Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	cover_v	head_n	prophesy_v	1,689	5	11.0692	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78437	Vindiciæ clavium: or, A vindication of the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven, into the hands of the right owners. Being some animadversions upon a tract of Mr. I.C. called, The keyes of the kingdome of Heaven. As also upon another tract of his, called, The way of the churches of Nevv-England. Manifesting; 1. The weaknesse of his proofes. 2. The contradictions to himselfe, and others. 3. The middle-way (so called) of Independents, to be the extreme, or by-way of the Brownists. / By an earnest well-wisher to the truth.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1645 (1645)	Wing C1640; Thomason E299_4; ESTC R200247	69,538	116

than a passive approbation it might be yeelded but if you meane an actuall or active concurrence that they had not been valid without their votes and consent it s far more than liberty as good authority as any the Apostles and Elders had Obj. But Elders in a Synod have no authority to determine any act to bind the Churches but according to their instructions You answer We doe not so apprehend it For what need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction if they be resolved afore hand how far they will goe Reply Here either you destroy the liberty of the Brethren afore granted and give the Synod a binding power which you seeme to deny or else prevaricate in this cause For according to your principles the Synod hath no power to bind the Churches to stand to their arbitrement for that 's the true power of your Synods under any penall censure only they may withdraw And then I returne you your owne words What need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction c. if they be resolved afore hand how far they will goe 3. Q. Whether the Synod hath power to enjoyne things both in their nature and use indifferent You resolve it negatively 1. From the patterne of Synods Acts 15.28 who enjoyned nothing but necessaries in nature or use Sol. This is an Argument from Scripture negativè they did not here enjoyne any thing but necessaries ergo they had no power to enjoyne things indifferent The consequence is naught 2. The Apostles are commanded to teach what Christ commanded ergo if they teach more they exceed their commission Sol. This Argument is like the former They were to teach what Christ commanded ergo they might teach nothing else in things indifferent They might teach nothing as a commandement of Christ doctrinally in matters of Faith or worship but this hinders not but they might enjoyne some things indifferent as they did forbid the use of some things indifferent in their owne nature viz. bloud and strangled If it be said those were not indifferent in their use at that time I answer There is nothing in the individuall properly indifferent in the use because it fals under some generall rules of Scripture and so is to be used or not used accordingly The question therefore should be Whether a Synod may enjoyne or forbid the use of a thing in its owne nature indifferent And then I should answer affirmatively and defend my selfe by this very president of the Apostles Acts 15. Who did forbid the use of somethings in their owne nature indifferent I would not therefore answer Christ speaketh only of teaching such things which he had commanded as necessary to salvation But I would say Christ speaks of matters of faith or worship That they should teach nothing to be beleeved as a Doctrine of Faith or practised as a part of Gods worship but what he had commanded them Otherwise the Apostles did goe beyond their commission in teaching as necessary to abstaine from bloud c. which Christ never commanded them but rather forbad in abrogating the Ceremoniall Law And whereas you say The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40 doth not at all enjoyne nor allow the Church to enjoyne such things as decent whose want or whose contrary is not undecent nor such orders whose want or contrary would be no disorder I answer that for men to pray or prophesie with their heads covered or with long haire and women uncovered were things in their owne nature indifferent unlesse you make it necessary as a morall duty for men to pray or prophesie uncovered and women contra which no Interpreters upon that Text doe and yet the Apostle enjoynes the Corinthians so to doe ergo the Synod may doe so too And for your instance of preaching in a gowne A gowne say you is a decent garment to preach in yet such an injunction for Ministers to preach in a gowne is not grounded upon that Text of the Apostle For then a Minister in neglecting to preach in a gowne should neglect the commandement of the Apostle which yet he doth not for if he preach in a cloake he preacheth decently enough True he sins not in point of decency but supposing such a custome in a Church as the custome was for men amongst Corinthians to preach uncovered and the women to be convened in the Congregations the Synod might enjoyne all the Ministers to preach in a gowne as the Apostle did enjoyne them to preach uncovered and he that shall preach in a cloke preaches decently indeed but not orderly and so sins against the Apostles rule of order though not of decency You so speake as if there were only one Rule to be observed or two at most in the use of things indifferent whereas there are at least five to that purpose And by the same reason that the Apostle enjoynes men to keep decency he enjoynes to keep order and so other rules concerning things indifferent Doth not the Apostle complaine of disorder in the Corinthians preaching covered yet the contrary Order was not necessary but in it selfe indifferent The eating of things offered to Idols was a thing in it selfe before that decree of the Apostles indifferent 1 Cor. 10.25 1 Cor. 8.8 yet was now forbidden If you say this was offensive to the Iewes and ergo necessary pro hic nunc I answer this reason made it necessary only where such eating was knowne to be offensive but the Canon made it necessary every where 3. A third reason is taken you say from the nature of the Ministeriall Office in Church or Synod which is stewardly not Lordly and ergo they may dispense no more injunctions to Gods house than Christ hath appointed them I answer its true he may dispense nothing as an institution of Christ but what he hath commanded But yet a Steward may require of the Family and enjoyne them the use of things in themselves indifferent for Order and uniformity As that all shall meet in such an houre in such a place to prayers c. So I thinke you doe in your owne Churches It is indifferent to receive the Lords Supper at Morning or at Evening yet some of you enjoyne it to be done at Evening It is indifferent to baptize in a river in a paile in a Font in a Bason yet I beleeve you enjoyne one of these and forbid the other And whereas you say Christ in these things never provided for uniformity but only for unity I answer then the Apostle exceeded his commission in enjoyning the Corinthians uniformity in their orderly praying or prophecying yea unity is much preserved by uniformity But you propound à question Whether a Synod hath power of Ordination or excommunication And answer 1. That you doubt it was not so from the beginning 2. That if any such occasion should arise amongst you you in a Synod should determine it fit to be done but referre the administration of both to the Presbytery of severall