Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	argument_n	church_n	prove_v	2,704	5	6.1319	4	false

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

for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. That they may do acts of office and authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him

be that Matth. 10. ver 5 6 7. Our Brethren acknowledge they baptized too the Text proves they had power to work miracles ver 1. 3. As to what they say next viz. that the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is not that Commission which authorizeth any to preach we must crave leave to deny it Their Argument is this That Commission which did not give authority to the Apostles themselves to Preach and Baptize did not give others authority claiming by and under the same Commission But that Commission did not give them Authority Ergo. The Major we confess as to the present Commission The Minor we deny All they have to prove it is this What authority they had before that Commission did not give But they had authority before to Preach and Baptize Ergo The Minor we grant the Major we deny 1. I say that if a man hath two Commissions to the same work he is by both of them impowered and authorized and made in Office Suppose an act of Parliament constituteth some as Commissioners for ejection of scandalous Ministers in the County of Norfolk and afterwards another Act passeth to the same purpose enlarging also their power to the City and County of Norwich doth not the later Commission authorize and impower them as well as the first It is true that Commission Matth. 28.19 20. was not the first Commission that impowered them to Preach but it did impower them surely for the same authority is in the latter as in the former Secondly our Brethren grant they were in no office to the Gentiles without that Commission therefore I think that Commission impowred them Thirdly our Saviour saw that after his Ascension there might be some question whether they might Preach and Baptize as they had done during his Life and whether any others might in that work succeed them by authority from Christ he therefore reneweth and enlargeth their Commission and by making an everlasting promise to those who should succeed them in that work he doth establish a constant office of the Ministry to the worlds end As to their fourth Allegation it being that which our Brethren refuse to own or insist upon I shall spend no time about it For what they say fifthly that supposing Preaching the greater work yet it may be that Baptizing which is the less may be limited to Officers and yet not that I● may be so indeed but it is not very likely And I suppose our Brethren must produce a very plain Scripture to prove the limitation before they will make any endued with a competency of reason believe tha● God hath by his will in his word authorized Ministers in office to Preach and to Baptize and in the same word declared that Preaching is the great and chief act to which he hath sent them and rather sent them for that than for the other viz. Baptizing and yet it is his will that any ordinary gifted persons may perform that greater act but none but those Officers may do the less He that hath so much credulity as to afford any to such an assertion may in the mean time our Brethren have not brought us one title of Scripture to prove the limitation of Baptism Some thing of reason they pretend to in what they say in the sixth place that they finde in Scripture that other persons besides Officers may do the acts of Preaching and for the ends the acts viz. admonition exhortation Mat. 18.15 Heb. 3.13.10.25 for the ends viz. to prevent sin build up in grace c. To which I Answer Sixthly Admonition and Exhorting simply considered without reference to the persons or manner are not the acts of Preaching ordinary Admonishing and exhorting in the publick Assemblies of the Church are indeed The pronouncing of the words which the Judge pronounceth in passing Sentence upon a Malefactor is not the act of his Office unless pronounced in due manner upon the Arraignment and condemnation of a Malefactor in an open Court after Trial. Object Oh but it serveth to the same end Resp This is not enough to make it the same act An Highway-man may pronounce the same Sentence the Judge doth and to the same end yet his act is not the same But it is they say materially the same 2. Our Brethren in this say nothing for this doth not Legitimate the action our Brethren may do actions materially the same with such as are commanded and yet sin in doing of them in this or that place or manner it is therefore no consequence that because our Brethren no where read in Scripture that any but Officers did materially the acts of Baptism c. But do read that they did the material acts of Preaching Ergo They may Preach but not Baptize But Thirdly Our Brethren need no Scripture to prove that any man may do the material acts of Baptism and administring the Supper The material act of the one is sprinkling or powering water upon a face of the other a breaking of bread and giving it to others None ever questioned but every one may do these acts and our Brethren oft do it to their children Therefore this is no ground of restraining those from Administring the Sacraments whose authority to preach we implead And so much shall serve for the vindication of my second Argument My third Argument was From the uselesness of the great Ordinance of the Ministerial Office as to its chief act viz. Preaching if this practice be allowed Now the word of God cannot be so contrary to it self as first to set up an Office and then to make it useless as to its chief work To make this good I had but two things to prove 1. That Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial Office 2. That if every one who hath gifts may preach there were no need of the Ministerial Office as to its chiefest act To prove it to be the chief Act of the Ministerial Office I urged 1. That it is the first Act mentioned in the Ministerial Commission 2. That St. Paul makes it his chief act 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach 3. Either this is the chief act of the Ministerial Office or a Minister hath no act proper to him but that of administring Baptism and the Lords Supper But no Scripture shews these more peculiar to him To all this our Brethren answer 1. That the order of words doth not prove preaching the chief act in that Commission Matth. 28.19 20. Neither did I bring it as a demonstrative Argument but I do not think Dr. Homes his assertion true that Preaching is but a preparation to Baptism for he will find it must follow Baptism as well as go before it Teaching them to observe c. That same But therefore is a but of the Doctors own setting up which all Scripture and right reason will throw down 2. But to make my work short our Brethren p. 203. at last do grant that Preaching is the chief act of

