Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	king_n	law_n	tyranny_n	2,707	5	9.6492	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53662	Tutamen evangelicum, or, A defence of Scripture-ordination, against the exceptions of T.G. in a book intituled, Tentamen novum proving, that ordination by presbyters is valid, Timothy and Titus were no diocesan rulers, the presbyters of Ephesus were the apostles successors in the government of that church, and not Timothy, the first epistle to Timothy was written before the meeting at Miletus, the ancient Waldenses had no diocesan bishops, &c./ by the author of the Plea for Scripture-ordination.	Owen, James, 1654-1706.	1697 (1697)	Wing O710; ESTC R9488	123,295	224

of that Epistle on which Timothy's supposed Episcopal Power is grounded I do not pretend that my Arguments are Demonstrations as he calls his for the contrary Opinion but they carry with them the greatest probability That that Epistle was written earlier than the Rector pretends whose Arguments I have evinced to be weak and fallacious Tho' if it were written after it doth not prejudice my Argument from Acts 20. 4. In the Fourth Chapter he pretends to prove That Evangelists were fixed Church-Governours that is Bishops His main Argument by which he would Establish this fancy is a begging of the Question he takes it for granted that Timothy was a fixed Evangelist at Ephesus and Titus at Crete That they were Evangelists he cannot deny that they were unfixed I have prov'd in my Remarks on this Chapter I have prov'd Philip also to be no fixed Evangelist and vindicated Eusebius and Chrysostom 5. In the Fifth Chapter he makes a flourish as if he would answer J. O's Plea but leaves the greatest Part untouched and answers only the three first Arguments and that very slatterinly Thus you have a short Idea of his Book in which he discovers little of Argument less of Reading and nothing of Candor Tedious Digressions Nauseous Repetitions and Scornful Reflections on J. O. and the Dissenters make up very near one Third of his Book The Truth of this will appear to any intelligent and impartial Reader I should not have thought it worth while to have Answer'd it but for the clamorous Confidence of some weak People who reckon a Book unanswerable when no Reply is made unto it His Preface being large I must consider the main parts of it in a distinct Chapter and in the following Chapters shall Examine the several Chapters of his Book so as my second will answer to his first and my third to his second and so of the rest He must pardon me if I be more just to him than he has been to the Author of the Plea and if I follow him Paragraph by Paragraph in all that is material and may seem worth Answering throughout his Book For I judge it below a Scholar and a Man of Ingenuity to pick quarrels with a few Passages here and there in a Book and leave the greatest Part unanswer'd as he hath done by J. O. THE Reader may observe the Parallel between our Rector's and Dr. Manwaring 's Political Notions Condemn'd in Parliament 4 Carol. 1628. The Doctor 's Charge drawn up by a Committee of the Commons was this Rush Hist Collect. Vol. 1. p. 585. Edit 1659. 1. He labours to infuse into the Conscience of His Majesty the persuasion of a Power not bounding it self with Laws which K. James of Famous Memory calls in His Speech to the Parliament Tyranny yea Tyranny accompanied with Perjury The Rector goes beyond Manwaring in this Point for he saith That the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace unto which the King is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution And if a Prince should not give this Assurance the Rector conceives he is not obliged to Govern strictly by the present Law 2. Manwaring is charg'd to endeavour to persuade the Conscience of the Subjects that they are bound to obey Commands illegal The Rector saith We must supply the Prince's Occasions though Five Hundred Men i. e. a House of Commons at once should forbid us and to this we are bound in Conscience though the Prince should happen to be an Usurper and a Tyrant 3. The third Charge against Manwaring was That he robs the Subjects of the Propriety of their Goods The Rector saith We must supply the Prince's Occasions though five hundred Men should forbid because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription He complains that the Rights of the People were too much swell'd and affirms That it is one main ground of Political Government to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Privileges 4. Dr. Manwaring brands them that will not lose this Propriety with most scandalous Speech