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	church_n	word_n	2,678	5	4.0797	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80164	Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici revindicatæ: or The preacher (pretendedly) sent, sent back again, to bring a better account who sent him, and learn his errand: by way of reply, to a late book (in the defence of gifted brethrens preaching) published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk, Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk, Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk: so far as any thing in their book pretends to answer a book published, 1651. called Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici; with a reply also to the epistle prefixed to the said book, called, The preacher sent. By John Collinges B.D. and pastor of the church in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1658 (1658)	Wing C5348; Thomason E946_4; ESTC R207611	103,260	172

we cannot agree with our brethren that a special regular call is it in the sense they understand all we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External and the Apostle proveth it How shall they preach except they be sent that is they cannot Rom 10.10 Now Forma dat esse Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5 where they argue thus If the Church should chuse a Deacon much more their pastor Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis from the lesser to the greater and they argue affirmatively See more as to these texts in ●●y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer then they ought to chuse the greater But this is false Logick our brethren will easily see it in other things will these things follow If a man can carry an hundred pound weight then much more a thousand If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant then much more a Colonel Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching Besides did the peoples choice there make them officers surely the text sayes no such thing the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves ver 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained not chose as our Brethren do The word signifies to stretch out the hand and by that sign to chuse 2 Cor. 8.19 but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here Not alwayes witness Acts 10.41 Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining and so it signifies saith Stephen when it governs an accusative case But allow it to signify chuse they were Paul and Barnabas that chose not the Church in our brethrens sense Let any one one compare v. 20 21 22 23 and ell me of whom that word is predicated So that both ●ur Brethrens texts fail with all that is built upon them in their book As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general That the work of the Ministry is the End and so far allow their proof Eph. 4.11 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant I am sure the text sayes no such thing nor any thing like it except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries or inferences First That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church The second is this That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono by office and by gift is founded on Scripture 2 Conc. As to the first I have already proved the contrary for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the worke but to the Church Nor to the Vniversal Church but to the particular Church which foundations I think I have shaken so that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure As to the second we allow it in two cases first for Trial sake for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons 1 Tim 3.10 and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I mean ordinary officers for Apostles c. were not the same species of officers 2. In cases of Necessity In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had which was the case Acts 9. Necessity we say hath no law In such a case as I said before the Levites killed the sacrifice at Hezekiahs passeover which else they ought not to have done We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono by vertue of gifts only Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say by way of Limitation or Explication of the question is summed up their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed and stated IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject and the Predicate For the Subject they tell us it is not every Christian but every one that hath gifts 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts but who really hath and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no according to Acts 6.3 but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach especially in some cases without such approbation As to the Predicate By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to be it in publike or in private to a Christian or to an idolatrous assembly thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify Lu. 16.16 1 Cor. 9.16 Acts 13.32 Rom. 20.15 Acts. 5.42 Acts. 8.35 Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching Jus divinum p. 77. much they say to them who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively they say authority is taken for a right and lawfull power Lu. 20.2 Secondly for majesty and gravity Mar. 1.22 Tit. 2 15. Thirdly for office-power In the last sense they grant it in the two first they say gifted men may preach authoritatively this is the substance of what they say in many words To all which I answer 1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question if I mistake not it amounts to no more than this Every private Christian may not preach but every one that can or will may for what should hinder him who shall be judges of his aptness to teach shall the Church but by what rule Secondly suppose he will not submit shall the gifted man sin no say our Brethren It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents but for ought we know it is lawfull So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak Our Brethren tell us the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was

that a Church must be an united company if you had told us in what sense you understand united we could better have told you our minds at least I could have better told you mine concerning it People may be united by cohabitation by common profession by mutual consent this you seem to understand this again may be either explicitly by Covenant or implicitly by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell this being premised Brethren I conceive 1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company either as to an union of judgement or practice the rout Acts 19. called by this name were not 2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ called by this name in Scripture were united but neither by cohabitation nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this 3. There is no need that every particular Church if not organized and under the exercise of Discipline should be united by consent as to practice in the same numerical Administrations every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent you often read of the Church in a particular house Col. 4.15 Rom. 16.5 Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved 4. Indeed it seems reasonable that a particular Church organized and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administred should be a company united by consent for my own part I can allow you this though I know some of my Brethren will not 5. That this Vnion must needs be by an explicite Covenant or consent is neither to be proved by one Text nor yet by one sound reason and to impose this as necessary is a meer humane invention and not to be indured because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it But lastly we heartily wish that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such as seeing no command of God for it shall not think