understanding I will therefore tell them we know our Brethren are not to learn that Relations are of two sorts The first Logicians call Relata secundum esse real relations Such whose whole being as relations lye in their relation such are the Relations of Father and Son Husband and Wife Master and Servant The Father as a Father hath no other being but in his relation to a Son and so of the rest this is called Relatio praedicamentalis of these Relations their rule rightly understood is true 2. But secondly there are other Relations too called in Logick Relata secundum dici nominal relations yet such as have a reality of Relation but not such a one that all the being of the Relations as such is wrapt up in their relation this relation they call Relatio transcendentalis As now Scibile Scientia A thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing are relations and instanced in as such by most Logicians Yet neither the one nor the other of these relations have all their being in their relations Of these Relations we say and all say the Rule is false and reason will enforce it For example This 20th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclypse but the Eclypse which is the thing to be known is not existent The knowledge of the nature of thunder is existent But it doth not thunder So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a supposition that we say the office and the work are Relata secundum esse Relations of the first sort but we are not of that mind for we think the whole essence of office lyeth not in its Relation But in that authority wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it 2. In eodem entitalis gradu vel ut Ens in actu vel ut Ens in potestate Zabarel Secondly saith Zabarel the Rule is true that Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an Officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it The Mayor of Norwich is my Lord Protectors Officer for the Government of the City and none in their sober mind but will say he is Mayor and the government of the City are related each to other Suppose the Mayor now sick or in prison is he not an officer because at present he cannot execute his Office According to the first answer we deny the major and by vertue of the second we deny the minor And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion Hence Christian Reader thou mayest see our Brethren deal not kindly with thee when they tell thee As well may you affirm a man to be a Father who hath no Son nor child or a man to be an husband who hath no wife as you may affirm a man to be a Minister who hath no employment For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work A Father as he is a Father is a thing hath no being without a child and so cannot be but an officer if at present he hath no work yet hath as an officer an authority and power to do such a work when he hath opportunity I would fain know of our Brethren whether a man may not be in the office of a Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the government of them It is his Commission makes him an Officer and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment and execute his authority as soon as he hath opportunity Neither do we say a man can be no officer who hath no employment but we say a man may be an officer who at present may want opportunity to do what is his employment and he is by his office authorized unto And now I suppose every Reader will understand the weakness of our Brethrens first Argument which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Their second Argument is in sum this Relations and Correlations exist together but the office Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work because it is a means in order to the end Therefore the office of the Ministry and the work cannot be Correlates The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argument is the same Canon in Logick which was the foundation of the other Argument We grant that the office is a means in order to the work as its end and we say that the office must be before the work But we say these are no such relations as must necessarily be Simul Naturâ and exist together except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu and so sunt simul they are together though they do not exist together consider them as Entia in potestate they are Simul Natura and so it is not necessary that the means should be before the End In short the very same answer serveth as before Arg. 3 Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office that is the Correlate But the Gospel owns the Church not the work as Correlate to the office Ergo. The major we confess but say there wants a word in it That which alone the Gospel owns is the only Correlate The minor we deny we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry Acts 20.27 But we say it owns the work too Eph. 4.11 12. he gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers For the work of the Ministry and I hope Eph. 4. is as much Gospel as Acts 20.17 Our Brethren say here again That Officers are not related to the Employment of the Ministry Christian Reader it must surely offend thy Eares surely we would not much desire such Officers The truth is they do Dividere componenda which is a fallacy in Logick Officers are related to Church and work too and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logicians they would have acknowledged it with half this stir Arg. 4 Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form lyes thus If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture be such as proclume them relates to the Church not to the work then they are so related But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church are relates not officer and imployment Ergo. To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pastors Teachers c. 1. To all which we answer 1. That it is a feeble argumentation which is drawn from names and titles definitio nominis doth onely terminate the question quid nominis not the question quid rei the definition of a name is not alwayes adequate to the definition of a

