Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	accompany_v	act_n	act_v	26	3	7.1751	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77724	A publick disputation sundry dayes at Killingworth in Warwick-shire, betwixt John Bryan, doctor in divinity (minister at Coventry) and John Onley, pastor of a church at Lawford. Upon this question, whether the parishes of this nation generally be true churches. Wherin are nine arguments alleged in proof of the affirmative of the question, with the answer of I. O. thereunto, together with Doctor B. Reply. Also an addition of ten arguments more in further proof of the question, with an answer adjoyned in disproof thereof. Published by both their consents, as appears by the ensuing epistles.	Bryan, John, d. 1676.; Onley, John.	1655 (1655)	Wing B5245; Thomason E823_9; ESTC R207672	61,370	75

only the Baptism of John verse 25. who were not Ministers in office publickly which work hath had the approbation of God by accompanying these men in this work with his holy Spirit making their preaching effectual to the conversion of Souls Therefore all who have gifts enabling them to preach publickly may by a Scripture example and the approbation of God concerning that thing The Consequence I think no man will deny that ownes the Scripture as a rule of direction for us to follow The Antecedent is evident in both branches First Acts 8. 1. they i. e. the Church were all scattered and they thus scattered went every where preaching● verse 4. which preaching was approved of by God in accompanying them in this work by his Spirit Acts 11. 21. But to this you object First that we cannot prove but that they were Officers I Answer That we can evidently first it is said they were all scattered and all thus scattered preach'd Now all men know all a Church is not Officers but to this you object The word All signifies not every one Answer true but where the Scripture sayes All except such as it excepts with what forehead dare any man say the contrary It is in effect as much as to say the Apostle said not true evident it is Philip preached Acts 8. Object Philip was an Evangelist Answ True by gift in that he brought the glad tidings of Remission of sins by the Blood of Jesus to the soules of sinners but both he and Stephen Acts 7. by Office were Deacons Acts 6. 5. by which office they had no more to do to Preach than any Disciple Object Saul entred into every house haling men and women c. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial therefore not all scattered Answ There is never a syllable in the Text that proves this was in Jerusalem but it might be in other places whither they fled for refuge and for the burial of Stephen that was before they were scattered for the persecution arose about the stoning of Stephen Acts 11. 19. But the last shelter that you are forc'd to fly to from the cleer Countenance of this Text is that this was extraordinary as Davids eating that bread in time of hunger that at other times was unlawfull Yet necessity might justifie the action to this I Reply that some things in case of necessity may be done that at other times are unlawfull and that necessity justifies the action I grant but now there is not the like Connexion betwixt persecution and preaching as is betwixt hunger and bread a man in ex●reme hungar cannot well forbear bread but a man in time of persecution may forbear preaching was it lawfull for these men to preach it could not be persecution that could make it lawfull what though they were persecuted a thousand times they might hold their tongues for all tha was it unlawfull for them to have done it nay rather of the two it tyed them to hold their peace being persecuted for what they preach'd Thus it appeares that all that can preach may and such who can by preaching convert a soul to Jesus may Baptize him so converted though no Minister in office And whereas you say no man can be a lawfull Administrator unless Elected c. That 's apparently false for both Philip Acts 8. 38. and Ananias Acts 9. 18. Baptized and were never Elected to that work See but the natural face of your assertion No man can be a lawfull Administrator unless elected to that authority by Baptized persons But neither Ananias or Philip were elected so Ergo. Neither of these were lawfull Administrators the Major's your own the Minor is evident Philip a Deacon Ananias a disciple Thus your assertions cast dirt in the face of the Scripture Now for the inference that you say is drawn that we have no Mission c. I answer I never yet heard any man from such questions draw such inference had you but done me that favour to have told me who they were I should have been ready to answer them I have cause to suspect from whom it comes and I fear themselves are the men to whom every part of that result may with ease be applyed but seeing you say you make no such inference I am willing to let it pass it being you only I deal with Thus having answered this which you have most spoken to I shall expedite an answer to the rest of your Arguments which it seemes you make less account of in that to some you have endevoured to add a little proof and to some none at all If the separated societies be not true Churches then our Assemblies Arg. 11. Dr. B. are for certain it is Christ hath some true Churches amongst us and the only question is whether the Parochial or separated Congregations but you are not true Churches which I prove by an Argument of your own Those Churches that are not righly gathered are no true Churches but your Churches are not rightly gathered The Minor I prove thus The way of gathering your Churches hath no warrant in Scripture Ergo. I put you upon producing one precept or president in all the Scripture of gathering Churches out of Societies that hold and profess the fundamental verities 2. Those Churches that rob Gods people of their right are no true Churches but so do yours for you take away Church-membership from the Infant Children of Believers in denying the Sacrament of Initiation appointed for Gospel-Churches which was granted them under the former administration and is no where repealed but confirmed rather Rom. 11. Acts 2. 39. 3. Your Churches want a right form Ergo. The consequence is cleer because form gives being The antecedent is certain because an express Covenant is no where made the right form of a visible Church If this be the right form then why are not Popish Churches true there being such a Covenant between Popish Priests and people If by separated societies you mean all that are separated from you Answ J. O. the consequence may be good otherwise not There not being fulness enough in the division If you mean all I deny the Minor both of the first and also of the second framed to prove it and also the Consequence of the third and after all the result is you put us too no proof that we are no true Churches we are not rightly gathered the way of our gathering hath no warrant in Scripture and that this is so I put you to prove that it hath This is the pittifullest proof that ever I heard man make had I undertook to prove your Churches false and after three Arguments drawn such a Conclusion you would even have hist at it sure your schooles never taught you thus to dispute I had thought you had ingaged to proove Sir prove that you the Parishes of England generally hold and profess the fundamentall verities Secondly That it is unlawfull to separate from a people so professing c.