fit to submit to it Thus far I can yield our Brethren that a particular Church is an united Company And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches not as some would ridiculously fasten upon us because they live within such local limits but because they are societies of baptized persons who by a tacit and implicit consent have united themselves waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship And this Vnion holding we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches although as the Church of Corinth corrupted in some of their members and therefore not to be separated from nor disowned as no Churches but to be purged and the old leaven put out that they may be a new lump 5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ and this for the glory of God c. I freely grant nay it may be I will grant more viz. that they must be a people who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren if I tell them I have almost made my head ake with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle save one and do what I can I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse or is brought in upon any easier terms then they say The Fellow brought in Hercules viz. by head and shoulders for undoubtedly if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason it would never have come there The passage is this But we shall say no more of this Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this The Scripture doth hold forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government May be they would have said must be had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it I must profess my self dear Brethren to be so ignorant that I can neither understand the sense of this passage either copulatively or disjunctively will you give me leave to sift it a little possibly though it all looks like chaff some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it But we shall say no more of this you say Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth Of this of what You had before been speaking of the Papists making their Decrees and humane inventions equal with the ten Commandments and told us you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased and that Christ hath ceased from his work c. Now you tell us you shall say no more of this your Brethren viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven what 's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with Gods word Do any of us make them so Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books Doth the same truth relate only to what follows that we are not all of a minde as to the Divine Right of Church-Government what needed our Brethren have added this in this place or what is the meaning of those words But we shall say no more of this and then adding the other as a reason But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven They are fouly to blame then for I should think Popery as to Government better than Presbyterie if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven But it is yet more wonderfull Brethren which you tell us that the Assembly did not so believe yea expressed as much for they only say Many particular Congregations may be united and you note they would have said must be if they had so judged Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be but they have also in the same place proved that it was so both in the Church of Jerusalem and also in the

none of them is continuing I hope What else our Brethren mean by ordinary I cannot tell for if they mean it was given by God for a standing Ordinance it is yet to be proved for this they refer us to Mr. Rutherford a man whom I honour but am not of his minde in this thing It was indeed his opinion that the Apostle by prophecying 1 Cor. 14.1 means no other than the ordinary acts of Pastors and Teachers though from an extraordinary principle and faculty so that still he thought the gift was extraordinary which they by their prophecying did exercise For those eight particulars instanced in by Mr. Rutherford recited by our brethren p. 99 100. we say they were no other than rules of order which extraordinary officers as well as ordinary were to be limited by But I wonder our brethren should quote Mr. Rutherford and set down his words too which plainly say he thought the gift extraordinary though their acts were but the acts of ordinary Officers These are his words as quoted by our Brethren Only the internal principle to wit the infused gift of prophecying made them extraordinary prophets in fieri as our prophets become prophets in fieri by ordinary studies and industry but in facto esse and according to the substance of the acts of prophecying these extraordinary Prophets and our ordinary Pastors differ not in specie c. Let any Reader who understands English judge whether Mr. Rutherford thought the Gift of prophecie was ordinary he indeed thought the Act was viz. That God in those days by Revelation immediatly gifted the Ministers of his Gospel in the Church of Corinth but our brethren are to prove the Gift is ordinary if they remember what they undertook pag. 96. to prove which Mr. Rutherford will do them no kindness The faculty of seeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the blind man and the conversion of the water into wine at Cana John 2. which are the two instances Master Rutherford insists upon were both extraordinary though when the blind man had his visive faculty by a Miracle conferred his seeing was but ordinary as other men and when the Wine was made it tasted like other Wine Our Brethren proceed still with their fallacy of arguing from the Act to the Gift or rather of putting in Act where they should have put in Gift pag. 100. 1. And they again tell us the Rules to regulate the work are ordinary what is this to prove the gift is so the Act may be ordinary and yet the Gift not so as in the case of the blind man before mentioned The work of extraordinary officers and gifts were to come under general Rules of order I hope 2. But they tell us the description of the work is ordinary What if it be The question is what the description of the Gift would be the description of the Gift of seeing and the Act of seeing are two things I hope so in this case but where is that description They tell us 1 Cor. 14.3 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort Hete they tell us is the Act Exhortation 2. The Ends of it exhortation and comfort Surely our Brethren presumed that none should ever examine what they say the Text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men edification and exhortation and comfort 1. So far as it is a description It is a description of the Act not of the gift Secondly Our Brethren if they had pleased might as well have said edification or comfort was the Act as they say exhortation is for the Text proves the one as well as the other The truth is the Apostle by these words only expresseth the end of prophecying and such ends as were common to that with other ordinances duties too If I should say Paul working miracles confirmed the Gospel f r the conversion of unbelievers would it follow that the Act of working miracles was confirming the Gospel In the third place they tell us That one great end of extraordinary prophecying and their main and proper act viz. foretelling future events is denyed to this prophecying This they say but they have not told us where that denial is to be found and I cannot find it All that I can find them saying is this 1 Cor. 14.22 It is said Tongues were for a sign to them that believed not but Prophecy serveth not for them who believe not but for those that believe Hence they observe That the antithesis betwixt Tongues and Prophets that tongues were for a sign but not prophecie proves that prophecy could not be for a sign But this is wofully fallacious 1. The Antithesis lyes not there that Tongues were for a sign but prophecie not so but here That tongues were for a sign to heathens that bel●eved not but prophecying was a