Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	learned_a	pastor_n	reverend_n	3,088	5	16.4121	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55393	Quo warranto, or, A moderate enquiry into the warrantablenesse of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons where also some other questions are discussed : viz. concerning [brace] ministerial relation, election, ordination : being a vindication of the late Jus divinum ministerii evangeliei ... from the exceptions of Mr. John Martin, Mr. Sam. Pette, Mr. Frederick Woodal ... in their late book, intituled The preacher sent / by Matthew Poole ...	Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.	1659 (1659)	Wing P2850; ESTC R33938	110,108	175

would follow in that case would be this that this place must be laid aside both by our Brethren and by us as not demonstrative to the point in hand This being premised I come to our Argument which is taken from 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. where the Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers and which is most considerable placed before the Evangelists I know our Brethren think to blow away this with a breath They say Nothing can be gathered from the order of the words seeing oft-times the worse is placed before the better as Priscilla before Aquila the woman before the man p. 93. And thus far it is true that the bare order is no sufficient argument to prove a priority in dignity and that the same things are sometimes in Scripture placed first sometimes last so that in all cases the order is not to be regarded and yet in some cases it is not to be slighted especially when it is punctually observed that wherever Prophets in concrete are mentioned they are placed next after the Apostles and that this is done so solemnly and with such emphaticall words 1 Cor. 12. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And as it may fairly be collected that the Apostles are the chief of these Officers because generally they are placed first and that the Pastors and Teachers are the lowest of them because generally they are placed last so also it is considerable and I doubt not our Brethren would make good use of it were it for their cause as much as it is against it that Prophets are generally placed in the second order For what they adde If Prophets be Officers 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. then those places must be understood of extraordinary Prophets who did foretell of future events as Acts 11. yet this hinders not but this prophesying 1 Cor. 14. may be only by gift c. Ans. 1. It was not the sole work of Office-Prophets that I may accommodate my discourse to our Brethrens conceptions to foretell future events for Iudas and Silas as Prophets did exhort Acts 15. 32. 2. To say that there should be two sorts of New-Testament-Prophets the one by Office the other by gift as it is but a begging of the question so it will by wise and indifferent Readers be lookt upon but as subterfuge and why may we not as well make two sorts of Apostles two sorts of Evangelists c. the one by Office the other by gift It had been somewhat tollerable if these in 1 Cor. 14. had been said to Prophesie but not called Prophets seeing as our Brethren say the doing of some Acts occasionally as v. g. ones teaching occasionally doth not denominate a man a teacher but seeing they are also called Prophets impartiall men will easily gather that they are the same which are known by that name in other places Thus much for the first Proposition which being dispatched I now come to the second and shall try whether that succeed better in our Brethrens hands and that is That Prophesying is an ordinary gift and still continuing in the Church This they undertake to prove as followes Arg. 1. Prophesying was in use and no Gospel Rule can be shewed for the repeal or ceasing of it p. 96. Ans. A gift may cease in the Church two waies 1. Either by a positive act of God in his Word forbidding it or 2. By a privative act of God in his Providence withdrawing it Who knows not that the gift of Tongues praediction and infallible explication of the Scripture is ceased and yet it would be a most vain Argument to dispute against the cessation of it thus because there is no Gospel-rule for the repeal of them Arg. 2. This Prophesying is ordinary Ergo still continuing Ans. The proposition is altogether needlesse for if it be ordinary that is sufficient and indeed that is the Antithesis of the assertion of the Provinciall Assemby that this Prophesying is extraordinary And therefore let us hear what they have to say or what they alledge to prove it ordinary For the self-contradiction they say God hath left us to p. 97. I shall only say this Wise men before they had made such a bold charge especially making use of the dreadfull Name of the Lord would have understood the grounds of it which indeed are none at all for the Authours of the Ius divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici were only three or four reverend City Ministers whereof one or two are since gone out of the City and not one of them was a member of the Provincial Assembly when the Ius divinum Ministerii came forth And being different persons though agreeing in the main of this controversie it is no disparagement to any of them to differ in some circumstance however all of them do agree in that which our Brethren here oppose i. e. that the gift was extraordinary Besides I suppose our Brethren would be hard put to it to prove that there is any contradiction for these two may very well consist together to say that these Prophets were extraordinary Officers in respect of their gift and yet the ordinary Pastours of Corinth in regard of their Office and relation And seeing there was a competent number of extraordinary Officers residing in that Church it was most fit they should be the ordinary Pastours of that Church quoad exercitium muneris And in this sense we may safely embrace both what the worthy Authors of that excellent piece Ius divin regim affirm and also what learned Mr Rutherford asserts i. e. that these Prophets were the ordinary Pastours of that Church and yet both grant that for their gifts they were extraordinary and that is the thing now in question So that in stead of a contradiction feigned here is a real agreement found out all of us agreeing in the two principles which our Brethren here oppose and all asserting 1. That these Prophets were Officers 2. That they were extraordinary as to their gifts To which their special relation to Corinth and residence there and doing the acts of Pastours is no more a prejudice than it was to the Apostles who though they were extraordinary Officers yet some of them at some times were as Pastours to some Churches c. which occasioned that apprehension that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem c. That this Prophesying was ordinary our Brethren offer some Arguments to prove Arg. 1. The rules to regulate the work are ordinary p. 100. Ans. I see no rule but what may very well agree to extraordinary Officers Extraordinary Officers 1. Must act orderly 2. Must speak in a known language 3. Must speak to edification 4. Must be subject to the trial of other Officers yea people also as the Provincial Assembly fully proves of which our Brethren take no notice Paul commends the Beraeans for examining his doctrine Arg. 2. The work of these Prophets is ordinary i. e. to speak to edification and exhortation and comfort Ans. 1. This