and odious Titles The Rector is very liberal in odious Reflections on my Lord Shaftsbury and others who opposed the Arbitrary Proceedings in the latter end of King Charles II's Reign 5. To the same end not much unlike to Faux and his Fellows saith Mr. R. in the Name of the Committee he seeks to blow up Parliaments and Parliamentary Powers The Rector saith The Prince in effect is the sole Sovereign Power if he pleases to Usurp and Exercise it You see the Rector Confirms all Dr. Manwaring 's Positions and adds some grosser ones of his own especially that the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace to which he is not obliged This puts me in mind of the Words of a worthy Patriot spoken in Parliament March 22. 1627. upon occasion of Sibthorp and Manwaring 's Sermons * Rush Ibid. P. 503. It is well known saith he the People of this State are under no other Subjection than what they did voluntarily consent to by the Original Contract between King and People and as there are many Prerogatives and Priviledges conferr'd on the King so there are left to the Subject many necessary Liberties and Priviledges as appears by the common Laws and Acts of Parliaments notwithstanding what these two ‖ Sibthorp and Manwaring Sycophants have prated in the Pulpit to the contrary The Commons form'd the Charge against Dr. Manwaring into a Declaration which being Ingross'd and Read was sent to the Lords for their Concurrence Mr. Pym 's Learned Speech at the delivery of the Charge before the Lords is well worth the reading Rush ubi supr p. 595 604. Not long after the Commons proceeded to give Judgment against Dr. Manwaring 1. To be Imprisoned during the Pleasure of the House 2. To be Fined 1000 l. to the King 3. To make such a Submission as the House shall prescribe 4. To be Suspended from his Ministry three Years 5. To be disabled to have any Ecclesiastical Dignity or Secular Office 6. To be disabled to Preach at Court hereafter 7. That his said Book is worthy to be Burnt and that His Majesty may be mov'd to grant a Proclamation to call in the said Books that they may be all burnt in London and both Universities Rush Ibid. p. 605. Mr. Fuller * Church Hist Lib. XI p. 130. saith That much of this Censure was remitted upon his humble Submission at both the Bars in Parliament the Form of which you have in him and in Mr. Rushworth But the King Issued out His Proclamation for the total Suppressing of the Sermons ‖ Rush Ibid. p. 633. I mention these things not to expose the Rector who is secured by several Acts of Grace pass'd since the Publishing of those Sermons but to expose his dangerous Doctrine that overturns the Foundations of our excellent Government THE Contents of the Chapters CHAP. I. THE Dissenters Vindicated in their

Lordship and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Ministry The Papists and some others object That Tyrannical Bellarm. de Rom. Pon. V. 10. and not Lawful Dominion is here forbidden And therefore say they Matthew useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Arbitrary and Tyrannical Dominion But it will appear that our Saviour forbids all Dominion as well as Tyranny if we consider 1. That St. Luke useth the Simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.25 which signifie Lawful and not Tyrannical Dominion And St. Matthew ought to be interpreted by Luke because the Apostle speaking of Spiritual Dominion useth the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we have dominion over your Faith The Apostles did not exercise any Dominion over the Consciences of Men they reckon'd themselves Ministers not Lords They had the power of the Word and not of the Sword Their Weapons were not Carnal but Spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lawful Dominion Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in a State of Innocency which was far from Tyranny is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX Gen. 1.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ's Dominion which is most Holy and Righteous and infinitely remote from Tyranny is set forth by the same Word Psal 110.