To answer to all this Those who preach in such Cases of necessity where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear may be said to Preach by an extraordinary authority which the word of the Lord hath in such cases given them which may be called a Mission and they may be Officers as to that time and state yet it will not follow but in another state of the Church Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister that is to one who according to the Rule of Christ in ordinary cases ought to preach All this arguing is nothing to the purpose for our brethren are to prove that Gifted men may ordinarily preach in a tranquil and setled state of the Church where are Ministers Ordained enough to supply the place or at least to ordain and authorize them Their Argument à pari here is no Argument because of the disparity of the Churches State If our brethren can bring us any Texts out of the Epistles wrote to setled Churches requiring commanding or allowing such a practice for persons not in office nor furnished with extraordinary gifts to preach publickly and ordinarily they say something all this is no better than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or go round about the bush but never strike one blow at it I come therefore to their fifth Argument p. 88. All that are Prophets may publickly they should have put in ordinarily too preach But some men they should have said some such Gifted men as we have now who are not ordained Officers are Prophets Ergo. If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propositions I will deny the Conclusion because the question is not in it If they will allow my corrections I deny their Assumption and say No such Gifted men as now live for whom our Brethren must plead are Prophets They prove it p. 89. All that have the gifts of prophecie are Prophets But some such Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecie Ergo. The Major I grant The Minor I deny Three things our Brethren undertake to prove p. 90. 1. That prophecie is a Gift not an Office 2. That some have the gift of prophecie and that gift still continueth 3. That some persons not ordained have it I shall only premise this that I hope our Brethren understand by prophecie such prophecie as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians otherwise they deceive their Reader with an equivocal word and then I deny all three of their Positions and shall proceed to examine their proof of them 1. That prophecie is a gift not an office they prove 1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain prophets 2. Because they cannot be ordained till they be discerned to have the gift of prophecie 3. Because some have this gift who are no officers This last I deny they pretend to prove it hereafter As to the two first our Brethren dispute ex ignoratione Elenchi against what none deny who ever said those Prophets were ordinary Officers We say they were extraordinary Officers who were furnished with an extraordinary Gift either to foretell things to come or else to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit without the use of such means as we now must use and being thus furnished were made Officers at that time by an immediate Mission to which Ordination was not necessary So then two things we insist upon 1. That Prophets were extraordinary Officers 2. That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost The first is enough for this place That they were officers appears from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. Acts 13.1 2. And that they were extraordinary appears in that they are set before Evangelists Eph. 4.11 12. and from their extraordinary gifts Acts 11.27 28. 1 Cor. 12.9 10 11. and from 1 Cor. 14.26 from which text it is plain that they spake from revelation this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of London Jus Divinum pag. 97 98. Vindiciae ministe●ii p. 50 51 c. by my self Now for our Brethren to argue against this because they were not ordained is a pitifull Non sequitur for none ever said Ordination was necessary to the constitution of an Apostle or any extraordinary Officer But our Brethren judge that they can prove that prophecying was not an office but a gift p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments p. 91. c. Their first Argument in form is this If all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets then prophecie is a gift not an office But all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets Ergo. We deny the Consequence and say our Brethren have not proved it for this it all they say They must first have the gift before they can be made Prophets We deny that God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary Authority furnished them with an extraordinary gift So he did Jeremy Amos and all the Prophets of old I wonder which of them could be said to have the Gift of prophecie one moment before they were Prophets by Office too this is still a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi to extraordinary Officers no such thing was needfull Our brethrens second Argument is this That which ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in Corinth was a gift only not an office But Prophecying might so be coveted Ergo. Before I give a direct answer to the Argument I conceive prophecying to speak properly to be neither a gift nor office but an act by which either is exercised which act we say none could exercise but he who had the gift for it and also the extraordinary authority which impowred him to it and that prophecying is in no sense to be called a gift but as an office is a gift being constituted for the good of the Church and an honour to them that have it But to speak to their Argument In the first place I deny the Major That which ought in those times to be coveted and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth might be an extraordinary office But say our Brethren The Lord had no where promised to make every member of the Church of Corinth a Church officer therefore it could not be an office 1. Our Brethren did not consider that the same Argument will prove it was no gift except they can shew us where the Lord had promised to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecie 1 Cor. 12.29 Are all Prophets The Lord no where promised to give all Christians a power to work miracles or to speak with tongues yet surely they might covet it as it is plain from the next words where though prophecying be preferred before tongues yet that is left upon record as one of those gifts might be coveted 2. God hath no where promised that John a Stiles should recover of his sickness doth it