Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	hear_v	heathen_a	publican_n	4,379	5	11.4435	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87226	Confidence encountred: or, A vindication of the lawfulness of preaching without ordination. In answer to a book published by N.E. a friend of Mr. Tho Willes, intituled, The confident questionist questioned. Together with an answer to a letter of Mr. Tho. Willes, published in the said book. By which the lawfulness of preaching without ordination is cleared, and the ordination of the national ministers proved to be a nullity. By Jer. Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1658 (1658)	Wing I1094; Thomason E936_1; ESTC R207711	43,652	64

though they should run from the errors of Rome into other errors that were as bad or worse But I therefore answer further That though a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of these ways it doth not therefore follow as I have already shewed in my Answer to Mr. Willes his Letter at the beginning of this Book that Mr. Willes is a Minister either of these wayes For though I grant these two to be the wayes of admission into the Ministery yet I do deny him to be entred by either of them though he succeed from those you call our first Reformers for I do deny that they were true Ministers of Christ either way or that they had either a lawful Succession or necessity to authorize them But of this more anon Quest 27 I demand If Mr. Willes be a Minister by succession whether he did not succeed from Rome You thereupon demand Why there may not be a lawful succession from the Apostles by Rome Your first Reason is Because the corruptions of the first Receivers could not null this Ordinance c. To which I answer What if that be granted That the corruption of Receivers could not null an Ordinance this doth not prove that corrupt Receivers of the Ordinance of Baptism can administer Baptism or that corrupt Receivers of the Lord's Supper can administer it lawfully after they have been separated from for their corruptions But your second Reason saith That the corruption of the Dispensers could not make the succession cease And this you would prove by many similitudes you say The Law doth not lose its force if it be pronounced by a wicked Judge c. I answer If this Judge be lawfully turned out of his place for wickedness then though the Law doth not lose its force yet this Judge hath no power to administer it so I say of your Ordination That if you had justly ejected the Pope he had after this no power to administer the Laws of Christ no more then a Judge that is thrown out hath power to administer the Law of the Land Thus your simile makes against you And for your simile of Judas and a hypocrite whence you would infer That their heart-corruption doth not null God's Ordinances that are administred by them I answer That it is true That so long as their sins are like your Name unknown if they do administer Ordinances they may be valued but what if their sins are known and that they shall be rejected as Hereticks or as scandalous Persons have they then any power to administer sacred things This Answer will serve for all the rest of your similitudes But further If the Church of Rome was Apostates and Hereticks and the Church of England had ejected her and separated from her and judged the Pope to be the great Antichrist as indeed they did then it followeth from Scripture That it is a sin to receive Ordination from them for the Scripture saith Matth. 18. If that any refuse to hear the Church he should be esteemed as a heathen and a publican Now then if the Church of England did reject Rome for her sin and Idolatry it was then as lawful for me to go to any Fellow under a Hedge and be ordained by him as it is to go to any ejected of excommunicated Persons for it and if the Church of Rome be not cut off from being a Church then are you very wicked in that you have not communion with them while they are of the Body if they are not of the Body then any of the Body hath as much power to administer Ordination as they And this is not my single Opinion but it hath been the Opinion of former times for Athanasius saith in Epist de Conciliis By what right can any be Bishops that do receive their Ordination from Hereticks And further he saith That it is impossible that Ordinations made by Secundus being an Arrian could have any force in the Church of God And further If the Pope be rejected as that great Antichrist it cannot be imagined that he whom all the Protestants judge to be Christ's greatest Enemy should so far serve the great designs of Christ's Glory as lawfully to ordain and impower men to preach Christ So that either you did not leave the Church of Rome and reject them as Hereticks or if you did you ought not to be beholding to them for your Ordination And further the Protestant Calvinists in France say in the Confession of their Faith Confes Art 21. That their Calling is extraordinary and do confirm the same by their practice in that they ordain anew such Priests as revolt from Rome but if the corruption of the Dispensers did not make their Ordination a nullity then there was no reason for such a practice in a reformed Church And Mr. Whitaker is of this minde for saith he We would not have you think that we make such reckoning of your Orders as to hold our Vocation unlawful without them And Mr. Fulk that famous Opposer of Rome tells them That they are deceived highly if they think we esteem of their offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons-better then Lay-Men See his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick p. 50 And further Mr. Fulk saith That with all our heart we meaning the Protestants abhor and detest all your stinking greasie Antichristian Orders And yet other of you glory in your succession See the contradictions among your selves who of you shall a man believe So that if I say You cannot have a lawful Ordination from Rome seeing they were by you judged Hereticks and such as were deservedly excluded I have the Scripture of my side that saith You should esteem such as Heathens I have several eminent Lights that shined in the Church of old I have some of the reformed Churches and therein many very famous both at home and abroad which are of my minde Your last Argument you bring to this Point is That Christianity was profest and therefore you ask me If I will say there was not a company of true Believers all the time the Pope ruled here c. Whence you infer If they were true believers then there was a Church and if a Church then there must be a Ministery because you say Christ promised Ephes 4.11 12 13. That the Saints should have such a Ministery till they come to be a perfect man c. If this be a good Argument why do you rail against the Anabaptists For dare you say There is not true believers among them if there be then by your Logick they are a Church and if a Church then they must have Christ's promise fulfilled and they then must have a true Ministery till they come to be a perfect man By this Rule Mr. Brookes his people are a true Church and must have a true Ministery or else you must say The people that walk with him are all Unbelievers Quest 28 I demanded in my twenty eighth Query Whether the Church of Rome

