Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	call_v	church_n	synod_n	2,889	5	9.6067	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91875	Certain briefe observations and antiquæries: on Master Prin's Twelve questions about church-government. Wherein is modestly showne, how un-usefull and frivolous they are, how bitter and unchristian in censuring that way; whereas there are no reasons brought to contradict it. By a well-willer to the truth, and Master Prin.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Robinson, Henry, 1605?-1664?	1644 (1644)	Wing R1667; Thomason E10_33; ESTC R18171	10,126	16

Master Ains●… Master Cotton with many of this age knowne unto you to whom you will not deny eminency in learning which have stood for this way besides doth Master Prin think we have no more light discovered in these dayes about Church-government then the godly had in former dayes or must all the Saints be regulated by former patternes then should Episcopacie be more followed then Presbytery it being as anciently practised as learnedly writ for as it Your seventh Quaerie is the same in forme with the first and sixth and as little in it as in any for first he askes whether the Law of Nature that teacheth men to subj●ct themselves to one publike forme of government in a State doth not teach to subject to a National or Provincial Synod in matters of Church-government This is answered in the first beside the independents think that it s as sutable to the law of nature rectified reason c. for every particular man to have his vote in that which most concernes him not to give away his reason to another not to subject his conscience to any but Christ reason and politicks will show Master Prin that there is a sutablenesse to the Law of Nature in a Democraticall and Aristocraticall government for this way of Church-government is made up of both these as in Monarchicall or meere Aristocraticall besides Christ hath given to men no such power over mens consciences as he hath to Magistrates over mens bodies To let passe your bitter speeches saying that there is no example for particular Congregations which you can Independents except derived from the conventicles of the Arrians Donatists and other Heretickes Leave off these names of Heretickes Master Prin you have been paid enough with that title you may blesse God for these conventicles in which you were remembred with teares when others durst not name you Master Prins eaghth and ninth Quaeries are in summe all one thus whether the concession of one Catholike Church the Nationall assembly of the Israelites the Synodall assembly of the Apostles be not an infallible proofe of National Churches of a common Presbytery c. It s answered negatively And though he say that the Independents answers are but evasions wee shall judge them solide arguments till we see the contrary The Nationall Church of the Jewes cannot be a patterne for us now because the covenant of the Gospell is not made with any one particular Nation as with the Jewes but to all persons that embrace the Gospell and beleeve in Christ You have no promise nor prophesie of any Nation to bee holy to God but the Jewes Nation when they shall be called againe Secondly Neither can Master Prin show any Nation every member whereof is qualified for to make up a Church which is the body of Christ unlesse Master Prin will take in all drunkards whore-masters c. to be members of a Church whereas the Word sayes they must be visible Saints and this cannot be avoided 1 Cor. 1. 1. Phil. 5. 1. in a Nationall Church Neither is that Assembly in Acts 15. which you call a Synod any proofe for a Presbyteriall government For first I demand whether that Church had not power within it selfe to debate the businesse and settle the controversie seeing there was a great strife among them about it Secondly I demand of Master Prin whether Paul and Barnabas had not power being Apostles to determine the matter Act. 15. 1. as well as the Synod of Elders Thirdly Whether they went not up principally to prove the false Apostles that werr among them lyers for they told them they were sent by the Apostles to make known that they must be Vers 24. Circumcised Now to give testimony unto this that they came not from the Apostles they send chosen men to Jerusalem about it Fourthly Whether this was not an occasionall meeting not a Synod which is a collection of the Elders of divers Churches into a body but onely some of the Church chosen out and sent to the other Church at Jerusalem for advise Master Prin may think as slightly of the arguments given by the Independents as he calls them from this head yet notwithstanding his word hee must give them leave to judge they are sufficient unlesse the authority of Master Prin's name be argument the Scriptures quoted serve to fill up the margent nothing else unlesse you open them and argue from them for these texts are used by the contrary side against you and as validly still as yours before more be showne The ninth Quaerie Whether the Independents challenging the Presbyterians to show a National Church in Christs time be not an irrationall and unjust demand Ans no if the Scripture hath a forme of government for the Churches of Christ in after ages to walke in but to you it may seeme irrationall who thinke Church-government must be ordered according to civill State and be cast into that mould Master Prin from his Quaeries fals to his Logick and demands whether a Syllogisme framed from the former viz No Nationall Church in the Apostles time Ergo None ought to be now be not as absurd as these There was no meeting of Christians in publike Churches but in caves corners c. Therefore they ought not to meet in publike Churches now but in caves c. I thought that Master Prin's Logick would have distinguished between the forme of a thing and the circumstance of place in the exercise of it which is left to every Churches discretion would this be a good argument in his Logick that because the ordering of circumstances of time and place are in the Churches power therefore the making of new formes of government is when the congregation men argue frō the not being of a national constitution of a Church in the Apostles dayes to the denying of any now they argue on this ground being able to make it appeare that the forme of the constitution of Churches in the Apostles time is a patterne for all Churches to follow and in no kind to vary from it Againe he demands whether that way of arguing be not as absurd as this There was no Nation Kingdome City Republike Catholike Congregationall or Parochiall Church in Adam's younger dayes before people were multiplied but a family government Ergo There ought to be none but a Family government now no man would be so void of reason no truly Sir neither did the Independents think you would be so void of reason as to father such an absurdity on them who are as rationall as your selfe As for Civill government let men alter it as they will and if God will alter the government of the Church as he did from a Family into a Nation among the Jewes and if againe from a Nation God will alter it unto a oeconimicall or congregationall we must yeeld Thirdly Againe whether it be not as absurd as this Every man in his infancy is born destitute of religiō reason

