Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	authority_n	church_n	true_a	2,292	5	5.6438	4	true

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

in the last place must needs consist of seaven persons or more As for that speech of our Sauiour where he speaks of 2 or 3 gathered together in his Name Mat. 18. 20. He doth not thereby acknowledge such a small number to be a Church but fetcheth an argument from thence as from the lesser or lesse probable to prove the firm and inviolable authority of the Church and her Censures of which he had spoken before v. 18. As if he should say if two agreeing together upon earth shal be heard in whatsoever they shall aske and if I be present with two or three gathered in my name then much more shall the whole Church who is a greater number and a more solemne assembly be heard in their prayers and have Christs presence in the midst of them to bind and loose in heaven what they shall bind or loose in earth But the former is true vers. 19. 20 Therefore the latter is true also vers 18. And for excommunication ordination and censures there is nothing in Scripture nor proved in this discourse of yours that these matters belong onely to a Synod and not to a particular congreation yea wee conceive it will not bee easie for any man whatsoever to prove that Synods and they onely have power to ordain officers and to excommunicate offenders and till this be proved the Independants as you call them need not to relinquish their judgement and practice in these particulars Sure it is that Synod in Acts 15. did neither meddle with ordination nor excommunication but onely determined the controversie about circumcision and gave rules for practice to be observed of the beleeving Gentiles for avoiding of offence among the Jewes We acknowledge that where there is no consociation or neighbourhood of congregations or single Churches whereby they may with conveniency be aiding to each other and whereto the particulars may have recourse there a single congregation must not be denied entirenesse of jurisdiction If you acknowledge thus much which yet is no more then truth requires to be acknowledged and wherin we for our parts fully concurre with you then we suppose a man may improve this grant of yours to a confirmation of that independencie of Churches which you plead against and to a disproving of a good part of that authority of Synods which you would establish For if a Church that hath no neighbourhood of other Churches have power of jurisdiction entirely within it selfe as here you doe acknowledge then first let it be considered whence such a Church hath such power and see if that ground will not reach to prove the like power in other Churches also Now we suppose none will deny but such a Church hath this authority or power by the gift of Christ and the liberty which he hath granted to every Church as it is a Church which we had rather expresse in Doctor Ames his words then in our own The power it selfe namely in reproving scandals and purging out the wicked of right or in respect of the first act cannot be separated from a true Church Because it flows immediately and necessarily from its very essence For it is contained in that Covenant whereby beleevers are gathered into a Church Cas. Cons. lib. 4. cap. 24. Q. 4. Now if this be so that power of Jurisdiction doth immediately and necessarily flow from the very essence of a Church and so belongs to a Church as it is a Church then it will follow that this power must not be granted to be in such a Church as hath no neighbour Churches and be denied unto one that hath because a Church that hath neighbours is a Church and hath the essence of a Church as truly as that which hath none Power of Jurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church belongs indifferently to all Churches to one as much as to another without respect of what neighbours they have whether many or few whether any or none Secondly let it be considered also what is the end and use of the consociation and neighbourhood of Churches and the same truth will thence appeare also which neighbourhood where it is affoorded is from the benefit of Churches but not for their hindrance and losse And therefore it may be helpfull by casting in more light but cannot abridge them of any power which they had before When Doctor Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 39. Sect. 27. had said that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church nor ought by any means to take away or impaire that libertie and power which Christ hath left unto his Churches sith it serveth onely for the directing and furthering of the same what saith Mr. Paget hereunto This saith he we willingly grant Paget Defence pa. 107. Now if this must be granted then that dependencie of Churches and that power of Synods which you plead for must not be granted For let a Church have entirenesse of Jurisdiction before she have any neighbouring Churches and be deprived of the power when God sends such neighbours and by this meanes she sustaines losse by having neighbours and comes to be in this respect in worse condition then when she had none which is against the true intent and use of the consociation of Churches Moreover if this grant of yours stand good then what shall become of that which is intimated pag. 6. and pa. 10. as a reason against the Independency of Congregations where you say that it is against the very light of nature that the adverse party be the sole Judge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the offended party meaning the Congregation should be the sole and finall Judge of the offence Sure we cannot think that there can be such a case imagined wherein you would grant it lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of nature And yet you grant that the case may be such that a single Congregation may have entirenesse of jurisdiction within it self which seems to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to be so independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within it self is not against all equity nor against the light of nature as is intimated by you in the pages afore-mentioned But sith in one place you grant that in some case a Congregation may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within it self and in another place do seem to imply that it is against all equity and the light of nature that they should be granted we for our parts are not able to discern how these things do stand together But that too much may not be made of the grant of yours you do qualifie it in your subsequent words wherein you say that this is a case extraordinarie and falls not within the compasse of the Question which is about the ordinarie rule of Church-government Whereunto we answer two things 1 That