sign only for such as believed viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church this text only proves that prophecie was no sign to them that believed not 2. Though the foretelling of things to come might bear the nature of a sign yet this was not the only end of it but the faith and holiness of the persons to whom the prophecie was directed neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come confirm any thing to any till they saw them accomplished 3. I conceive the chief act of those Prophetesses 1 Cor. 14. was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift which indeed to them that believed not the Scriptures would be of no use but was to such as did believe them Fourthly Our Brethren say Women Prophetesses are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 But women Prophetesses might prophesie things to come Luke 2.38 1. I answer that our Brethren do not find women prophetesses mentioned 1 Cor. 14.34 only women 2. Secondly our Brethren do not finde that Anna Luke 2.36 spake things to come the Text only saith She gave thanks unto the Lord and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel She spake of a Christ already born She was called a Prophetess in all probability because of an extraordinary faculty she had from Divine revelation to interpret Seripture So that our Brethren see this kinde of publike prophecying by their own instance belonged to women and therefore by their own Argument was extraordinary But the truth is this Liberty was restrained by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.37 But this is enough to shew the weakness of our Brethrens Argument Our Brethren having spent their shot upon us come at last to receive a volly from us to prove prophecie an extraordinary gift we had told our Brethren 1. That ver 26. it was evident When therefore you come together every one of you hath a Psalm a doctrine a revelation an interpretation I have put in the word doctrine now though I think it will not much serve our Brethrens turn 2. That

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all To which I answer 1. Our Brethren know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in Scripture always signifie either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of nor yet the Major part How many times in Scripture is Christ said to have died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all yet Christ neither Died for every individual man nor for the Major part of men Mat. 3.5 6. It is said That all the Region round about Jordan went to hear John and were Baptized of him confessing their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region nor yet the major part did either go to hear or were baptized or confessed their sins Christ tells the Pharisees they tythed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●very herb yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees or any other Jews Gardens so that this word will not conclude especially considering what reason we have to believe the contrary viz. that neither the whole nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls 120. were in it Acts 1.15 3000. more were added Acts 2.41 5000. more added Acts 4.4 here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls Now let any one in reason judge 1. What one place in Ierusalem could well contain them except the Temple and whether it be probable that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither enough to have made a good Army the major part of these must be above four thousand 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too for Acts 6.1 there was a murmuring about the poor between the Grecians and the He●rews we therefore think it more probable that the Apostles spake to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them and if our Brethren talk till Dooms-day they can prove no more from this Text. And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in reference to this Text and enough to shew it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake viz. That the whole Church or Major part of it must of divine right choose its own Officers I come to their third Text. Acts 14.23 I will transcribe ver 21.22 Ver. 21. And when they that is Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel in that City and had taught many they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch Ver. 22. Confirming the souls of the Disciples and exhorting them to continue in the Faith and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God Ver. 23. And having ordained or chosen it is no matter which as to our Brethrens purpose them Elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed 1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said something to it before but I would fain know of any one that understands sense whether those that ordained or chose were not those that confirmed and exhorted v. 22. those that preached and returned again to Lystra c. ver 20. If they were it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men 2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what other Syntax of the words according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured Object But the Disciples are twice mentioned v. 22. Answ T is very true but not as the persons confirming and exhorting but as the persons confirmed and exhorted so they are mentioned here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the dative case the other the nominative Our Brethren say that Dr. Ames saith it may include the Disciples too or they might go before the Disciples I answer what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove that the people ought to choose not that it may be they may choose But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing or ordaining here was such as could not be performed onely by Paul and Barnabas 1. They say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in Scripture for laying on of hands This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here I hope our Brethren know there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case where it signifies the people choice The word is indeed used but twice more in the New Testament once for choosing by suffrages once otherwise for Gods destination and appointment Acts 10.41 Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes c. should so use it But if they mean that in Civil Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for the constituting of a person in Office without the peoples suffrage if they look Stephen or Hesychius or Budeus they will better inform them Hesychius saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is nothing to the present purpose we say if it signifies choosing here yet Paul and Barnabas chose 2. Our Brethren say this could not be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choose by suffrages now Paul and Barnabas could not make suffrages All this is a riddle to me for if I understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i● signifies the hand not the tongue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to stretch out not to speak the word no otherwise signifies a choosing by suffrage than the lifting up of the hand did testifie the suffrage But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages Surely they made two and that is the plural number sure The truth is the primary signification of the word was to choose by lifting up of the hand in token of their consent to a person named for an office now in regard this made vulgar Officers the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office whether there were an hand lifted up or no thus it is used in Scripture too Acts 10.41 chosen or appointed before of God yet I hope our Brethren will not say that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage and if two persons according to our Brethrens Grammar cannot make suffrages surely one indivisible God could not 3. But say our Brethren the thing intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