Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	apostle_n	church_n	teacher_n	2,224	5	8.9443	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88693	Suspension reviewed, stated, cleered and setled upon plain scripture-proof. Agreeable to the former and late constitutions of the Protestant Church of England and other reformed churches. Wherein (defending a private sheet occasionally written by the author upon this subject, against a publique pretended refutation of the same, by Mr W. in his book, entituled, Suspension discussed.) Many important points are handled; sundry whereof are shortly mentioned in the following page. Together with a discourse concering private baptisme, inserted in the epistle dedicatory. / By Samuel Langley, R.S. in the county palatine of Chester.	Langley, Samuel, d. 1694.	1658 (1658)	Wing L405; Thomason E1823_2; ESTC R209804	201,826	263

of soules declaring that they gave the false Teachers no suck Commandment to preach any such doctrine v. 24. 3. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us v. 28. 4. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles did impose upon the Churches no other burthen then these necessary things v. 28. In all which its manifest the proof is as strong for the joynt authoritative acting of the Brethren here as it is for the Apostles and Elders I speak of a joynt act in the same kinde of power how farre the Apostles might excell the Elders or the Elders the Brethren in the degree of power in each respectively is not now enquired for All I can thinke of which may be objected against this proof is 1 That in divers places the Authors of this synodical Decree are mentioned under the name of the Apostles and Elders without joyning the Brethren with them As 1. The Antiochian Delegates are in their Instructions directed to make their address to the Apostles and Elders about their Question v. 2. And 2. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter v. 6. And 3. the Decrees of this Synod are said to be such as were ordained by the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem Act. 16.4 2 That the Brethren may be named here no otherwise then as in Pauls Epistles Timothy or Sosthenes and sometimes all the Brethren with him are which denotes only their consenting thereunto To the first of these I answer 1. That its ordinary to name the whole from the predominant leading more noble part 2. These Scriptures do not say the Apostles and Elders only excluding others were Authours of this Synodical Determination and therefore they are no prejudice to those other Texts which put in the Brethren with them To the second I say Though Paul joyne others with him in his Epistles sometimes yet 1. the title of those Epistles beare his name only 2. He manifests in the Epistles themselves that they are his only speaking in the first person therein Gal. 1 2 6 9 10 c. 1 Thes 5.27 2 Thes 3.17 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand which is the token in every Epistle so I write 3. If we had no such cleere Reasons elswhere to prove Paul only the Authour under the Holy Ghost of such Epistles the joyning others with him in the Preface would be a sufficient ground of our taking them who are so mentioned in the Preface to have been joynt Authours with him thereof But now here 's nothing can be shewed to invalidate the title of the Synodicall Decree in its strictest sense Act. 15.23 2. The Decree speakes all along in their names which are prefixed thereunto 3. Decrees and Lawes speake most strictly and properly especially in the Titles and Prefaces thereof which declare the power whereby they are made and promulgated as a Law made by Kings Lords and Commons Although in familiar Epistles there 's ordinarily more liberty of a larger expression 2. The latter part of the Minor proposition in the Argument I am upon is this viz. That these Brethren were not private Christians the Disciples or Members of the Jerusalem Church 1. This I beleeve will not be denied by our Brethren either of the Episcopall or Presbyterian judgement if they be convinced that these Brethren acted authoritatively in the Synod Which I thinke is cleerly proved above For no private Christian is allowed by them as such to have right of authoritative suffrage in Ecclesiastical Councils 2. I have only here against me the Brethren of the Congregational way who though from other Scriptures they own the Officers I dispute for yet here say that these Brethren were the members of the Jerusalem Church as such But that I humbly conceive cannot be The Apostles Elders and Brethren v. 23. are the same with the whole multitude v. 12. And the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church v. 22. Now this whole Church and whole multitude must either referre to the whole Church of Jerusalem or to the whole synodical Assembly only of that and other Churches there met together which the Reverend Mr. Cotton in his book of the Keyes p. 54 59. is pleased to call a Synod of Churches or a Congregation of Churches yea a Church of Churches It cannot referre to the whole Jerusalem Church because neither that whole Church nor the greater part thereof could meet in one house much less a private house as its probable this was to manage the synodical affaires