or Rulers not as if there was any defect in his authority but only because there is a manifest inconveniency and disorder in such a promiscuous and unlicensed exercise which therfore is unlawful because it is repugnant to Order and obstructive to Edification and this is the case of ordinary Pastors II. I shall premise another Consideration which being well digested is sufficient to enervate all that is said by our Brethren as to this point it is this A generall respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church Suppose one having a vast number of sheep needeth and chuseth twenty Shepheards to look to his sheep and these shepheards because each of them cannot possibly look to all do therefore distribute the sheep into twenty parcels and each undertakes to look to his share yet so as that in things of common concernment to all the sheep they all meet and consult together c. but in matters of private concernment every man looks to his own parcel In this case every shepheard hath a double relation the one general to the whole the other particular to his own parcel which he doth more especially take care for and feed and keep and watch over c. And in case any of those sheep which properly belong not to his charge go astray if he see them and can keep them in he is obliged by vertue of his office to do it and if through his neglect they miscarry he doth not only sin against Charity but against his Office This is the case of the Church and so it was out of doubt with the Apostles unto whom Christ committed the care of his sheep indefinitely And because each of them could not look to all therefore the sheep were divided into parcels and every Apostle takes upon himself a special relation unto some one parcel and had his proper line 2 Cor. 10. And because the sheep multiplied so fast that to look to them all was a work too heavy for the Apostles shoulders therefore the Flock was divided into more parcels and they ordained more shepheards who although peculiarly entrusted with their proper Charge yet were not freed from their Care of the whole but in things of common concernment did meet together with the Apostles in their daies Act. 15. And afterwards among themselves Or as it is in Germany where every Elector and Prince of the Empire sustains a double relation He is related more especially to his owne peculiar Territory to which he is an Officer acting ordinarily and constantly c. But over and besides his he hath a general relation to the whole Empire and is an Officer to the whole not singly and by himself but together with others being intrusted with a joint-power of governing the whole as in case of chusing of an Emperor or other weighty affairs of the Empire as the necessities and occasions of the Empire require Just so it is in the Church which is one entire body as the Empire is governed by one Systeme of laws and molded under one Government every Minister hath a double relation the one special and peculiar to his owne Flock which he is to feed constantly the other general to the whole Church which he is to feed occasionally as far as his ability will reach and as the Churches exigencies command and which he together with others hath a power to govern This will be put out of doubt by considering more fully that which even now was intimated of the Apostles themselves who also had this double relation one to the whole whereby they were Pastors of the whole Church and yet because they could not possibly each of them look to all the Churches therefore the work was divided among them and they undertook a special relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles Iames to Ierusalem c. Which division did not proceed from any defect of authority in the Apostles to feed the whole but from the impossibility of the thing in regard of the vastnesse of the work and because they were to carry on all Church-work as most suited with edification In like manner we that are ordinary Pastors sequimur patres non passibus aequis and though every Minister is a Minister of the whole Church and hath an Authority extending to it suo modo yet because it is impossible for every one to look to every Church and all things are to be managed with special respect to the Churches edification therefore Ministers are forced to divide the work both as to Teaching and Ruling yet so as that there still remains a relation to the whole whereby he is obliged to teach and with others to rule other Churches so far forth as his ability reacheth and the Churches necessities require And by the way I cannot but take notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which is the great Rule in all Church-administrations for a Minister may jointly with others rule a far greater proportion than he can teach David as a King could rule all Israel but David as a Prophet could not vivâ voce teach all Israel at least not ordinarily and constantly And the Apostles though it was impossible for every one of them actually to teach every Church they neither could do it nor did it yet it was possible for each Apostle joyntly with the rest to govern every Church and they did actually rule all the Churches at least all the Churches there mentioned in that famous Synod Acts 15. in which whether they acted as Apostles or as ordinary Elders all is one to the present Question And this may serve for Answer to that specious Argument so much insisted on by the Reverend and Learned dissenters taken from the conjunction of Teaching and Ruling These things premised I shall now come to the Arguments And here I shall have a double work 1. To lay down an Argument or two to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to more than their own particular Churches 2. To Answer their Arguments and to justifie those inconveniences objected by the Provincial Assembly to the contrary Opinion For the former I shall not here dilate only I shall propound three Arguments The first Argument is this If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens then they are not Officers only to their particular Congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens The Minor is the only Proposition that can be denied and that I shall now endeavour to prove 1. The case is plain in the Apostles That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel-Church was erected is undeniable and appears plainly from Mat. 28. The Apostles at that time were Officers for they had actually received their Commission they being relata must have a correlatum A correlate

