Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	church_n	whole_a	2,196	5	5.5864	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82522	The defence of sundry positions & scriptures for the Congregational-way justified: or An answer to an epistle written by Mr. Richard Hollingworth, unto S.E. and T.T. wherein he (in many particulars) chargeth them with injurious dealing against God, and against himselfe, in that booke of theirs, called A defence of sundry positions, &c. Containing a vindication from such charges and aspersions so laid upon them. As also a briefe answer to his large (if not unreasonable) demands, to have scripturall, or rationall answ. given to his 112 queries. / By Sam: Eaton teacher Tim: Taylor pastor [brace] of [brace] the church at Duckenfield in Cheshire. Published according to order.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.; Taylor, Timothy, 1611 or 12-1681.	1646 (1646)	Wing E120; Thomason E346_4; ESTC R24943	33,505	50

yet we are complained of that we have not clearely manifested the Position as we have already shewed And how should this be done otherwise than by answering your Examination unlesse it be by new Arguments And what are Arguments worth if not backed with scriptures and yet when besides our answer to your examination we adde some short dissertation upon the Point this is counted as a By matter to your intent in the preface 2. Your intent as it appeares both in your Tytle Page the Preface and the Booke it selfe was not onely to vindicate the scriptures but to discover the supposed weaknesse of the doctrine contained in the Positions And why should not we as well assert the doctrine as vindicate the scriptures which some of them cull'd out by you are the weakest and most feeble parts of the proofe made by us as we have told you 3. You could wish you say We might keepe close to the Scriptures and Positions alleadged till they be one way or other cleared and then we may more orderly proceede to other scriptures and arguments and yet you that cannot endure any addition of scripture or reason applyed to the question stated more fully to our owne sense than they are in the Positions drawn up by you require us in the meane time to give scripturall and rationall answers to no lesse then an hundred and twelve Queres whereof some of them are Nihil ad Rhombum independants we are assured in the businesse of controversie betwixt us The fourth Charge that you make against us is That we doe not answer directly but obliquely and evadingly in sundry places as where say you I alledge that the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate one part of this true Church and and another part of that especially persons whom themselves converted not to make a purer Church You answer of another thing which was never denyed viz. The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jewes from other Jewes and gathered them into a Christian Church while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved but was a Church of God Answ We are so farre from answering obliquely or evadingly in this place that we dare be bold to say that no reply can more front and diametrically oppose such a confused answer as yours i● then this of ours doth We did observe that the supposed strength of your answer was couched in the four sinewes of it 1. We thought you deserted it as a thing dissonant to the doctrine and practise of the Apostles to gather some Christians from others to make a purer Church 2. We conceived that the truth of the Churches from which persons are gathered was that which you imagined made the gathering of them in such sort to beare no conformity with the Apostles doctrine or practise And we conceived there was this implication in it that it might be lawfull and suteable to the doctrine and practise of the Apostles to gather beleevers out of a false Church but not out of a true 3. We considered that this might have some strength in your thoughts that there is no such thing mentioned in the doctrine and practise of the Apostles as the gathering of one Church out of many 4. That you imagined that there was some strength in it to prove our gathering of Churches unlawfull because the persons gathered were such as we converted not Having thus anatomized in our thoughts your Answer we addressed our selves to discover the weaknesse and falliblenesse of all these Exceptions and we began with the second because it was most generall and so descended to the rest which were more particular And First we shewed that the truth of a Church is not that that can make it sinfull or unlawfull to gather or take in the members of it into the union of other Churches For then it should have beene unlawfull for the Primitive Churches to have gathered in the beleeving Jewes into their Churches whilest that Church remained true But this say we was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles Now what can be more point blanck opposite to this part of your answer then this Hence also our conclusion hath the strength of this argument in it If it be not unlawfull to withdraw from one Church that is true then it is not unlawfull to gather out of twenty or an hundred i. e. because they are true Object But say you this was not a Christian Church Answ We