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule thou in the midst of thine enemies 2. Christ forbids that Dominion which the Apostles coveted and were ambitious of What was that Not a Tyrannical Power over their Brethren far be it from us to impute such horrid wickedness to such good Men they were not so wicked as to desire an absolute Power to Tyrannize over the Consciences and Bodies of their Fellow-Subjects The Strife among them was which of them should be accounted the greatest Luke 22.24 They expected to be so many Princes dignified with Power and Titles of Honour above others They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom the Messiah was to set up as most of the Jewish Nation did and were Ambitious of the Chiefest Dignities in this Kingdom Mat. 20.21 They thought Jesus Christ would set up for a Temporal Prince and they aspire to a Temporal Dominion He tells them That Dominion belongs to Temporal Princes but it must not be so among his Ministers It ill becomes Servants to assume the form of Princes when their Great Prince assum'd the form of a Servant Mat. 20.27 28. Whosoever will be chief let him be your servant even at the Son of Man came not to be Ministred unto but to Minister 3. It was not a Tyrannical Dominion they Coveted for the Dominion they desired was in Subordination to Jesus Christ as their Prince and King under whom they desired to be Chief Ministers of State next unto Jesus Christ in Power and Dominion One would sit on his right hand another at hi left in his Kingdom Mat. 20.21 Now the Power which they desir'd being in Subordination to Jesus Christ as Lord and King cannot be a Tyrannical Power for this were to impute Tyranny to Christ Himself which were Blasphemy It cannot therefore be imagined That Christ should forbid Tyrannical Dominion here which they had no thoughts of Therefore all Dominion like that of the Princes of the Earth which consists in a Coercive Power worldly Grandeur and swelling Titles of Honour is here forbidden 3. The Dissenters are not the only Persons who have opposed the Secular Dominion and Lordly Titles of Bishops In the Primitive Church they were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs which are the Province of Civil Magistrates upon pain of Deprivation The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are Confirm'd by the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Can. 2. Can. Apost 6. al. 7. 80. Saecularia officia negotiaque abjiciant Honorum gradus per ambitionem non subeant Conc. Mogunt Can. 10. Sentel in clero deputati nec ad militiam neque ad aliquam veniant dignitatem mundanam Quasi bruta animalia libertate a● desiderio suo feruntur do depose all Bishops that engage themselves in Publick Administrations and Worldly Cares They are forbidden to receive Secular Honours by the great Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Council of Mentz which was called by Charles the Great A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoyned to abstain from Secular Offices and Affairs and from an ambitious Assuming of Degrees of Honour I find another German Council about the Year 895. making the Clergy incapable of Secular Dignities Conc. Tribur Can. 27. The Canon refers to the Decree of the General Council at Chalcedon Can. 7. and pronounces an Anathema against those that violate this Determination as the Council of Chalcedon had done before The Canon adds That Isidore compares those Clergy-Men who are for Secular Affairs and Dignities to Hippocentaurs who are neither Horses nor Men but are acted by a brutal Appetite Jerom desires the Bishops to remember Meminerint Episcopi se sacerdotes esse non dominos Hie. ad Nepot That they are Priests not Lords Austin saith Episcopacy is a name of work and not of honour * De Civ Dei XIX 19. Valentinian made a Law recalling the Judicial Power of Bishops in all Causes except those of Faith and Religion unless voluntarily chosen by the contending Parties Yet they grasp'd all Power into their Hands Conc. Constant VIII Can. 14. until at last they were able to Cope with Kings and Princes and Emperours must acknowledge them for their Equals This made them a common Grievance to the Princes of Europe insomuch that Frederick the second Emperour about the Year 1245. attempted to reduce them to the Primitive Simplicity as appears by a Letter which he wrote to the King of England and to the King of France and to many other Princes Nobilitatem Dignitatem Vniversalis Ecclesiae annullare M. West ad A. D. 1235. p. 203. in the close of which he signifies his Intention to divest the Vniversal Church of it's Nobility and Dignity and to reduce the Church to its Primitive Poverty and Humility It cannot be imagined that he design'd to deprive Bishops of a necessary and just Maintenance but of their excessive and superfluous Wealth and of their lordly Dignities But the Time was not yet come the Ecclesiastical was too hard for the Temporal Power the Emperour was at last deposed by Pope Innocent IVth and his Council of Bishops at Lyons and at last destroy'd by Manfred his Natural or rather Unnatural Son In the Year of Christ 1247. many of the Nobility of France enter into a Confederacy confirm'd by a solemn Oath to reduce the Clergy to the Primitive Simplicity They Published an Instrument signifying That the Clergy had swallow'd up the Jurisdiction of secular Princes and that the Sons of Slaves or Servants did judge Free-Men according to their own Laws who ought to have been

