Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	church_n	minister_n	ordination_n	2,890	5	10.2282	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87227	Confidence questioned: or, A brief examination of some doctrines delivered by M. Thomas Willes of Bottolphs Billings-Gate, in a sermon preached by him at Margrets New-Fish-Street, the 7th of Decemb. 1657. Also, some questions touching his pretended call and authority to preach the Gospel. By Jeremiah Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1657 (1657)	Wing I1095; Thomason E932_2; ESTC R207665	8,815	18

you should tell the people they sin in hearing those that are not ordained when you never tell them whether you mean any Ordination may serve nor what Ordination of those divers kindes it is that God approves of 26. Since you say That none ought to preach but they must be ordained except as before excepted then I query whether your Ordination be derived from the Line of Succession or whether it had its Original from Necessity because such an Ordination by Succession could not be had This Question is grounded partly upon what you preached partly upon what you granted me at your House viz. That where it cannot be had from a lawful successi●● power there a man may lawfully officiate in the Office of the Ministery without it and that because he is put upon it through necessity Since therefore you say there is but these two ways by which a man may be justified in preaching or the people in hearing I query now as I did at your House by which of these two ways came you into the Ministery for you told us That none could pretend to Necessity when it might be had by Succession 27. If you say By Succession then surely you succeed from Rome if so then I query whether the Church of Rome was the Spouse of Christ and her Ministery and Ordinances the Ministery and Ordinances of Christ when your Predecessors received their Ordination from them if so then 28. Whether the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her as she was when they received Ordination from her which was but a little before 29. If you shall say Here was a Succession of British Ministers in England before the Papal Power had to do here or before Gregory the Pope sent Austine the Monk to convert the Saxons then I query whether all those Ministers were not brought into subjection to the Papal Power and so were swallowed up in the See of Rome If not then 20. Whether there was any Succession of a true Church in England who were separated from the Church of Rome if there was shew us where that Church was all the time the Papal Power was exercised here and who were they that governed it and also how your Ordination proceeded from this reformed rather then from the Papal Line 31. If you say It came from Rome and not from that presupposed Succession then I query if Rome was a little before Hen. 8 's time intrusted with the Administration of Christ's Ordinances as a Church of Christ whether it was not your sin to leave her as a cage of every unclean thing 32. If you say truly of her as indeed you do that she was the cage of every unclean thing how then could she dispense at that time so sacred an Ordinance as Ordination of Gospel-Ministers is by you judged to be 33. If you 〈◊〉 She had power as a Church and you did separate because of her corruptions that you might serve the Lord with more purity then I query whether you are not guilty of that evil your self if yet it be an evil which you charge upon Mr. Brooks in separating from the halt maimed 34. Whether it hath not been common for those of your way to separate from the Papists and yet take their Tythes and to use your own phrase sheer those lame and diseased Sheep which you have denied to admit into the Fold with you 35. If you say They might if they would reform have communion with you I query then whether this very Objecti-that causeth you to exclude Papists be not the reason why Mr. Brooks refuseth scandalous Protestants and other prophane people viz. because they do not reform 36. If you shall deny this Succession and say That there was none and that it was lost then I query whether this be not a singular and private Opinion of your own differing from the rest of your Brethren 37. If that Ordination from Rome and receiving holy Orders from thence was thrown off upon a politick account as doubtless it was at first though since we have declined it upon more religious considerations then I query how any body could pretend to the Argument of Necessity to preach without Ordination 38. Whether or no when the Line of Succession was broke it was not lawful THEN for every one to preach that could although it might not have been lawful before because Necessity puts one lawfully upon that work where a successive Ordination cannot be had by your own Maxim 39. If it were true as you say that none ought to preach while the successive Ordination of Christ remains un-interrupted but such as are lawfully ordained which is the great thing in question how doth it become a sin for men that are gifted to preach since there is no such