consider it not as Jewish but under the notion of truth as it was a true Church Object Nor are the Reformed Churches and Ministers to be compared with the then Jewish Church and Priests thereof Answ You shuffle in the Ministers of the one and the Priests of the other impertinently We have onely to doe with the Churches and we say the Christian Churches might be compared with the then Jewish Church under the notion we consider it in viz. in point of truth For the Jewish Church was a true Church as well as the Christian Churches Object It was but one say you and you should shew gathering out of severall Churches Answ Doe we not shew it thus If it be lawfull to gather out of one true Church then it is lawfull upon the same ground to gather out of many Object But say you the Apostles gathering was onely of those Jewes they converted to Christianity from unconverted Jewes and you should shew the gathering of Christians converted by others from other Christians Answ This also we have shewed at large clearing also the former objection together with it by severall arguments and two places of scripture viz. 1 Cor. 5 6. 2 Cor. 13 10. In our second third fourth fift and sixt particulars and these in opposition to the first and third particulars wherein we thought you placed the strength of your answer Object But you should shew the gathering of Christians converted by others from other Christians converted as well as they and possibly from those persons by whom they were converted Answ And this we have fully cleared pag. 10. from the practise of the Apostles and Primitive Christians None but an Emperick would censure a Physician that he doth not cure all diseafes with one Dosse Shall our reply be judged oblique evading insufficient because it is not a bush to stop every gap with though it be most punctually opposite to that part of your answer against which we levelled it Object But say you that Church was then by Gods Commandement to be dissolved and many Churches to be built upon its ruins and therefore doth no more warrant the building of one Christian Church upon the ruine of other Christian Churches than the Parliaments Commission if there were such a one to the Inhabitants of Derby hundred to take downe Lathamhouse to build them houses of doth warrant any one of the Inhabitants to take as many good stones as they can come by out of this and that and the other neighbours house concerning which

they gave no such Command Answ You lately found fault with an argument of ours because it was a Comparatis alleadging that allusions and Comparisons are not argumentative if allusions and Comparisons were not capable of a better symmetrie and proportion then this of yours we should not onely not yeeld them to be argumentative but we should disavow and discard them as not illustrative For though it was not our intent as we said to answer all the branches of your objections with this one instance but onely that that deceives its strength from the truth of Churches and therefore your triumph out-running your victory might well have beene spared when you say your not bringing a more punctuall and more pertinent proofe argues either an implicite confession of the truth of my answer or inability to oppose it and though we have brought other punctuall and pertinent proofes which are above the reach of your instance yet though all were as you would beare the world in hand your Allegorie wants that due proportion that should render it illustrative much more argumentative For First it is not the practise of Congregationall members or Churches to take any much lesse as many good members as they can come by out of this and that and the other neighbouring Churches concerning which God hath given no Command that those persons should leave those Churches For so your comparison should be framed to make it runne paralell with the case Nay the Congregationall members make it their scope to take in none but those that having righteously withdrawne themselves from other Churches doe voluntarily tender themselves to communion with them that so they may enjoy those Ordinances purely with the corruption of which they were not onely polluted but endangered before And that they may enjoy other Ordinances purchased for their speciall edification by the precious bloud of Christ which their soules languished in the want of whilest they were some of them as members in the line of Parochiall-Communication Once more it is the scope and end of Congregationall members and Churches if we understand them aright sure we are it is our owne desire and practise to receive in no members but from such Churches in which we have no ground of hope in sight for a reformation in any tollerable proportion of time all of us having expressed the offence given us by Parochiall disorders to private brethren because it would have beene interpreted a disturbance of the Churches peace for private persons to speake publiquely against the received practise of the Church And some of us who by our calling were better enabled having not onely in vaine witnessed against the Leaven with which we saw the Churches leavened but also fruitlesly waited a long time for redresse of present greivances when there was no hope left have withdrawne 3. If God by