orderly as appeares by the great numbers of that Church recorded upon count 120 Act. 1.15 3000 Act. 2.41 5000 men Act. 4.4 here are above 8000 and multitudes besides Act. 2.42 5.14 6.7 as is more largely shewed by the London Ministers and most excellently by the Reverend Assembly in their Answer to the Reasons of the dissenting Brethren where they undoe the Exceptions made against it so solidly learnedly and perspicuously that they seeme to have left no place for a colourable Reply Whereby among other Arguments they demonstrate that the Jerusalem Church was a classical Church or a Church by association of sundry particular Congregations called one Church Act. 8.1 11.22 15.4 It remaines therefore that the whole Church and multitude Act. 15. must be the synodical Assembly of the Apostles Elders and Brethren which Brethren must needs be the Delegates of the Brethren or those who represented the Brethren members of several Churches The Delegates of Antioch are expressly mentioned v. 2. and probably there were some from Syria and Cilicia v. 23. who were as much concerned in the businesse consulted about as Antioch was Thus farre it s evin●ed that some of the Brethren not preaching Elders being delegated and appointed by the Church may according to Apostolical patterne authoritatively joyne with preaching Elders in acts of external government of the Church And then if Presbyters with such delegated brethren may be the subject of Church power in higher Assemblyes and matters it will easily thence follow such brethren may have and exercise a proportion of Ecclesiastical power in lower matters and Assemblyes This Argument I humbly submit with all else I have written to the peaceably judicious I shall conclude with the 34th Psalme that these 22 Digressions may be attended with a refreshment proportionable to the 22 Chapters of the Treatise above The 34th Psalme in the original whereof the initiall Letters of the Verses proceed Alphabetically save only that the 5th Yerse beginning with He ends with Vau the next Letter and so the Psalmist omitting Vau in the beginning of the next Verse goes on with Zain c. whereby it comes to pass that the 22 Hebrew Letters being gone through and ending in the 21st Verse the last verse of the Psalme is super-numerary rendred according to the Acrosticall conceipt of the Original 1 At all times I the Lord will blesse my

his representing to his Minister Mr. W. how he was unsatisfied in the doctrine of the general admission contended for Mr. W. for the satisfaction of his Parishioner had shewed himselfe willing and desirous to admit of a collation with some Ministers of a different judgement from him therein as I have to shew under the hand of Mr. M. the Gentleman aforesaid And indeed I was cordially desirous to have the controversie search't into to the very bottome as being of great moment and my selfe sufficiently inclinable if I know mine own heart to receive any convictions Mr. W. might afford rationally to sway me to his part as the most desirable upon many outward accounts if it could but appeare to be warrantable which made me the more willing to consent to the Requests aforesaid Now when this Paper of mine by Mr. M. was communicated to Mr. W. Mr. M. hath certified me under his hand that Mr. W. in stead of returning a private answer as was expected for a candid brotherly impartiall discussion of the point as if he had gotten some mighty advantage with abundance of triumphing and insulting expressions gave out he would print it And further Mr. M. attests under his hand in these words And whereas some of Mr. W. his friends had given out on his behalf that the reason why he answered this paper of Mr. Langleys in print was because several Copies were dispersed of it in his parish and he had no way to meet with them but this of printing his answer I doe hereby declare that this is utterly untrue I was so far from giving or suffering Copies to be taken of it that to my knowledge I never shewed the paper to any in the parish but himself and there were no Copies of it extant among us I my self not so much as reserving a Copy but that which was in his own hands till they were printed and published by him T.M. Many other passages Mr. M. hath testified under his hand but I shall omit inserting the same here in respect to Mr. W. whose disparagement I seek not to the Reader to whom personall matters I know will be tedious and to the cause it selfe I defend which needs not the infirmities of its opposers to raise it selfe by When I had intimation of the resolution for printing my paper I said I would not lift up my lip to desire a forbearance I think I could have been content to have seen my self rationally confuted But when I saw the answer and how in stead of close answering the argument before him he did so pitifully extravagate and so sedulously seemed to endeavour the disgrace of my person rather than the confutation of my cause I was much confirmed thereby in the opinion I had asserted Let the equall Reader freely judge herein 22 Mr W. saith p. 150. Truly I have not done pious and renowned Timson the honour I should in omitting the many and material passages that I find in his Epistle to the Reader and every where so exactly set forth in his excellent