where officers are in a Church they act as officers in Ordination as well as they do in prayer upon other solemn occasions wherein undoubtedly other Christians eminently gisted may act in Prayer yet do it not as officers This is our sense of the question yet because our brethren do account Ordination to be an act of Government yea an eminent act of jurisdiction therefore if in some of our Arguments may seem to speak of Ordination as an act of Government of officers as officers yet we do not grant it but rather prove our sense of it by denying it in that sense which they plead for it in This being premised we proceed to our Arguments Argu. 1. Whatsoever would necessarily and unavoidably infer Ordination to be unattainable that is contrary to sound doctrine and is not to be asserted But that some believers may not lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers in a Church that hath no officers in it that would necessarily and unavoidably infer Ordination to be unattainable Ergo That some believers may not lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers in a Church that hath no officers in it is contrary to sound Doctrine and is not to be asserted The major none can deny who plead for Ordination as an ordinance of Christ still continuing for if it be of Christs appointment doubtless he hath provided a way wherein it is attainable The Minor we prove thus Because there are no officers on earth authorized or appointed by Christ to ordain in case a Church hath no officers in it any more then believers without officers and therefore