deserted their own principles and have through incogitancy precipitated themselves into the gulf of Anabaptism which I doubt not in their next either their prudence or their ingenuity will ob●ige them to retract 2. The Provincial Assembly were not obliged to take notice of the excentrical opinions of every particular Congregational man but of those which were owned by the generality of them and by such as seemed to be Pillars among them and sure I am such will reject this notion of a mans giving the Sacrament as a Gifted brother They know the rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali If a Pastor gives the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor or Officer but as a Gifted brother for that is the other member of the distinction then every Gifted brother may administer the Sacrament which I suppose our Brethren will tremble to grant and therefore they must call back their own words too loosely delivered 2. But however say they this is an argument against our practise not the assertion Reply Yes it may give just cause of suspicion of the truth of that assertion which inevitably draws along with it such a strange conclusion as this that no man may receive the Sacrament any where but in his own Congregation which is in a great measure to cut the sinews of Christian and Church-communion and yet for ought either I or Mr Hooker see either this conclusion must be embraced or the principle rejected I passe on to the Reasons There are say the Assembly seven ill consequences which follow this assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation I shall reduce them to two or three 1. Then a Minister at the same time preacheth to his own members as a Minister and to others as a Gifted man only 2. Then a Minister baptizeth only into his own Congregation not into the Catholick Church contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 13. and so a Minister can baptize none but those that are members of his own Congregation and so there is no way to baptize Heathens converted nor the children of such parents as cannot be members of any Congregation And here our Brethren bring in that Argument mentioned by the Provinc That a Minister Ministerially admits into and ejects out of the Church-Catholick and therefore is a Minister of the Church-Catholick and not only of his particular Congregation p. 281 c. Let us now hear what our Brethren have to Answer 1. They say We see no absurdity in saying that a Minister preacheth to some as an Officer and at the same time preacheth to others not as an Officer Reply 1. This is a conceit for which there is no shadow in the Scripture Nay it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only without but against the evidence of Scripture Ministers wherever or to whomsoever they do the work of Ambassadors whomsoever they beseech to be reconciled to them they act as Ambassadors And whose sins soever they remit Doctrinally which is an act of Office they are remitted and whose sins soever they retain in preaching they are retained whether their hearers be strangers or of their own Congregation And this they do by vertue of their Office Surely it is very harsh to say that all strangers which hear a Minister are no more bound to hear and obey him then to hear or obey any woman discoursing privately of those things and that a stranger rej●cting his message is no way guilty of the contempt of his Office it will be an happy thing if that will be a sufficient plea at the last day Nay by this rule the very Apostles themselves as we have more largely seen must when preaching to Heathens be canton'd into the order of Gifted men and if that be true it was no act of their Office to disciple Nations and to gather in the Saints And all those Heathens which are now converted by Ministers are not converted by vertue of the Ministers Office nor was the Office of the Ministry appointed for the gathering in of souls but only for the building up of such as are brought in contrary to Mat. 28. Eph. 4. as hath been argued 2. They argue against that position That a man is made a member of the Church by Baptism p. 284. whereas indeed it is none of our assertion and so all that labour both of theirs and Mr Hookers is lost They cannot but know that we allow Infants to be born Church-members and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism and a par a Heathen converted and professing the fai●h is a Church-member inchoatè before Baptism this only we say That the solemn publick and visible way of admission of members into the Church is by Baptism and this cannot be easily denied by any one that looks either to the Jewish or Christian Church For as since the New Testament began it hath alwaies been the door of admission so was it also unto Proselytes in the Old Testament who used to be admitted into the Jewish Church by Baptism as divers Learned Men have proved Or if our Brethren question that yet at least Circumcision to which our Baptism answers was the door of admission into the Jewish Church But of this more hereafter 3. They deny that a Min●ster ejects out of the Catholick Church Not the Minister but the person renouncing his profession ejects himself out of it He may be ejected with and not by Excommunication And how can a mans being ejected out of a particular Church make him no member of the Catholick Church if being ejected out of Office in a particular Church doth not make a man no Officer to the Catholick visible Church p. 285. Reply 1. Here two things are opposed which may be conjoyned For both the person ejects himself and the Minister ejects him He ejects himself meritoriously the Minister efficiently and juridically 2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church ejects him out of all other Churches and that cannot be but by vertue of a Catholick Church c. or he is not juridically ejected out of other Churches and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce into the Church of God and how incongruous it is unto his wisdom in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge to appoint a remedy so short and insufficient for the disease I leave to all sober men to judge And this is not a bare suggestion for experience shews that the effect of this principle is such and persons juridically and justly ejected out of one Church have been admitted into another Church who it may be apprehend him to have been unjustly dealt with and according to this principle there is no remedy but so it must be 3. For the ejecting of Officers I say 1. That a Church in their sense i. e. the body