Passage is a little unluckily produced for 1. It over-throws the Notion of the learned Assertors of Episcopacy that a Diocess is the lowest Species of a Church and that particular Congregations are but Oratories and no Churches A Bishop and a Church being Relatives But Eusebius speaks of Churches of Alexandria therefore there must be Bishops of Alexandria not one Bishop and this agreeable enough to the Apostolical Platforms who appointed several Bishops in one City Acts 20.17 28. Phil. 1.1 2. Mark was an Evangelist an extraordinary unfixed Officer Eph. 4.11 1 Pet. 5.13 Eusebius calls him Peter's Companion and an Evangelist Hist 11.14.23 Ibid. 3. Anianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the Ministry of the Church of Alexandria not as a Bishop of a Superior Order to the Presbyters there but as an honourable President in their Assemblies such a Moderator as the Reformed Churches have in their Synods and Assemblies without Power of Jurisdiction over his Collegues And that he was no more Cap. to p. 126. 130. J. O. hath prov'd at large in his Plea out of Jerom and Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria where we have a clear Proof of Presbyters Ordaining for almost two hundred Years together The Rector did not judge it adviseable to meddle with J. O's Remarks upon the Church of Alexandria Either he had read that Chapter in J. O's Book or he had not If he had he is inexcusable if not he should read Books before he undertake to answer them Prov. 18.13 He that answereth a Matter before he heareth or understandeth it it is Folly and Shame unto him 4. Moreover so great a Multitude saith the Rector out of Euseb there embraced the Faith c. He suppresseth the rest of the Sentence which is thus that even Philo judg'd it worth while to describe their way of Living Our Author would perswade us by this half Sentence that there were vast numbers of Converts in Alexandria in Mark 's Time but leaves out the rest by a Cunning c. for he knew the invalidity of Euseb's Reason that Philo had described the Christians in Egypt whereas the Truth is he writes of the Essenes and not of the Christians as the Learned have prov'd This I Note only by the by as an Instance of this Gentleman's unfairness in quoting Authors otherwise I am not concern'd in the numbers of the Alexandrian Converts for as they increas'd there and in other Places they multiplied into more Churches who had Pastors assign'd them with Power of Discipline over their respective Flocks In short the instance of the Alexandrian Bishop makes altogether for us for he was but the chief Presbyter as an Arch-Deacon was the chief Deacon chosen and named by the Presbyters without any Consecration and in his room the Presbyters ordain'd another as J. O. hath prov'd in his Plea Mr. G. in the next Place shews the Parallel between their Church Goverment and that of the Apostles Our Episcopal Government saith he is establish'd upon certain Canons and Laws made and consented unto by the Convocation consisting of Bishops and Presbyters and by the Multitude of Believers that is their Representatives in Parliament And thus it was in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. Let 's a little consider this Paragraph 1. I expected he would have said the Episcopal Government is established upon the Word of God but he ingeniously confesseth the Truth of the Matter that it is established upon certain Canons and Laws of humane devising We conceive the Laws of Christ and the Canons of the Apostles contained in the New Testament sufficient for the Government of the Church 2. He makes the Multitude of Believers in Jerusalem to be as the Representatives of the People in Parliament Many of our Learned Antiquaries have industriously laboured to search into the Original of Parliaments some conceive they owe their beginning to the Normans some to the Saxons others derive them higher all confess the Rise of them like the Head of Nilus very obscure but this Gentleman by an unparallel'd Felicity of Invention has found them in the Council at Jerusalem Acts 15. where no Body before ever dreamt of them However I am glad to find him speaking any thing in favour of Parliaments for some Years ago when they were out of Request he advanced the Prerogative to that Degree that Parliaments the Bulwarks of the