meanes of this present happy Parliament wherein next under God is our present hope or by other should worke such a reformation that we might comfortably joyne with Churches meeting neerer to our habitations then our owne we should be willing for our parts and we beleeve the same of all our brethren to lay downe by mutuall consent our Covenant and fall into fellowship in severall other Churches especially where we were sometimes members respectively 4. It supposeth the Churches from which our members have withdrawne have as good right to hold their members as well as any man in Derby hundred hath to with-hold the stones of his house from those that without a just power endeavour to take them away which how you will make out seeing that you hold no other tie but the boundaries and limits of the Parish or Chappelry do so fervently dispute against expresse agreements and Covenants we understand not Yet if the waies and walking of Parish Churches were such as tended to the edification of the members and no just cause appeare of their removall or withdrawing we should not contest with you about it But if either visible wicked members be admitted to the Lords Supper without hope of redresse or the dispensation of the Lords Supper and execution of the power of the Keys and other Ordinances be wanting without hope of redresse we conceive they have no more power to with-hold such a member from joyning to another Church for his spirituall better accomdation than a Master hath to with-hold his Servant from removing to another Family that so he may not be enfeebled by being straitned in his food or endangered by the unwholsomenesse thereof 5. Fifthly But it may be there may be some more ground for your fift charge which is That we discover too much willingnesse to quarrell at your expressions a little after say you you discover too much willingnesse to quarrell at my expresfions wherein you say I would suggest that you make opposition to Magistracy but doth not Master Weld a Congregationall man when Master Rathband chargeth Independents to hold that Christians may and ought to set up new Churches and practise in them all Gods Ordinances without the consent of a Christian State yea against their peremptory Commands and established lawes and in the midst and against the minde of such Churches as they freely acknowledg to be the true Churches of God say of this Article no pen can expresse a greater latitude of opposition against Magistracy and Lawes and Churches too then he affirmes to be in us Doe not I use his owne words Print them in a different Character Cite them in the Margent c. Answ True you do so notwithstanding it was not discerned by us and the fault was most in your selfe For you print it in a different Character and cite Master Weld in the Margent but were defective in a letter to guide to the citation and hence the mistake For you cite Answer to 9 pos pag. 76. as appertaining to the letter U speaking of something that was proper to Apostolick men and then immediately joyne T. W. to W. R. pag. 67. by close to it without any other letter as if it had belonged to the same thing and so we received of it as you may discerne by our defence when we make any mention of that part of your answer which speakes of the Apostles preaching against the peremptory Command of Magistrates we print your Citation pointed at by the letter b and we annexe T. W. to W. R. pag. 67. to it as appertaining to the same thing The truth is we were faulty also because if we could have looked into that place of Master Welds booke we might have rcctified our selves in that mistake But that Booke was out of our way when we should have done it and afterwards we did not minde And as for the different Character we minded it lesse because for many causes the Character is changed besides that when other mens words are cited Had we beene aware that they were Master Welds words we would have have given a more pertinent answer which hereafter if there shall

also you would have the Reader to understand that the chiefe part of your answer viz. It is not said they gave themselves to the Church or Churches but to us viz. Paul a●● Timothy is left without the least limit or intimation Answ Are not these words to be found in our defence pag. 44. The argument is fetcht a Comparatis the members of the Churches of Macedonia did as much in a like case they gave themselves to the Lord and to the Apostle and Timothy according to Gods will to be guided by the Lord and directed by them a whole Church or Churches to one or two persons gave themselves And an argument is fetcht thence thus then may one person that is to joyne to a Church as fitly give himselfe to the Lord to be guided by him and to the whole Church and Officers thereof to be directed by them according to the will of God Doe not we grant that it is not said that they gave themselves to the Church or Churches but to us viz. Paul and Timothy Nor doth the Position imply any other thing For it saith As the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a paralell or like case It speakes onely of something done proportionably to that which they presse where then is the injury done to you Is it in this that without mentioning your allegation as your allegation we have yet answered the whole strength of it Forgive us this wrong and retract your charge which though it have truth in it in the letter of your words in which it runs yet it wants truth in your scope in which you make it For you complaine of wrong to you and the truth of God but causelesly and most injuriously as from what is presented is manifest The fourth instance is out of Position 22 where you say Your whole answer to Revel 4. 