Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	call_v	word_n	1,705	5	3.8890	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78783	His Majesties finall ansvver concerning Episcopacie. Delivered in to the commissioners of Parliament the first of Novemb. 1648.	England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I); Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.	1648 (1648)	Wing C2306; Thomason E469_17; ESTC R205464	21,665	30

whose warrant the Apostles would not either have exercised it themselves or derived it to others Yet for that the practice in them is so cleare and evident and the warrant from him exprest but in generall Terms As my Father sent me so send I you and the like His Majesty chose rather as others have done to fixe the claime of the power upon that practice as the more evidentiall way than upon the warrant which by reason of the generality of expression would beare more dispute 3. Reply Sect. 6. As to the Definition of Episcopacy First whereas you except against it for that it is competent to Archiepiscopall and Patriarchall Government as well as Episcopall His Majesty thinketh you might have excepted more iustly against it if it had been otherwise Secondly His Majesty believeth that even in the persons by you named Timothy Titus and the Angells the definition in all the parts of it is to be found viz. That they had each their several peculiar Charges and that within their severall precincts they had authority over Presbyters aswell as others Neither Thirdly doth his Majesty thinke it needfull that any word be added to the Genus in the definition or that the Scripture should any where put all the parts of the definition together It would be a hard matter to give such a definition of an Apostle or a Prophet or an Evangelist or a Presbyter or a Deacon or indeed almost of any thing as that the parts thereof should be sound in any place of Scripture put altogether Fourthly His Majesty consenteth with you that the point in issue is not the Name or Worke meerly but the Office and that it were a Fallacy to argue a particular Office from a Generall or Common worke But judgeth withall it can be no Fallacy to argue a Particular Office from such a worke as is peculiar to that Office and is as it were the formalis ratio thereof and therefore no fallacy from a work done by a single person which a single Presbyter hath no right to doe to inferre an office in that person distinct from the Office of a Presbyter 4. Reply Sect. 7. As to the Scriptures cited by you viz. Tit. 1. Acts 20. 2 Peter 5. First when you say you take his Majesties Concession That in those times of the Church and places of Scripture there was no distinct Office of Bishops and Presbyters If you take it so truly you take it gratis His Majestie never gave it you and you mistake it too more wayes than one for to speake properly His Majesty made no Concession at all It was rather a Preterition in order to the present businesse and to avoide unnecessary disputes which ought not to be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the Truth of your Expositions of those places For his own expresse words are Although his Majesty be not sure that the Proof will reach so far in each of those Places which words plainly evidence that which you call his Majesties Concession to be indeed no Concession but to have been meant according to that forme of Speech very usuall in disputations Dato non concesso But in that Concession such as it is his Majesty is not able to imagine what you could find whereon to ground those words That in those times of the Church there was no distinct c. there being not any thing in the whole passage that carrieth the least sound that way or that hath relation to any particular times of the Church Neither is the Concession such as you take it as it relateth to those places of Scripture What his Majesty said is confessed on all sides which are the words you take for a Concession was but this That supposing but not granting the word Bishop to be used in all those places to signifie a Presbyter the Office and Worke in those places mentioned as the Office and Worke of a Bishop are upon that supposall the Office and Work of a Presbyter which is so manifest a Truth that no man without admitting Contradictions can say the contrary But how wide or short that is from what you make to be his Majesties Concession your selves by comparing his words with yours may easily judge But your selves a little after make a Concession which his Majesty warned by your Example how soone anothers meaning may be mistaken when his words are altered is willing to take in the same words you give it viz. When you say and you bring reasons also to prove it That it seemeth manifest that Ordination and Censures are not to be exercised by a single Presbyter Secordly you repeate your Arguments formerly drawne from those places and presse the same from the force of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from the Circumstances of the Text and otherwise adding withall that his Majesty hath waved the notice or answer of something by you alleged therein Hereunto His Majesty saith that he waved not any thing in your former Paper f●r any great difficulty he conceived of answering it but being desirous to contract his answer and knowing to what frailties Arguments drawn from Names and Words a●d Conjectural Expositions of Scripture are subject he passed by such things as he deemed to be of least Consideration in order to the end of the whole debate to wit the satisfaction of his Judgement and Conscience in the main businesse Otherwise his Majesty could have then told you That there are who by the like Conjectures grounded as seemeth to them upon some probabilities in the Text interpret those places in the Acts and in St. Peter of Bishops properly so called and in the restrained Ecclesiastical sence rather than of Ordinary Presbyters That supposing them both meant of Ordinary Presbyters the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie to feed to oversee might not unfitly be applyed to them as inferiour Pastors in relation to their Flocks under their charge and over sight the Flock being in both the places expresly mentioned which hindereth not but the same words may in a more peculiar manner be appropriated to Bishops in respect of that Authority and oversight they have even over Presbyters themselves also That still granting your own interpretation of the word Bishop in that place to Titus it can prove no more than that the two names in that place are given to the same Function That from all the premises in your Paper there layed together and supposed true his Majesty doth not conceive it justly proved That the Office of a Bishop and Presbyter is wholy the same but at the most that the Offices were not in those places distinguished by those Names Thirdly if the Assignement of any Particular Qualification worke or duty unto a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter by the Scripture would as you say put this question neer to an issue His Majesty should wel have hoped that it might soone be brought to a near point and