Subjects Liberty were very insignificant things with him I will give a few Instances 1. He would exempt the Clergy from the Power of Parliaments in Point of Taxes We the Clergy saith he are hook'd in Three Sermons of Subjection Pr. 1683 Pref. p. 4. I know not how to Pay Taxes without the consent of the Convocation 2. He will not allow the aggriev'd Subject the benefit of Petitioning and Addressing their Prince especially when he is under some disadvantage 3. He makes the King in Effect the sole Proprietor of our Estates and saith Sermon 1. p. 11 we must supply his Occasions the five hundred at once i. e. a House of Commons should forbid us because our Gold and Silver bear his Image and Superscription p. 13. The meaning is this the King has Power to Tax us without the Consent of Parliament 4. He adds and to this i. e. to supply the King without the Consent of Parliament we are bound in Conscience though the Prince should be an Vsurper and a Tyrant p. 13 14 15. Nay saith our Author a Violent and Originally unjust Power by success becomes a Legal and Righteous Authority 5. He complains that the Rights of the People were too much sweld their Properties too much enlarged their Liberties too much extended p. 17. This was in the Year 1683. when the Popish Plot had been stifled sham-Plots set on Foot for the Destruction of the best Patriots the Rights and Franchises of Cities and Corporations undermined and violated Parliaments disgraced Popery and Slavery breaking in irresistibly upon us under the Conduct and Influence of the then Duke of York 6. He affirms that the Prince is accountable to none but God for any misgovernment nay he is in Effect continues he the sole Sovereign Power if he pleases to Vsurp and Exercise it nor can the Subject conscientiously resist him p. 21. 7. He thinks it 's one main ground of Political Government to deprive the Subject from being his own Judge and Asserter of his own Priviledges 8. p. 22. He conceives the Kings Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace unto which he is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution P. 23. 9. If a Prince should not give this Assurance it is my Judgment saith he he is not obliged to govern strictly by the present Law Ibid. I doubt I have tired the Reader with these Political Maxims Sibthorp and Mainwaring were dull Fellows to this grand Master of Politicks who has left it wholly to his Prince's good Nature whether he will make use of his multitude of Believers

Teachers or ordinary Presbyters who were included in the Command of separating Paul and Barnabas for the Apostleship of the Gentiles This Ordination which was in favour of the Gentile World was intended for a President to the Gentile Churches in after Ages as Learned Dr. Lightfoot observes * Vol 1. p. 289. This Instance of Ordination by Presbyters remains firm and unshaken and all that Mr. G. hath said against it serves only to discover the Strength of it He undertakes to shew the difference between Apostles and Prophets but not a Word of difference between the Prophets and the Teachers that would have discovered the Fallacy of his Reasonings He saith Apostles and Prophets had an extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit of God P. 10 11. yet with this difference The Authority of the Apostles was fixt and habitual their Character indelible and their Office perpetual I expected he would have said an infallible Assistance but it may be he intended that by extraordinary though the following Words are a little inconsistent and divest the Apostles of the extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit except in some cases The Apostles saith he for the most part P. 11. acted as it were according to their own discretion What without the Conduct of the Spirit The Rector should have had the discretion to have conceal'd so dangerous a Position which strikes at the Foundations of our Faith This Principle naturally leads to Deism and Irreligion But worse follows I suppose saith he in Matters of Importance and in Doctrines Essential guided by the Spirit I hope he does not mean as he speaks Does he but. Suppose they were guided by the Spirit Admit he means by supposing his taking it for granted then the meaning is They were guided by the Spirit only in two Cases 1. In Matters of Importance i. e. in Practicals if I underftand him Ibid. We conceive all the Rules the holy Apostles left its about the agenda of Religion were given by Inspiration and that all the practical Duties they recommend to us are Matters of Importance to us they are so what they are to this Gentleman he knows best 2. He supposes they were