4. is by an Index expurgatorius blotted out Answ We have sought up our papers and we perceive that in the copying out of the Reply for the presse the answer to this text was omitted Casu an Consilio we cannot say The answer was to this effect it hath been usually the practise of men of the most approved parts and unquestioned integrity after they have solidly proved a place by plaine texts of scipture then to adde as probable those which in their judgement lookt that way though more obscure as typicall and propheticall places The same is that practise of the Elders of New England in urging this place So that if you could make it out that the Elders have mist the genuine sense of the place yet you have but knockt off one of the Emblemata of the garnishings of the roome whereas the Position it selfe remaines unshaken by you 2. We doe professe our selves unwilling to defend the position by vertue of the text at least in that expression viz. of authority and governing power yet it may be those reverend learned and religious Authors are able to maintaine it though we by reason of our weakenesse dare not undertake it 3. As for the exposition that you put upon it though it be consonant to the interpretation of some learned writers and though it seemed probable to one of us yet upon further inexpectation though we absolutely reject it we have not yet these exceptions against it 1. We reade not of any eyes that the 24 Elders had but the four beasts were full of eyes Rev. 4. 8. Is this the meaning of it that the Churches in the foure Quarters of the world had eyes that is wisdome knowledge understanding to manage order guide and dispose of the affaires of the Churches But the Officers wanted eyes and so were excluded from directive power For this will follow upon your exposition at least if your argument against the interpretation which the Elders of New England give of Crownes prove solid You say by their exposition The Elders which are signified by the foure beasts are excluded from governing power for they sit not on Thrones nor have Crownes on their heads And we will say against you the Elders which you would have to be the Elders of the Churches are excluded from directive power for they have not eyes before and behinde as the four beasts have 2. We reade that the four beasts doe lead the four and twenty Elders in the worship and Service of God in the Church Revel 4. 9 10. When those Beasts gave honour and glory c. the four and twenty Elders fell downe and worshipped c. So also c. 5. 8. 11. 14. Now whether the Churches doe lead their Officers in all their worships they performe to God which will follow from your exposition or the Officers doe lead the Churches judge you 3. We see no absurdity in Masters Cottons and New-Englands brethrens exposition who make the four beasts to be the Officers of the Churches and the four and twenty Elders to be the members As for your allegation of Revel 7. 9. 11. 13 14. where you say That the Elders are distinguished from beleevers We answer to it We discerne not that the Elders are any more distinguished then the four beasts are which yet you interpret to be the Beleevers of the four parts of the world let the place be viewed 4. Though Master Cotton drive that by Crownes are Ensignes of authority any more then white rayment was an Ensigne of Priesthood yet he asserts that in some particulars that belongs to Church members which is the Priviledge of Kings that weare Crownes As 1. That they transact nothing by themselves but by their Officers 2. Their consent Cott. Case is requifite to the judgements that passe in the Church And therefore it may seeme lesse strange if they appeare with Crownes Having thus answered that part of your Epistle wherein you lay divers charges upon us we shall now more briefly answer the former part of your Epistle wherein you endeavour to purge your selfe from those charges laid upon you And you say The deepe and heavy charge as you call it in the first part of my preface against misinterpretation of scriptures as a belying of God counterfeiting the King of Kings hand though I now see how I have sped I re 〈…〉 t not of Answ Neither appeares it that you doe repent that you Psal 35. 11. have position 23 laid to our charge things that we knew not yea things that when we heard of them were of detestable consideration in our thoughts If you shall solidly confute our reply we shall justifie you in this impenitency but if otherwise we shall desire to mourne in secret for you and pray that God would give it an impression upon your spirit You have the more cause to repent if that be true which you alledge in the portall of your Epistle viz. that the Examination c. was for the most part an answer to some allegations as they were privately made to you for satisfaction For doe doubting brethren wanting light addresse