vertur of that Call and yet no man can communicate that to any other that he hath not himself and the Devill never being Authorized by Christ to ordain Ministers and yet you having no other must needs we think be false Secondly for manner of entrance that Church that is in want of a Minister is to elect such a man as she shall judge sit which man thus chosen is to be solemnly ordained by the approbation of the body for whom he is to officiate And you were made Ministers such as you are not only by them whom Christ never authorized to ordain but also before ever you knew what flock to Minister to which is a ridiculous foolery seeing Pastor and Flock are relates the one gives being and the essential Constituting Causes to the other and then get to the patron or to those in whose power it was to establish you and make the place sure and then intruding your selves into the service of those demanding nay forcing wages from those that never set you at work whereby we judge you false Ministers The other is this A society of believers as yet no Church in order assembled together in the Name of Christ to reassume an Ordinance of Christ appoint one man for the performance of the work not as a Pastor but as a man enabled by God to be instrumental in the discovery of this Truth Now whether there be the like reason upon the same principles to judge of the one as the other I leave it to be considered And which of these two is the rightlyest authorized let all men judge And how the holding that an unbaptized person in case of necessity one rightly Baptized not to be found might Baptize will prove us Schismaticks in separating from a true Ministery is to me a riddle the unfolding of which belongs to the Learning of him that doth assert it Hence your first scruple may be removed viz. how the first Baptizer had his Call being one who never did Baptize himself nor yet rested contented with his Infant-Baptism neither yet sent of God to begin a new Institution as John the Baptist was but one enlightned to discover that old yet new appearing institution unto us For if what you say was truth as it is not there having been some in all ages bearing testimony to this Truth viz. That this way was not till 1500. years after there was no need of beginning a new Institution for that Matth. 28. 18 19. is to last to the end of the world whether men obey it once in a thousand yeares or not now whereas you demand by what authority this first man Baptized seeing to Baptize is an act of office c. And no man can be a lawfull Administrator unless Elected c. I Answer by what Authority I have already shewed and for Baptizing to be an act of office and so not not to be performed but by officers I deny And the Scripture you bring to prove it Matth. 28. 18 19. proves the plain contrary as is evident for such as had received Abilities from Christ whereby they were enabled to Convert a soul to Christ might Baptize such a person so Converted The Commission holds alike for both Disciple and Baptizer c. Now this Commission though it was given to the Apostles it was not given to them as Apostles but as Disciples and in them to all others so gifted to the end of the world as your self well know and undeniable it is that they were to Preach and Baptize by vertue of Gift and not by vertue of Office seeing these men were such as were never elected by any Churches to the Pastoral charge for that was not Congruent to their Comission the Election of the people tying to the Church by whom they were elected and the Comission sending them forth to all the word to prepare matter for the Church whence it is evident that such who can disciple men to Christ may Baptize such so discipled disciple and baptize c. but some that are not Ministers in office can do that Ergo. The proposition is evident from the words the Assumption I suppose no man will deny except it be some who do endeavor to Monopolize Preaching only to themselves and stop the mouthes of all others though never so eminently gifted except they have served a prentiship to the same trade that they have done or els come under their Bishopping by laying on of their hands that so they may ty them to preach after their fashion which opinion is so grosse that I am loth to spend time in confutation Yet seeing though you dare not deny but that all who have received gifts whereby they are enabled to preach may yet deny that they may publickly preach and this preaching Matth. 28. is a publick preaching I shall give you an Argument or two to prove that If there be tolleration given by God to all who have received the gift of Prophecie to Prophesie in the Church Then there is tolleration given by God to all who have received the gift of Prophecy to Prophesy publickly but the former is true 1 Cor. 14 31. Therefore the latter This whole argument you have granted to be true only you say that Prophecy was extraordinary but that it was not I thus evince That Prophety is there meant that came within trial and Judgment but extraordinary Prophecy did not so therefore that 's not meant To this you Reply that extraordinary Prophets doctrine did Acts 17. 11. to which I answer That Judgment spoken of in the 14. of Cor. was such a judgment as presupposed the Prophets might err but this searching of the Bereans to see if the things Paul spake were so was no such thing Therefore nothing to the purpose it only shewed that Paul preaching and alleging Scriptures as his manner was thus and thus it is written and yet citing neither Chapter nor ver●e That they did seek to see if it was as he said and did in no wayes presuppose that Paul was liable to err in what he preacht Secondly That Prophecie in that place that men that are gifted are tolerated That Prophecie in that place women though gifted are forbidden but extraordinary Prophecy women are not forbidden Ergo. The Minor viz. that women extraordinary gifted may deliver their Prophecy in any place I think no man will deny And for the Major viz That the same manner of Prophecy that the gifted disciples were tolerated in verse 31. is the same that women are forbidden verse 34. is evident to all that will Consult the scope of that place Secondly we have an example in Scripture of such men preaching See also Acts 18. 28. If it be objected Apollos was an officer 1 Cor. 1. 12. Answer first It is not probable it was the same man Secondly If it was the consequence is bad to say Apollos was an officer when Paul wrote this Epistle therefore he was one when he preacht in the 18 of Acts knowing