guided by the Spirit in Doctrines Essential 1. It 's well he ascribes any of their Doctrines to the Holy Spirit of God but why not all as well as some The Spirit was promis'd them to guide them into all Truth John 16.13 Jesus Christ saith The Spirit should guide them into all Truth No saith Mr. G. the Spirit guided them in Doctrines Essential only Christ saith The Holy Ghost shall teach you all things John 14.26 Mr. G. saith Not all things but Matters of Importance and Doctrines Essential only Doubtless the Lord Jesus was as good as his Word and gave the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit to the Blessed Apostles in all Points of Faith and Practice they recommend to us though Mr. G. doth not believe it His Vnbelief cannot make the Faith of God without effect let God be true and every man a liar Rom. 3.3.4 2. According to his n retched supposition the holy Apostles might be mistaken in Doctrines not Essential for they had not the Assistances of the Spirit as he suggests And if they might be mistaken who knows but they were mistaken and might obtrude Errors instead of Truth upon the World And if so how can it be prov'd to be our Duty to believe those Doctrines not Essential But thanks be to God we have a sure word of promise and consequently a sure rule of Faith and Practice whatever the Rector insinuates to the contrary in favour of Atheistical Spirits 3. The Learned are not agreed about the Number of Doctrines Essential those are Doctrines Essential to Christianity with some that are but Integrals if I may so say with others All Protestants are agreed that Essential Doctrines are but few so that most of the Doctrines of Christianity are but discretionary Opinions and no Dictates of the Holy Ghost with this Man Tell it not in Gath lest the uncircumcised rejoice 4. Admit the Creed call'd the Apostles be a Summary of Essential Doctrines it does not expresly assert the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost and therefore the Socinians can freely Subscribe it Will the Rector say the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy Ghost are Doctrines not Essential and consequently not delivered by the Spirit of God 5. Is the Superiority of Bishops an Essential Doctrine If it be they are no Christians who do not believe it for they reject an Essential Doctrine of Christianity But no Sober Protestant will affirm it for this were to damn all the Foreign Reformed Churches who believe it not If it be no Essential Doctrine as certainly it is not we are left to our liberty whether we will believe it or not for the Apostles were not guided by the Spirit in delivering it according to Mr. G's Hypothesis He proceeds to describe the Prophets Their Power saith he was not constant they spake only as the Spirit mov'd P. 11. which if he ceas'd to do they were no long●r Prophets Thus the Teachers at Antioch ordinary Ministers and under the Apostles yet being moved by the Holy Ghost became Prophets and Ordained Barnabas and Saul Here he mistakes also 1. In making the Prophets to be only such while they were actually Inspired There were Prophets by Office and they are so called when the Spirit of Prophecy did not actually move them 2 Kings 3.11 15. 1 Cor. 14.29 32. Their Power was constant though the Exercise of it was not so Nathan is call'd a Prophet when the Spirit of Prophecy was not actually upon him 2 Sam. 7.2 3. 2. All Inspirations by the Holy Ghost do not make a Prophet Balaam and Caiaphas were Inspired but no Divine Prophets Ananias was mov'd by the Holy Ghost to lay his Hands on Paul for recovering of his sight but it does not appear that he was a Prophet he is no where so call'd God's speaking to him in a Vision doth not make him a Prophet as Mr. G. fancies for so he did to Cornelius who was so far from being a Prophet that at that time he was not a Christian Acts 10.3 4. Admit the Ordinary Ministers at Antioch were inwardly mov'd by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Paul and Barnabas which is not said in the Text that doth not make them Prophets For Luke distinguisheth between the Prophets and the Teachers though Mr. G. designedly confounds them Nor doth a particular direction of the Holy Ghost constitute Prophets as appears in Ananias a Disciple and it may be a Teacher and in Cornelius neither Disciple nor Teacher 3. He calls the Teachers at Antioch Ordinary Ministers and yet saith they were Prophets that is extraordinary Ministers for himself owns Prophets to be extraordinary Officers One would think if they were ordinary Ministers they were not extraordinary If extraordinary they were not ordinary I leave it to