act of the ministerial Office then do not they sin that shall wittingly and willingly submit to this usurpation in hearing if he have no lawful call to preach Rom. 10.15 can they have a lawful call to hear is not the Receiver as bad as the Thief Answ I answer That you are forc'd to beg one Question to make a ground for another for I never granted that it was a sin for unordained Men to preach and as yet you have not proved it though you have begged this Question over and over And for your saying The Receiver is as bad as the Thief and that because it is as bad in me to hear one that is not ordained as it is in such a one that is not ordained to preach The truth is if one of these be as bad as you make it the other must needs be as bad also Now pray consider That to relieve the poor is an act of the Deacons Office doth it therefore follow that none but Officers may relieve the poor should I sin to minister to the poor out of Office and is he that receives an Alms as bad as a Thief if he knows he that gives it be out of Office and yet this is your arguing But it may be you will say That for a man out of Office to distribute the Churches stock is sinful if they do not license him so to do and then it would be a sin to receive from such a man the stock of the Church I answer That it is most true but therefore may he not give of his own because he cannot as an Officer give of the Churches So because I may not preach from another Man's stock may I not preach from my own and administer according as I have received from God though I may not administer of that which I have not according to that 1 Pet. 4.10 Let every man as he hath RECEIVED the gift minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God And he subjoyneth in the next Verse If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God Ver. 11. So that by comparing these Verses together you will finde that a man may as lawfully preach if he have received a Gift to enable him as he may distribute this Worlds Goods but he ought not to do the one or the other unless he have received a Gift from God to enable him thereto Quest 9 You proceed and whereas I ask whether Apollos did not preach the Gospel as is recorded Act. 18.24 25 26 27 28 c. you reply by asking me Whether I ought not to have answered Doctor Seamore and others To this I answer That if I had received satisfaction from them I should have made no further question But ought not you by the same rule to have answered all Books extant against Ordination by Presbyters before you ask me any more questions in the behalf of it And if these men you speak of have writ so satisfactorily why do you trouble your self any further You proceed and tell me page 22. That Apollos taught where you say we read but of two Christians Aquila and Priscilla and those Paul brought with him c. I answer That our Question is not how few or how many Christians were Apollos Auditors but Whether he did not preach publickly and constantly without Ordination However you grant that there was Aquila and Priscilla and those Christians that Paul brought with him which he preached to which were enough to make a Christian Congregation as vain as you seem to make the consequence Therefore if he did preach to the people aforesaid viz. Aquila and Priscilla and those Christians that Paul brought with him publickly and constantly then he did preach publickly and constantly to a Christian-Congregation but the former is true by your own confession Ergo the later followeth But you proceed and ask me If a particular example of a Church not constituted be a rule for ordinary practice in a Church that is c. And further you ask If Apollos was not in Office and therefore called a Minister 1 Cor. 3.5 and how do I prove he was not I answer First where do you read of a Christian-Church not constituted Secondly Do you not say That Apollos was an Officer what then did hinder them from being a constituted Church The Scriptures say Christs Church is his Body and I never read of a Body constituted and another unconstituted And for your saying Apollos was in Office 1 Cor. 3.5 doth this prove he was then in Office Act 18. You go on and ask me all these negative Questions viz. How I prove he was not in Office and how I prove he was no Priest and that John did not anthorize him and ought I not to prove that he was not in Office thus and ought I not to prove there was no necessity and how do I prove he was not called or in Office c. To which I answer That you are an excellent Armour-Bearer Is this your Armour of proof when a man demands of you how you prove that such a thing was you answer by asking your Respondent how he proves it was not Truely you have more need go to School then write Books But let 's hear what you say for the Affirmative since you say page 23. That it is certain he was in Office Your first Reason is He watered the Churches that Paul had planted 1 Cor. 3.6 1 Cor. 16.12 Let 's try this Argument and put it into a form and then it will be thus viz. Apollos did the work of an Evangelist 1 Cor. 3.6 Ergo it is certain he was in Office at the time Aquila and Priscilla taught him Act. 18. May not a man as well reason thus Mr. Willes preaches at Botolphs Billings-gate as an Officer if you will believe it Ergo it is certain he was an Officer when he was instructed into Religion You go on and ask me If Apollo 's worth and name was not the head of a Faction 1 Cor. 1.12 This is your second Argument to prove that certainly he was in Office Is this a good Argument Apollos was the Head of a Faction for his worth and name Ergo he was an Officer in the Church will not this prove Mr. Brookes to be an Officer when future times shall read the History of his Life seeing that he preaches Christ and is esteemed for his worth and name and as your selves say he is the Head of a Faction how dare you deny Mr. Brookes to be an Officer if this be good Logick Your third Reason is He is called you say in express terms a Minister in the sense that Paul was 1 Cor. 3.5 He was an Officer you say then sure I have answered this already by shewing that though he might be an Officer then yet he was not in Office Acts 18. and you must prove and not beg You go on and bid me prove that Apollos was ordained after he preached