Book It were pity but he should honour Mr. Timson as the Scholar did Zabbarel who being set to epitomize him transcribed every word saying all was so sweet he could leave out none But some Palates count mouldy cheese the best and the material passages Mr. W. hath honoured his renowned Timson with the quotation of are so unsavoury and tainted as will disgrace the judgement of the Author and Citer of them p. 37 38 99 100. He calls your Church-officers saith M. W. Intruded Elders c. This forsooth is an honourable quotation It is not my business now to discuss the Controversie whether any persons but Ministers or preaching Presbyters may be chosen and designed by the Church to joyn with the ministers in the Ecclesiasticall externall government thereof If I should speak any thing concerning it in this last Digression I should premise a distinction to be put betwixt what is appointed in Scripture by divine institution and command for all Churches at all times to observe and what is gatherable from Scripture precedents and passages to have then been lawfully used in the Church of God and therefore may still lawfully be imitated Of this later sort are Lords-dayes Collections 1 Cor. 16.1.2 Pastors and Teachers as distinct offices allotted to severall persons Rom. 12.7 8 c. Of which sort also I humbly conceive the Station of such as are now called Ruling Elders is to be accounted not meerly so an excogitation of prudence as if it had no footsteps in Scripture paterns nor yet so absolutely by divine appointment as that all Churches sin who in any times have not made use of them And this I take as a mean betwixt two extreams I shall not so much as name the Arguments commonly produced for the Scripturalnesse and Reasonablenesse of their Office I shall onely crave leave to offer one Scripture which is not so much taken notice of as I think it should be for the clearing this point having before warned the Reader that it is not the name but thing I aim at Acts 15. The Synod there mentioned wrote Decretall Letters after this manner v. 23. The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia c. And then the Decree it self is recorded in the following verses That which I would have here observed relating to the point in hand is that some under the name of Brethren are joyned with the Elders or Pastors from whence ariseth this Argument viz. If these called Brethren acted authoritatively in this Ecclesiasticall Decree and yet were not privat Christians the Disciples or Members of Jerusalem Church then some select persons not Ministers did act authoritatively in Ecclesiasticall government But the former is true Therefore the later In the Consequence of the Antecedent I see nothing likely to be denied The Minor I shall endeavour to prove in its two parts 1. That these brethren acted authoritatively in this Ecclesiastical Decree is evinced by many of these strong Reasons whereby the Reverend Assembly in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren concerning Presbyterial Government presented to the Honourable Houses of Parliament p. 65. do prove that the Elders did act authoritatively as well as the Apostles the which are further improved by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Reg Ecclesiastici p. 224. to evince that both the Elders and Brethren acted authoritatively as well as the Apostles The Elders and Brethren say the London Ministers who were as authoritatively members of the Synod as the Apostles did in all points as authoritatively act as the Apostles themselves For 1. The letters containing the Synodical Decrees and Determinations were written in the name of the Elders and Brethren as well as in the name of the Apostles vers 23. 2. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles brand the false Teachers for troubling the Church subverting

another Scriture phrase referring to the casting of a person out of the communion of the Church In the 2 Thess 3. There are two other phrases both relating to the denying some communion to disorderly Christians Many think these especially the first of these belong not to any authoritative sententiall excommunication pronounced and declared by the Officers of the Church but shew the duty lying on all Christians to use their own discretion to discern and seperate from these offenders so far as concerned them in their places and stations The first of them is at verse 6. We command you brethren to withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly And the later is at verse 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed yet count him not as an enemy c. That also is a denying of some Christian communion which the Apostle exhorts to in the third Epistle of John verse 10 11. If there come any to you and bring not this doctrine that is a doctrine contrary to the doctrine they had received before mentioned receive him not into your house nor bid him god speed For he that biddeth him god speed is partaker of his evill deeds the which Doctor Hammond interprets of the wicked and Apostatizing Christian Gnosticks who taught men to deny Christ in time of persecution §. 