Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	church_n	interpretation_n	3,657	5	10.5181	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90624	A vindication of The preacher sent, or A vvarrant for publick preaching without ordination. Wherein is further discovered. 1. That some gifted men unordained, are Gospel preachers. 2. That officers sustain not a relation (as officers) to the universal Church; and other weighty questions concerning election and ordination, are opened and cleared. In answer to two books. 1. Vindiciæ ministrij evangelici revindicatæ or the Preacher (pretendly) sent, sent back again. By Dr. Colling of Norwich. 2. Quo warranto, or a moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons. By Mr. Pool, at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London. With a reply to the exceptions of Mr. Hudson and Dr. Collings against the epistle to the preacher sent. / Published by Frederick Woodal, minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk. Samuel Petto minister of the GospeI [sic] at Sandcraft in Suffolk.	Woodall, Frederick, b. 1614.; Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.	1659 (1659)	Wing P1902; Thomason E1728_2; ESTC R204138	152,808	253

their Arguments against gifted mens preaching without Ordination He rehearseth our Arguments leaving out a great part of their strength and putting in his own exceptions against them and then mentioneth the heads of their Arguments without our exceptions against them and yet pretendeth pag. 116. not to take at advantage but to set the best glosse upon our cause in which surely no Reader will believe him CHAP. XII Concerning Election as belonging to a particular Church THere are three Scriptures chiefly urged to prove the power of Election to belong to a Church viz. Act. 1. Act 6. and Act. 14. Many of our answers to objections against these proofes we have no reply to and so we shall but touch upon things here and refer the Reader unto our former Book and to our reply to Dr. Collings for a fuller answer 1. The first Scripture is Act. 1. 23. Object It was not an exhortation to chuse nor a direction in chusing here is not a word of the piety c. of the person but onely a declaration that one must be chosen c. however it was fit the people should consent pag. 120. Answ 1. Here he plainly contradicteth the provincial Assembly for he saith it was not a direction in chusing they say Jus Divin Min. pag. 127. they were guided and directed in their choice by the eleven Apostles and seek to prove it from ver 21 22. how should we answer both 2. Qualifications are set down ver 21. and the men and brethren in the meeting being spoken to ver 16. it is clear that they were the persons chusing ver 23. 2. The second place is Act. 6. Object 1. Regulation by dead Lawes and rules is no prejudice to the peoples sole power in Election but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it If the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds would they have been Deacons if not then the Essence of the Call consists not in Election Mr. Pool pag. 121. Answ 1. Paul was as much a living Judge when he did write ●o Timothy and Titus as the Apostles were Acts 6. yet he giveth Rules for ●egulation 1 Tim. 3. ver 2. 3. Tit. 〈◊〉 ver 6● and if Ordination be aymed at here either these Rules of Regulation destroyed the power of Timothy and Titus in Ordination or else those Rules Act 6. did not destroy the peoples power of Election And we may turn his question upon him If Paul had upon just grounds refused any of those Ordained by Timothy and Titus would they have been Officers if not then according to his arguing the Essence of the call consists not in Ordination 2. If they chose persons duely qualified the Apostles could not refuse them 3. If the Apostles had a negative voyce in case persons were not rightly qualified yet that would not deny the whole power of Election to be in the Church for their affirmitive voyce might be onely causa sine qua non not causa formalis of the Election as himself telleth us pag. 13● we may urge his instances there against what he saith here and they will be as strong for us as for him And this answereth what followeth If the Apostles refusing any chosen would have hindred their being Deacons as p. 121. or the want of Ordination would have made Election null as he saith pag. 122. yet the Essence of the Call might consist in Election for their approbation or Ordination might be onely Causa sine qua non they might not be Essential though they could not be without them But it is he that forgets not we for the present question is about the peoples power of chusing not about Election as Essential to a Call nor of Apostles power in Election As to what he addeth pag. 123. about arguing a minori ad majus affirmative we answer It is Mr. Pool that runneth upon the grosse mistake for our Argument is fetched from the same Canon that there 's is as any one may plainly see Preacher Sent. pag. 224. And whether the Argument from the greater to the less affirmatively be not urged in the Scriptures we mentioned pag. 226. let the Reader judge Object 2. There is another Canon and that is this Quod competit minori competit e●iam majori If Ordination was required to the meaner and less considerable office which is that of the Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office and this was the Argument used by the Assembly Mr. Pool pag. 123. Answ Our Argument will stand upon this foot he can get nothing by this for the Canon will serve us what he saith of Ordination we may say of Election If the peoples Election was required to the meaner and lesse considerable office which is that of Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and mighter office 3. The third Text is Act. 14. ver 23. To his exceptions we answer 1. That the usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to chuse by suffrages and without special reason we must not recede from that and many reasons we gave against its denoting a chusing or ordaining onely by Paul and Barnabas 2. The word being applyed to God Act. 10. 