Ordination now on foot but that which men put themselves upon through necissity and want of the other by Succession 40. Whereas you say You can baptize the children of wicked Parents I query what Ground you have in Scripture so to do 41. Whether to baptize the children of wicked Parents be not contrary to the Opinion of those which your self calls the reformed Churches 42. Whereas you said That the Fifth-monarchy-men were as the smoak of the bottomless pit and that their Principles did rase the Foundation of Religion I query whether they were not called Fifth-monarchy men because they did believe that when the Caldean Monarchy and the Monarchy of the Medes and Persians and the Grecian and Roman Monarchy should be wholly extirpated that then the Lord himself should set up a Fifth monarchy which should succeed these four of whose kingdom there should be no end according to that of Dan. 7.23 24. 43. If this principle were grounded upon this and such-like sayings in Scripture what reason had you to cry out against it 44. If you say It was because of the evil practice of some of them in these later times I do thereupon query If this be a good Argument Some of their practices were bad Ergo their principle is bad Whether a man might not have said the same both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian way since that some of them were such as engaged the Nation in War and Blood more then ever those were like to do you call Fifth-monarchy-men but this surely is un-man-like reasoning 45. Whereas you would seem to blame Mr. Brooks for harsh Judgement I query whether your Judgement was charitable when you decried the Fifth-monarchy-men as so many monstrous Hereticks that rase the Foundation without any kinde of exception especially considering what Ground there is for it in God's Word also that it was the Opinion of many men both ancient and modern for Justin Martyr in his Apology to Antonius the Emperour asserts the thousand yeers Reign of Christ upon Earth and he further saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon that it was the belief OF ALL CHRISTIANS exactly Orthodox And of later times we have

Confidence questioned OR A Brief Examination Of some Doctrines delivered By M. THOMAS WILLES of Bottolphs Billings-Gate In a Sermon preached by him At Margrets New-Fish-Street the 7th of Decemb. 1657. ALSO Some QUESTIONS touching his pretended Call and Authority to preach the GOSPEL By Jeremiah Ives Prov. 18.17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his neighbour comes and searcheth him Rev. 2.2 And hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers Act. 17.11 These were more noble then those of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of minde and searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things were so LONDON Printed for Daniel White and are to be sold at the seven Stars in Paul's Church-yard or are to be had at the Author's House in Red-Cross-Street 1685. To the Impartial Reader Reader IT is matter of great admiration to see men sacrificing their Reasons and Judgements upon the Altar of blinde Zeal and Devotion it is also matter of lamentation to see men who would be judged Christians suck in Opinions as wild Asses do the Wind without Trial and Examination and so become impatient of contradiction and all this while forget that blessed Rule of trying the Spirits whether they be of God or no. I shall therefore soberly propose some Questions for Conscience sake which I desire may be weighed and considered some of which Questions are those that I had intended to have propounded to Mr. Willes in publick had I not been prevented by a tumultuous Auditory some pulling and haling me others threatning to throw me over the Gallery If this look like a Spirit of Christianity I confess my self to be very ignorant of a Christian Spirit sure this Spirit is more like the Spirit of the Primitive Persecutors then the Primitive Professors of Christ and yet these are the Men that cry up a Reformation according to the Primitive Institution If the Light of these ensuing Questions shall give Light to the Conscience of any or their Answers give Light to my own Conscience I shall bless the Father of Lights who hath not suffered me to labour in vain That some such good may be the product hereof is the desire of him who is thine in the service of Christ Jer. Ives Confidence questioned Mr. Willes IT hath always been the practice of Deceivers to sow their Tares among the pure Wheat and to blend their Errors with choice Truths I shall not say you did any such thing by design but that you did it the Light of these ensuing Questions will manifest and if you would have me be so charitable as to think you did not project such a thing I pray then do not refuse to come to the Light that your deeds may be made manifest and remember That Truth seeks no corners and if therefore you are confident of the truth of what you have delivered fear not the face of opposition It is enough for Turks and Jews Papists and Hereticks to assert that which they fear publickly to dispute