no wayes to seeke an exemption from it under paine of being guilty of arrogancy c. The Scriptures in the margent I wonder to what end Master Prin quotes them so little to purpose looke on that place 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets how full to the thing let all judge who know the scope of that place by the Prophets there doth he mean the civill State or the Synod or both And is not that spoken to a particular congregation for the regulating the exercise of prophesying or doth he meane by being subject that the Prophets have an authoritative power over the other Prophets I know not what he means by that place The other places Rom. 13. 1 2. of submitting to every ordinance c. If that be true then every man is bound to put out his owne eyes to yeeld to blind obedience never to search into the truth for if he search and find it contrary to the Word he must follow his judgement and to follow his judgement is to be a Schismatick to be guilty of arrogancy c. to contradict the Word to oppose an ordinance of God so that a man must inevitably sin take either part Is not this to uphold the Papist tenent of beleeving as the Church beleeveth c. I put it to Master Prin if the Parliament and Synod should set up an Episcopall government which he thinkes is Antichristian whether he would not speak a word against it Is not this a base bondage jurare in verba alterius to give up a mans faith and conscience to mens direction but if the former be true then this second must follow if no rule then you must obey what is commanded you Suppose that is commanded may prove untrue what if that way be not right if that Synod and State should erre what would you thinke of it then c. Secondly I humbly demand of Master Prin whether he and the other two holy men were not justly stigmatised and censured for speaking against the Bishops and Ceremonies c. which were stablished by so many Synods and Acts of Parliament and how h● can excuse himselfe from pride and arrogancy in such a course for by his owne rule he should have actually obeyed and not spake a word to the contrary Such divinity will overthrow all the power of Scripture over mens consciences only make that to bind which a Synod thinks good The third Quaerie contradicts the first in the first hee askes In this Quaerie hee quotes a saying in a Booke called The bloudy Tenent which was written by one as contrary to this as the Independents as he is to the Presbyterians and they utterly disavow the Booke whether there be any rule in the Word here he askes whether that government which hath sufficient if not most warrant in the new Testament is not to be chosen In this he cryes up the one government which he instanceth in the fourth Quaerie to be presbyteriall as tending to establish Christian unity peace c. that which serves most effectually to prevent Heresies Schismes c. Here is a bare affirmation and the independents No is as good as your I. Its desired Master Prin would prove what hee sayes that independent government hath not such expresse warrant from the Word another contradiction as presbyteriall prove that and you shall be Magnus Apollo as for the Scriptures you bring will little help you For the fifth it s answered by way of concession that it will overthrow all nationall Churches as not conceiving any such warrant in the Word but for any forme of civill government it will stand better with them then Presbytery can the mischiefes of Presbytery are vailed with Orthodoxnesse and preventing Schismes c But if the Saints would pry into the formality tyranny inslaving mens judgements and consciences the Presbyteriall way c. they would looke upon it as that which is most inconsistent with their spirituall liberty and with State priviledges It s politickly done of you to put the best termes on your owne way how will you have it take else I will let passe your bitter expressions that one man would be if possible a independent Church and republicke subject to no lawes I thought such language would not suit with you spirrit Master Prin especially that you would not speake so of them who were your best frinds in your sufferings which stood to you and refreshed you when most of your presbiterians Episcopall enough then were shye of you I could name the men that used you kindly whom you now implicitly reproach the independents giue more to civell power then your presbyterians doe I would faine know whether your presbyterians doe not hold that an Act of a Synod or a Nationall Assembly is as valid and binding in Ecclesiasticks as an Act of Parliament in civills and whether the Parliament can de jure contradict their proceedings whether they will affirme that the Parliament hath any jurisdiction over them in settling Ecclesiasticall matters this is not a Quaerie without ground for as far as the independents understand of the presbyteriall government in Scotland it s absolutely independent from the Parliament in respect of decreeing and inacting matters of government only this honor presbyterians give to their Magistrate they must be the executioners of their Iudgements to hang whom they condemne The summe of the sixth Quaerie is whether since the first preaching the Gospell beleevers multiplying they did not gather into Churches which had dependencie on and was subordinate to Nationall Synods c. And if not to show the place where and to name any eminent Author that ever maintained the contrary This Quaerie is very bold and daring yet I answer that beleevers did as soone as they were converted gather into particular Churches as is apparent but that they were subordinate unto Nationall Synods c. sub judice lis est And if in many Kingdomes it might be so de facto yet whether de jure and from a patterne in the Word that we desire may be proved Suppose this should be true that there cannot in any Kingdom such a Church be showne for many yeares or at least no Writer expresseth it if so be it can be made forth from the Word and consonant to the Saints practise in the Apostles times I know no such Schisme in dissenting from all mens practises to follow the cleare truth You challenge all to show you one eminent Writer who maintained the same I will not go so far back into antiquity as to bring you out a catalogue of Fathers who though they had not a cleare light in that way yet had many shrowd hints and notions in many things which are practised by these you call independent There be many latter Writers as eminent in holinesse and without disparagement in learning to many whom you can produce for the other as learned Doct. Ames in Medul theolog de eccles