44. it must needs be taken figuratively and as there it doth not denote chusing by suffrages so neither can it be taken for Imposition of hands for God hath no hands to lay on 3. The word is but once more used that we know of in Scripture and then it s applied to the Church so that according to the Scripture use of it the advantage is on our part 2 Cor. 8. 19. He thinketh the people did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Object 1. They are said to ordain them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to themselves Mr. Pool pag. 125. Ans He confesseth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore this cannot deny it to be the peoples or Churches Act. Object 2. The same persons are said to ordain in several Cities and Churches and so had an authority over several Churches pag. 25. Answ 1. If the persons were the same yet 1. They did not as the manner of some is ordain in one Church ●or another at Lystra for Antioch but in every Church respectively it was not all upon one day 2. They are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who go before others and are chief in chusing 2. It is not evident that the persons were the same I● a Parliament were to be chosen and the Supream Magistrate should send men into the several Counties to observe the peoples Elections it might be said as it is here and when they had chosen them Parliament men by suffrages in every County c. though those men so sent had no hand in the Elections So if Paul and Barnabas had been onely Spectators and eye-witnesses of the several Churches Elections yet all might have been said

him If they be under a general obligation to Preach when opportunity or a call is offered so are gifted men If he will say they can command it let him prove it whom they may require to hear when Churches are full of Pastors We urged diverse Arguments for the Preaching of some men without Ordination Argu. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination Preacher Sent. p. 29. Obj. Dr. Collings knoweth no need of any Preaching in order to election but onely twice or thrice to try a mans utterance and denyeth the election of a particular Church as necessary to precede Ordination c. Vind. Revind pag. 45. 46. Answ A tryal what gifts a man hath for Scripture interpretation and of the sutableness of a mans gifts to such a people c. maketh ordinary Preaching necessary in order to election as well as the tryal of utterance 2. Election did precede Ordination Act. 6. vers 5. they chose Stephen vers 6. And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them Dr. Collings asketh whether we think that the election there was by the whole multitude We answer yes for it is expressely said v. 5 the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen c. they who chose the Text answereth the whole multitude Their being divided because some widows were neglected in the daily ministration did not hinder their agreeing together in the chusing of Deacons which was propounded as a means purposely for the healing of those divisions neither doth the number if it were so great forbid it for more have met We expected his attempting to give some Text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election but he waveth that altogether Argu. 2. From Gospel commands 1 Pet. 4 ver 10. 11. Hebr. 10. 25. Preach sent p. 32. Obj. Dr. Collings his chief exceptions against this are 1. If any one who hath ability may dispense the the gift then gifted brethren may administer baptisme and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text. Vind. p. 50. 2. The context speaketh of the good things of this world pag. 50. 3. If the ability to Preach be the gift only meant he that never had the Oracles of God committed to him cannot speak them as the Oracles of God And however this was when the Church was in a scattered state pag. 51. 4. He inclineth to take it in the latitude for any communicable gift but it must be ministered in a due way and order and upon a regular C●l● Vind. Revind pag. 55. Ans 1. We do not limit it to the gift of Preaching but say that is one special gift intended 1 Pet. 4. v. 11. If any man speak c. and so it cannot be restained to this worlds goods And the foregoing and following exhortations being left in general amongst the Saints and a note of universality being used here v. 10. as every man c. hence the generality of those that have grace and the gift of Scripture interpretation are commanded to Mister that gift and hence gift cannot be restrained to Office seeing many are so gifted who are no Officers And the gift of Preaching being a publike gift i. e. such as fitteth for and is mostly laid out in a publike way hence it is very probable that an use of it in publike Assemblies is that which the Apostle driveth at especially seeing other Texts do warrant gifted men in such publike actings as Hebr. 10. 25. Act. 18 26. 28. 