because they are conscious of the brittleness of such Assertions and therefore are loft to hazard them in the Fire of Disputation Let those then fear the Touch-stone whose Coyn is counterfeit and not Men that are Gospel-Preachers lest Men have occasion to call them counterfeit-Silver I pray you therefore so far to honour that which you have publickly asserted if it be Truth as to answer these Questions that relate to those things which you then delivered ONe thing asserted by you was That it was not lawful for any to preach ordinarily and constantly but such as were ordained except it was for approbation or in cases of necessity when such Ordination cannot be had The first Question that I desire to be resolved in is Whether any thing can be charged as sin upon any but what is against a Divine Law since the Apostle saith Rom. 4.5 Where there is no Law there is no transgression 1 John 3.4 Sin is the transgression of a Law 2. Whether by any Law of God it is a sin for men that are gifted for the Ministry to preach the truth of Christ to the Edification of their Brethren although they were not put upon it by reason of your supposed necessity or though they should never be ordained to Office 3. If there be any Law manifesting such a practise to be sinful pray tell me where that Law is written that so I may see my error and reform 4. If there be a liberty for gifted men to preach in order to their approbation for Office as you confess pray tell me whether they do not preach in the capacity of gifted Brethren before their Ordination since they cannot preach by vertue of Office while as yet they are not in it 5. If they preach as gifted Brethren before their Ordination then I quere How long they may thus preach till their preaching becomes sinful 6. If you say Till the Ministry or Presbyters approve them and are very well satisfied with their abilities and qualifications for that imployment then I quere How if this man whom they approve of is unsatisfied with their power to ordain him is it then a sin for him to preach till he is satisfied with their power 7. How if a man be gifted and enabled to preach the Gospel to edification and comfort and yet finds himself very short of a power to rule the Church of God as that Office requires or it may be wants faithful Children such as are not accused of ryct it may be he hath not power over his passion but may be soon angry c. which are those qualifications that Paul tells Timothy and Titus MUST be found in such officers see 1 Tim. 3.4 5. Titus 1.6 7. I quere from hence Whether a man should sin to use those gifts God hath blessed him withal out of Office because he hath not all those qualifications that are required before he be admitted to Office And whereas you say it is a sin for people to hear such as are not ordained except as before excepted I quere 8. Whether there is any Law of God broken when I hear the truth of Christ preached by any that are not ordained if so shew me where that Law is to be found 9. Whether or no Apollos did not preach the Gospel as is recorded Act. 18.24 25 26 27 28. publickly and freequently and whether he could be an Officer of the Church at that time seeing he knew ONELY the baptisme of John or was not acquainted with the baptisme of the Spirit therefore pray shew us that he was at this time an Officer or else that he preached for approbation to it or that he preached by vertue of any necessity By vertue of necessity he did not preach for there were able Christians before such as the Text saith did instruct him And if he preached at this time as an Officer or for approbation thereunto pray shew h●w that

appears 10. It is said Mal. 3.16 that THEY that feared the Lord SPAKE OFTEN one to another c. And Heb. 10 25. It is required that we should not forsake the assembling of our selves together but exhort one another dayly c. whether by the light of these Texts it doth not appear 1. That Gods people ought to meet often together 2. That they may and ought to exhort one another being thus assembled 3. Whether by one another we are not to understand any one that hath a word or gift of Exhortation as well such as are no Officers as those that are 11. Is it not written Rom. 2.1 2. Therefore thou art inexcuseable Oman whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest doest the same things Vers 3. And thinkest thou this O man that judgest them that do such things and dost the same that thou shalt escape the judgement of God Vers 22. Thou that abhorrest idols dost thou commit sacriledge Whether by the light of these Scriptures your darkness is not discoverd who told the people how sinful and dangerous it was to hear such as Mr. Brooks when your self hath heard him once and again And whether all the excuses that you have for such a practice will not be arguments to justifie others as well as you And since you cried the hearing of such Men down as a general evil without any exception pray tell me let your pretence in hearing be what it will how can you do evil that good may come And whether by the same pretence that you can make to hear Mr. Brooks if to hear him be sinful which is not yet proved any man may not hear in an Idols Temple or eat meat in an Idols Temple and so cause his weak brother to be emboldened in his way and make him to perish for whom Christ died contrary to that in 1 Cor. 8.10 11. 