and therefore particular Congregations as well as members have hereby liberty to complain and appeal to a more generall Judgement for redresse And a little after That such offences may arise between Churches as well as members appears by that between the Graecians and Hebrews about the neglect of their widows Act. 6. 1. and that in such cases they may complain and implead each other appears by that of the Prophet Hosea 2. 2. even the daughter Church with the mother pag. 10. To all which we thus answer First though we deny not but offences may arise betweene Churches as well as members yet we do not see that those instances alledged by you from Act. 6. and Hos. 2. do sufficiently prove the same because those Graecians and Hebrews Act. 6. might be all of one and the same Church and Congregation which was at Jerusalem and not two Congregations or Churches the Graecians one and the Hebrews another as it seems you do conceive of them For when the Apostles upon occasion of this murmuring of the Graecians for the neglect of their widows did take course for the appointing of Deacons for the remedying thereof the whole managing of the businesse was transacted and done in one Congregation alone for so it is said they called the multitude of Disciples together vers. 2. they appointed them to look out seven men duely qualified whom they might appoint over that businesse v. 3. and the saying pleased the whole multitude who thereupon did chuse seven whom they presented unto the Apostles ver. 5 6. and the Apostles imposed hands on them ver. 6. In all this there is no hint of two congregations one of Graecians and another of Hebrews but the Text seemeth plain enough that the whole multitude of Disciples whether Graecians or Hebrews were all gathered together into one Congregation about the choice and ordaining of these Deacons And as for Hos. 2. 2. Plead with your mother plead sith there is no mention in that Scripture of any daughter Church nor of any two Churches at all and sith at that time there was only one Church upon the face of the earth even the Nationall Church of the Jewes therefore we cannot see how this Text can be any proofe of Churches complaining and impleading one another If any man think otherwise and that the daughter-Churches did plead against the mother-Church of Israel that is here spoken of then we would demand what or where was that superiour Judicatory be it Synod or any other before which they did plead and before whom the mother-Church of Israel must answer for herselfe when the daughter-Churches did complain against her We suppose none will affirme there was any such and therefore this text can be no ground for Churches impleading one another But the true meaning of the place is thus much not that one Church must plead against another but that the godly members of the Church of Israel must plead against the corruptions of that very Church though in respect of them she were as a mother and they as children And before whom must they plead Not before any other Judge upon earth but before the Lord of heaven and unto her own face laying open her abominations and shewing unto her her sins And we acknowledge the members of any other Church may doe the like if there be the like occasion so that they keep themselves within the bounds of sobriety and their owne calling But if it were granted though these allegations doe not prove it that offences may arise between Congregations how doth this prove the thing in question viz. That Congregations must depend upon the government of Synods Yes say you Because the remedy must be as large as the malady and otherwise Christs salve were not equall to the sore But if this reason be sufficient against the Independency of Churches then by the like reason a man may prove that the Church of a Nation must not be Independent neither For as you alledge that offences may arise as well between divers congregations as between divers members in the same congregation so a man may alledge that offences may arise between divers Nationall Churches And as you demand What if a brother offend not a particular brother but the whole Congregation What if ten brethren offend the whole or part shall we think the offence falls not within our Saviours remedy So in like sort a man may demand What if the Congregation offend not a particular Congregation but the whole Church of a Nation What if ten twenty fourty congregations offend the whole Nation or part Yea we may adde What if the Nationall Church offend the Church of another Nation Would you now say that all these offences must fal within our Saviours rule of telling the Church and that this were a sufficient reason against the independencie of Nationall Churches and Nationall Synods We suppose you would not say so And yet we doe not see how it can be avoided by your reason and ground sith that ground is appliable to the one case as well as to the other If the reason doe overthrow the Independencie of particular Congregations then of a Nationall Church also If not of a Nationall Church then how doth it make any more against the other Of necessity for ought wee can discern you must owne the reason as strong in both cases or else refuse it as weak in both Yea and further by the like reason a man might prove that Indians and Turkes must be complained of unto the Church and that the offences of them or of other Heathen must fall within the compasse of our Saviours remedy For as offences may arise between members and members between Churches and Churches so it is apparent that offences may arise between Christians and Pagans and if this ground that you lay be sound that the remedy complaint or oppeale must be as large as the malady offence and consequently there must be a Church above Congregations then if an Indian or other Pagan shall commit an offence the remedy must be to complain of the Indian to the Church And sith as you say pag. 11. There must be power of judgement to redresse there where the complaint is to be made would it not thence follow that there must be power of judgement in the Church to redresse the offences of Indians Which were directly contrary to the plain words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them that are without But this inconvenience of the Churches judging them that are without doth unavoidably follow upon this which you lay as a ground against the independencie of Congregations viz. that where an offence may be committed there Christs rule Tell the Church may be applied for redresse thereof But what shall we say then If Indians and other Heathens if Congregationall and Nationall Churches of Christians be not under the power of that rule of Christ shall we say then there is no salve for all