6. From these hints the Scripture gives us about withdrawing communion from wicked Christians duely perused we may gather 1. That Excommunication is no Scripture word but is used by the Church to signifie all that just Ecclesiastical severity which over and besides admonition is to be used towards a wicked brother in respect of the Churches behaviour towards him for the reclaiming of him ond freeing the Church from the pollution of his intimate society For this description doth agree to the texts before mentioned as is manifest and therefore if excommunication do signifie what is the sense of those texts we shall not in the description aforesaid misconceive the importance of it That it is a part of Ecclesiasticall severity no one doubts all the texts mentioned do evince that That it is all that Ecclesiasticall severity the Church and members thereof do make use of besides admonition will not I think be questioned because so generally Authors do make Admonition and Excommunication the only divident members of Church censures in generall and because also neither the texts quoted nor any other do give ground for adding a third part of Ecclesiasticall censure distinct from these The rest of the description also is so plain in the texts that I shall not insist upon any of the particulars thereof viz. that the object of Excommunication is a wicked Brother that it is inflicted by the Church and the members thereof and that for the ends mentioned It is implyed in just Ecclesiasticall severity that it is done according to the appointment of Jesus Christ 2. Excommunication is nothing else but a Suspension of a person at present from personal priviledges not a cuttig him off simply from the Church But as I said a suspending him from the priviledges which as an orderly Church-member he might rightfully enjoy Mr. W. renders extra communionem ejectio an ejection out of the common union p. 15. But though some excommunicate persons are to be dealt with in some eminent respects as if they were cut off from and were none of the Church in reference whereto it is ordinary for Divines to speak of them as cut off Yet they are not simply cut off from all union with the Church thereby nor are so to he reputed which may be evinced from the forementioned Scriptures For 1. he that is most excommunicate according to those Scriptures is to be but as an heathen therefore not an heathen Simile quâ simile non est idem Now if he were simply cut off he should be an heathen and not onely as an heathen 2. Some excommunicate are to be accounted as Brethren 2 Thess 3.15 Therefore they are not reputed no Church-members 3. The Pastors are to have a pastorall care over the excommunicate and they and other Church members are still to admonish him as a brother 4. He is onely as a sick person under cure and Church remedies in order to his recovery 1 Cor. 5.5 Mat. 18.15 1 Tim. 1.20 Now there is no physicking of a member simply cut off 5. He is obliged to hear the word as a Church-member and to receive admonitions in publick and private For he is tied by vertue of the baptismall Covenant he hath professedly entred into to exercise himself in all the ordinances of Christ he hath opportunity for as he hath for hearing the word as well as an heathen with hope of receiving good thereby and for some other ordinances it is said that he looseth at present possessionem rather then jus as Mr Rutherford expresseth it and explains it by the similitude of a man having three houses who is for some offence confined to some one of them and sequestred from the other so as he may not make use of them 6. If he were made no Church-member by excommunication he should upon his repentance be rebaptized and so the Donatists rebaptized those who came into their Societies which was reasonable enough upon supposition that they were before no members of the visible Church as Mr. W. speaks pag. 22. 23. and passim alibi But the excommunicate when readmitted are not to be rebaptized therefore they were not reputed simply no Church-members whiles they were excommunicate 7. All say they are cut off but conditionally if they do not repent therefore they are not cut off till that condition be fulfilled which cannot be before their death for ought we know the sin against the Holy Ghost or the sin unto death I suppose can hardly if at all be known to be committed by any individuall person so as that the Church should conclude him absolutely irrecoverable To say a person is cut off conditionally includes he is not simply and absolutely cut off whiles that condition of his finall impenitency is not existent and accomplished Doctor Ricard Field of the Church lib. 1. ch 13 14 15. shewes how those three sorts of men who go out of the Church viz. Schismaticks Hereticks and notoriously wicked persons who are excommunicate do yet all of them remain still parts of the Church of God And concerning the last of them he thus speaks ch 15. Excommunication doth not wholly cut off the excommunicate from the visible Church of God For they may and often do retain the intire prosession of saving Truth together with the Character of Baptisme which is the mark of Christianity and so far forth notwithstanding their disobedience still acknowledge them to be their lawfull Pastors and Guides by whose sentence they are excommunicate that they would rather endure and suffer any thing then schismatically joyn themselves to