2. Neither may every one that is gifted administer Baptisme and the Supper by vertue of this Text. For 1. The gift of Preaching is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 11. the administration of Sacraments not so 2. Some Preaching is an act of meer charity no ministering of Seals is so Every friend of the bridegroome according to his ability may serve the Bridegroome in acts of charity but none can serve him in those rites wherein mutual engagement is Sealed but one appointed especially thereunto 3. Dr. Collings is at liberty to Preach many Sermons without the knowledge or expresse consent of his eldership but not to suspend one member from the Supper or admit one thereto there is then some difference between the dispensation of the word and the administration of Sacraments 4. Baptisme and the Lords S●pperare act so purely of institution that they would never have been duties nor could have been known to be so without Scripture-light and so are not to be dispensed by any though gifted without an allowance thereunto by the institution which is the onely determining rule about the Adminstrator and Administration But as prayer is a natural duty though commanded over in the Gospel and many rules laid down to regulate direct in the performance of it So Preaching in it self is an act of natural worship if there had been no Scripture rules laid down about it yet man by natures light might have learned it to be a duty to publish the will God his Creator unto others according to ability and opportunity and therefore the Law of nature doth firstly lay gifted men under obligations to Preach and this is seconded by Gospel rules as in the Text alledged 3. It is nothing to his purpose if gift be understood of Alms or Office unlesse it be exclusive and that it cannot be limited to them onely we proved in our former book and he inclineth to take it for any communicable gift Vind. Revind pag. 55. and so he cannot restrain it unto Alms or Office But if his Arguments did prove it very probable that by gift is meant Office which they do not they were equally strong to prove that Alms are not the gift chiefly intended It might then be said the gift is to be administered as Stewards and to acts of Office are instanced in ver 11. and therefore it is meant only of Office not of Alms which many men out of Office may give and when some of his Arguments will serve as answers unto others or when he is found answering himself let the Reader judge whether that childishness which he mentioned Vind. Revind p. 49. be to be found in our replies or in his Arguments 4. The Church was not in such a scattered state but that it had Officers in it for it s said 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort c. If gifted men may Preach in Churches that have Elders in them much more may they do it elsewhere 5. The main stress is upon the Call Quest What gives a Call to Preach Ans 1. That which maketh an habitual Prophet Preacher c. although we allow not actual and habitual in relations yet otherwise we allow it justifies the actual except the hearers be incapacitated as to that priviledge If men be Prophets in the collation of grace and a gift through the use of means who will forbid them prophecy but rather wish as Moses Num. 11. 29. 2. Christs command concerning a work is mans Call to do

Generat work p. 50. Key to Myst N. pag. 248. Knowledge of the times pag. 97. he doth not speak of it as certainly and infallibly to come to passe that yet we find and if he had many worthy men have been mistaken in the mystical numbers and therefore it is an unworthy act to seek thus to blemish his name after his death That which he speaketh of Prelates is but to cast odium for neither Arch-Bishops nor Bishops can shew any institution of Christ for their office they have not an immediate vocation or infallible direction or power for miraculous operation and therefore they cannot rationally pretend to such a general Commission as Apostles and Evangelists had 2. If by ordinary he intendeth Common in that sence the gift of Tongues and healing in those dayes were ordinary though the way and manner of conveying those gifts and the end of them was extraordinary Act. 2. ver 3. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 22. Tongues are for a sign But that was ordinary which had not a temporary reason for its use or which did not require an extraordinary Call to enable to and warrant in coming up to it or which men are commonly in after ages gifted for even unto this day and whose nature acts and ends were not extraordinary And whether our Arguments do not prove prophecying in these respects to be ordinary and so still continuing let the Reader judge Mr. Rutherford saith that these Prophets and our Pastors differ not in species and nature and that to him this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets c. which still rendreth us perswaded that Mr. Rutherford thought the gift of Prophesie was ordinary for surely he knew that an extraordinary gift did make one differ in species nature from ordinary Officers Only he judged that the way and manner of conferring that gift was extraordinary ordinarily it is acquired by study and industry then he supposed it was infused But as it was an ordinary visive faculty as other mens which was conferred upon the man born blind and wine of an ordinary species which was made John 2 though the manner of production was extraordinary so the gift of prophesie was ordinary in his account though by a maze of words Dr. Collings would perswade the Reader otherwise We proved this prophecying to be an ordinary gift and so still continuing because 1. The Rules to regulate the work are ordinary 2. The description of it ordinary 1 Cor. 14. 