12. It is said Heb. 5.12 That when for the time ye OUGHT to be teachers c. I query from hence Whether here is not a Duty required and whether that Duty be not Teaching Again whether the persons that the Text saith OUGHT to teach were not members out of Office if so then I query whether that this Teaching might not as lawfully have been performed in publick Assemblies as in private Families since neither this nor any other text makes the one any more unlawful then the other provided they have abilities to the one as well as to the other 13. It is said 1 Cor. 14.1 Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts but rather that ye may PROPHESIE c. compare this Verse with the 24. but if ALL prophesie and there come in one that believeth not c. and V. 31 Ye may ALL prophesie one by one that all may learn and all may be comforted From these texts I query whether that this was a prophesying by Gift or Office if it shall be said It was by Offices then I query whether it was by ordinary or extraordinary Office If it shall be said That it was by extraordinary Office then it follows That the Apostle exhorted the whole Church to covet after extraordinary Offices when he exhorted them to follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts but rather that THEY might PROPHESIE v. 1. 14. If it shall be said That Prophesying here was an ordinary Office than it follows That the whole Church are exhorted to covet to be ordinary Officers which would be to make the whole Body of Christ monstrous If it shall be said That they were not exhorted to Prophesie as extraordinary or as ordinary Offices then I query whether they were not to do it as gifted Brethren since we never heard of any other way 15. Whereas you say That none ought to preach but those that are ordained except as before excepted I query Among those several Ordinations that are in Christendom which of those whether some one of them or all of them be that which Christ approves of If you say All of them and that the errors of the Administrators in some Circumstances doth not make the Ordination a Nullity then I query 16. Whether one may not by this Opinion be lawfully ordained at Rome 17. If you shall say The Protestant-Ordination is lawful and that only then I query which of those whether the Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent-Ordination be that which is approved by Christ to impower the Ministers to Preach since all these are Protestants and greatly differ in this thing If you say All of these are lawful then were not the Ministers of the Episcopal way greatly out in crying up the Ordination by Bishops to be the onely Authoritative Ordination in opposition to that of the Presbytery And that they did so will appear if you consult Dr. Jer. Tayler Chaplain to the late King in his Book called Episcopacy asserted page 120 121 122. It is cleer saith he that Bishops were to do some acts which the Presbyters COULD NOT do one of which he calls Ordination by imposition of Hands which he saith was not to be done by Presbyters Again the said Doctor saith That the Apostles did impse Hands for confirmation which saith he was to continue in the Church and could not be done by the seventy or any MEER Presbyter And for this he cites the constant practice of the Fathers and the Opinions of divers Churches Therefore pray tell me if this be that Ordination which a man must have without which his Preaching is sinful 19. Again if you say All or any the forementioned Ordinations be lawful then how vain a thing was it for the Presbyterians to throw down the Government of Episcopacy why did they not rather reform it then cashier it seeing it was a power by which Ministers might have been authorized to preach according to God's Ordinance 20 If the Bishops as Bishops had this lawful Power when did any Power from Christ devest them 21. If Episcopal Authority were of God as the Bishops pretend why may not a man lawfully go still to them for Ordination in case this Authority was never taken from them in an Ecclesiastical way 22. If you say That both Presbyterian and Episcopal Ordination is lawful then I query whether that Christ ever erected two ways of Ordination of Ministers one contrary to the other and yet both lawful for such is the state of Episcopacie and Presbytery in England one saith that the Presbytery hath no power to ordain the other saith they have 23. If it is that Ordination that is among the Independents then we have that we run for then if one have their suffrage and Ordination and this be lawful which I think you will not say then wherein is Mr. Brooks in this to be condemned 24. Again If you say That Ordination by the Presbytery is the onely Ordination then where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty yeers ago 25. Is it not very strange that