3. 3. One great end of extraordinary prophecying viz. to be a sign is denied to this 1 Corinthians 14. 22. 4. Women are forbidden this publike prophecying 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet extraordinary publike prophecying is allowed to them Luke 2. 36. 38. Obj. 1. The act may be ordinary and yet the gift not so Extraordinary Officers and gifts were to come under general rules of order 2. So far as it is a description it is a description of the act not of the gift onely such ends of prophecying are expressed as were common to that with other Ordinances and duties 3. This Text onely proves that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not The onely end of foretelling things to come was not to be a sign Their chief act as be conceiveth was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift which indeed to them that believed not the Scripture would be of no use 4. Women prophetesses are not mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 34. we do not find that Anna Luke 2. 36. spake things to come and this liberty was restrained 1 Cor. 14. 37. Ans 1. Extraordinary acts will follow extraordinary gifts for operari sequitur esse That the work of prophecy is ordinary is not a fallucious but a firm Arument to prove the gift to be ordinary also and still continuing none but ordinary rules are mentioned to regulate prophecysing nothing in the description of the work but what is ordinary and a large chapter is spent chiefly in directing about prophecying and nothing extraordinary is predicated either of the gift or act in the whole chapter and surely this will prove an ordinary gift or work of prophesie to be here intended as strongly as the enumerating onely of Officers or persons extraordinarily gifted Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 29. if granted can prove extraordinary prophesie to be there intended as he would have it Vind. pag. 70. 77. And extraordinary directions were given to regulate Apostles and Evangelists in the exercise of extraordinary gifts Mat. 10. 2. The act and so the description of it must be sutable to the gift Exhortation is here assigned unto prophesie and also Act. 15. 32. Being Prophets exhorted the brethren with many words where the act of prophesie is denoted by it and that here onely some common ends should be expressed by it how unconceivable is it Is not exhortation an act Edification and comfort are not so and therefore what triflling is it to say the Text proves them to be the act as well as the other or will not the words as rendred by him out of the Greek serve as well to our purpose as the Uulgar translation and can the sence be perfect without to or some such word we know not to what end his high words here serve but to make a flourish 3. That the extraordinary gift or act of fore-telling things to come cannot be the prophecying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. we prove because one great end of prediction viz. to be a sign is denyed unto this prophecying and that denial is to be found ver 22. Our Argument was not taken from a denial of the act as he reporteth pag 73. but of one end which indeed by consequence denyeth that to be the gift or act He faith this Texthat believed not that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not We answer this which he granteth it doth prove enough to evidence that fore-telling things to come is not the prophesie here intend for that was a sign to them that believed not Mat. 16. ver 3 4. The sign of the Prophet Jonas was given to convince a wicked and Adulterous generation Neither is there a word in the chapter to prove that the prophecying 1 Cor. 14. was a sign to such as believed or that the infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift was the act of those Prophets both which he suggesteth 4. If he intendeth onely that women Prophetesses are not expressely mentioned 1 Corin. 14. 34. we might answer all his arguments at once with this for the Scripture doth not expresly command all preachers to receive Ordination If he will say they are no way mentioned or intended Then 1. He contradicteth the London Ministers who use these words by women here are not meant women simple but women Prophetesses in opposition to men Prophets formerly spoken of Jus. Divin Min. pag. 100. yea contradicteth himselfe for he faith it is to be understood of women that had or pretended to have

the gift of prophesie Vind. Vindiciarum pag. 119. And by this the Reader may see that it is a hard task for us to answer both the the London Ministers and Dr. Collings seeing they contradict one an other and the Dr. will rather contradict himselfe then want a reply for us 2. There is no appearance of truth in it for this Chapter speaketh chiefly about the gift of prophesie stiling it speaking v. 29. yea a speaking publikely is forbidden to women v. 34. 35. and that speaking in way of prophesie should be excluded without cogent reason to infer it who can imagin it And if the publick speaking in way of Prophesie be intended as doubtlesse it is then women prophetesses are mentioned v. 34 and our argument standeth firm neither would the force of it be much abated if it were granted which yet it is not that Anna Luk. 2. 36. was called a prophetesse or that an othery were called Prophets from an extraordinary faculty by Revelation to interpret Scripture and so what he faieth is nothing to the present purpose for we may argue thus That Prophesying which was an interpreting of Scripture by an extraordinary faculty from Revelation was permitted unto women Luke 2. 36. But the prophesying 1 Cor. 14. was not permitted unto woman v. 34. Ergo the prophesying 2 Cor. 14. was not an interpreting of Scripture by an extraordinary faculty from Revelation which Dr. Collings would have to be the Prophesying there intended pag. 74. There is not one sylable of proof that foretelling things to come is the prophesying intended 1 Cor. 14. We have proved Preacher Sent. Pag. 103. that this liberty is not restrained by the Apostle the Dr. asserteth that it is restrained 1 Corin. 14. 37. yet hath given nothing but his bare word for the proof of it And this is enough to shew the weaknesse of his answers to our arguments we shall onely hint a few things in answer to what followeth in this Chapter 1. Prophesying is as much distinguished from Revealation as from doctrine 1 Cor. 14. 6. except I shall speak to you cithes by Revelation or by prophesying or by doctrine And therefore as easily we may conclude thence that Prophesying is not Revelation as he may pag. 76. that it is not speaking by doctrine If he wil grant that it is not Revelation then he contradicteth himselfe pag. 66. 74. and also the London Ministers Jus Div. Mini. pag. 98. and consesseth the validity of our answer to the present objection If he faith it is Revelation we may say the Prophets speak not by Revelation that was another thing and we have as good proof of it v. 6. as he hath there that they spake not by doctrine and therefore he can get nothing by this arguing The London Ministers pag. 98. would prove from v. 26. 30. that these were extraordinary Prophets having extraordinary Revelations And what is it to the purpose if they did not speak by doctrine or if Christians ordinarily had not such Revelations as they might publikely and ordinarily communicate them in Church Assemblies might not many unordained men have such Revelations or how is this to the businesse in hand If prophecy should be expressed by Revelation v. 26 which is not proved yet seeing as he consesseth there is ordinary Revelation it may be understood of that and the joyning of it in the same verse with doctrine which is ordinary would as firmely prove the prophet to be ordinary as the joyning of it with some thing extraordinary would prove it to be extraordinary 2. His granting pag. 77. that the note of singularity will not prove the gift was extraordinary is enough to justifie our answer and to shew that it cannot prove what he produced it for Vind. Min. pag. 50. nor doth it prove either that the Prophets were Officers or the gifts extraordinary but onely a not common gift wherein they are distinguished from other members who have not that gift 3. Whether Prophets in all the old and New Testament signifie some in office let the Reader judge upon a weighting Mat. 13. 57. Luke 4. 24. Mat. 10. 41. Acts 15. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily denote Office it s used Acts 14. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read of another Judas then the Apostle whose house was at Damascus Acts 9. v. 11. The Apostles at that time abiding at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. yet the Dr. would deny that there was any Judas pag. 79. besides the a traitor and the Apostle and how doth it appear that Judas and Silas were of the 120. and not of the thousands that were afterward converted And seeing exhorting often is preaching and is the worke of Prophets 1 Corin. 14. 3. that it should be said Acts. 15. 32. being Prohets they exhorted the brethren and it should not prove that this act was performed by them as Prophets who can imagin it If it were said Steven being a Deacon distributed would it not be concluded that he distributed as a Deacon distribution being a work of a Deacon as exhortation is of a Prophet and what addition then is it to Scripture to say their exhorting was because they were Prophets though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie because How 2 Peter 1. 19. 20. fights against us we know not if he thinketh that it denyeth the interpretation of Scripture to belong to private men as some have conjectured let him read Dr. Ames and others on the place and he may be informed otherwise if officers rightly ordained do give a humane exposition of Scripture or such as is not according to the mind of the Holy Ghost that is a private interpretation which may answer his allegations pag. 78. 80. 3. It is not proved that prophecy is preferred before the gift of Tongues in case he that speaketh with Tongues did interpret 1 Cor. 14. 15 greater is he that Prohesieth then he that speaketh with Tongues except the interpreter he doth not say he is greater when he doth interpret and therefore when that reason viz. edification failed it s without proof that another must be found If the Prophet were less in another respect as he said p. ●1 how this helpeth to prove the extraordinarinesse or rarity of the gift of Prophecy we see not 4. That the ordinary gifts of pastors and Teachers are useful to the edifying Comforting Convincing and Converting of Souls is enough to shew that Prophesie cannot be proved to be an extraordinary gift or office by its usefulnesse to such ends and this was it he would have proved by it Vind. Min. p. 51. and his reply Vind. Revind p. 81. doth not hinder its proving as much as we produce it for Neither doth what he saith p. 82. about a word of wisdom and knowledge prove that Prophesic was an extraordinary gift or office nor answer our reasons and so it s nothing to the purpose We cannot but wonder at what he saith pag. 84. 85. in one page he