Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	according_a	lord_n	speak_v	2,217	5	4.5472	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42789	Tentamen novum continuatum. Or, An answer to Mr Owen's Plea and defense. Wherein Bishop Pearson's chronology about the time of St. Paul's constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, is confirm'd; the second epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the apostle's latter imprisonment at Rome; and all Mr. Owen's arguments drawn from antiquity for Presbyterian parity and ordination by presbyters, are overthrown. Herein is more particularly prov'd, that the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, believ'd the divine right of bishops. By Thomas Gipps, rector of Bury in Lancashire.	Gipps, Thomas, d. 1709.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.	1699 (1699)	Wing G782; ESTC R213800	254,935	222

old Hypothesis as if Episcopacy was not defensible on that supposition but rather to bring the Controversy into as narrow a compass as might be I did therefore in the latter end of the Third Chapter in T. N. shew that though Paul had before the Congress at Miletus constituted Timothy the Ruler Bishop of Ephesus yet was he not obliged to take notice of Timothy in that his Farewel-Sermon Because Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and that other to the Ephesians and that First and Second Epistle to Timothy takes no Notice of the Elders neither does John Peter or Jude in their Epistles nor lastly does Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans make mention of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon but shall we thence conclude that those Churches had none of those Officers in them Is it not as reasonable to believe that Timothy the then supposed Ruler Bishop of Ephesus might be omitted by the Apostle in his Farewel-Sermon as the Presbyters in his first Epistle to Timothy wherein he professedly Treats of Church-Government and one would think could not have forgot'em when he was discoursing on such an Argument Particularly let it be remembred that Ignatius himself whose other Epistles so often and so fully remember Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in that to the Romans had not oneSyllable of any of 'em and yet he knew very well that Bishops as well as Presbyters were then established throughout the World as he Witnesses in that to the Ephesians 'T is then no Proof that Timothy was not even at that time the established Ruler Bishop of Ephesus because the Apostle thought not fit to mention him in his Farewel Sermon These things Mr. O. was pleased to pass by unanswered and why let any one judge I am sure they overthrow the best Argument the Dissenters have against Bishop Timothy Now whether as Mr. O. pleads Paul Acts 20. Commits the Government of Ephesus to the Presbyters only not by a Prudential or Temporary Constitution but Divine by the Power of the Holy Ghost v. 28. enough has been said of this already Nevertheless it may be proper to repeat a little for the satisfaction of those who haply have not read the T. N. I do then acknowledge that the Ephesian Elders were made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost having Power to feed the Flock committed to their Charge But this is no Argument against Timothy's Bishoprick there or his Prelatical Power over them For it is not inconsistent to say that Timothy was appointed their Ruler Bishop and at the same time that the Presbyters were made Overseers of the Flock under Timothy We Presbyters of the Church of England do believe our ourselves to be Overseers of the Flock and that by Divine Authority too and yet at the same time we acknowledge our Diocesans to preside over us by the same Divine Authority Our Bishops themselves declare as much in their Atlmonition at the Ordering of Priests viz. That we are Messengers Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord to teach premonish feed and provide for the Lord's Family and to seek for Christ's Sheep that are dispersed abroad And at our Ordination the first Question is Do ye think in your Hearts that ye be truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ What is all this less than that spoken to the Ephesian Elders Over which the Holy Ghost has made you Overseers to feed the Church of God It follows not then from these words that St. Paul put into the Presbyters hands the sole intire and supreme Government of that Church They might even then be and be left subject unto Bishop Timothy for any thing that can be rightly inferred from thence as we are to our Diocesan Bishops If our Provincial Archbishop should at his Metropolitical Visitation at the same rate exhort as ordinary Presbyters To take heed to our selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers to feed the Church of God not mentioning our Diocesan Bishops at all shall it thence be concluded that Dr. Stratford our Reverend Diocesan is not the Bishop of Chester These things I think ought not to have been shuffled off by Mr. O. as unworthy but perhaps it may be said more truly above his Answering Before I conlude this Chapter there are two Arguments which the unreasonable Opposition Mr. O. has made unto my Hypothesis has suggested to me proving I am bold to say demonstrating that the second Epistle to Timothy was wrote in St. Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome I will lay 'em as briefly and as plainly as I can before the Reader and so make an end 1. If the second 〈◊〉 to Timothy was written in St. Paul's first Imprisonment as Mr. O. affirms it must then have been written either before or at the same time or after the Epistles to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 1. Not before the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written as Mr. Owen himself acknowledges Def. page 133. For Paul at the writing of the second Epistle to Timothy had sent Tychicus to Ephesus Chap. 4. 12 How then could Tychicus be the Bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians if he was already gone to Ephesus before the writing of that Epistle to the Colossians The second Epistle to Timothy therefore could not be written before that unto the Colossians 2. Not at the same time as the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written For Timothy who in the second Epistle to 〈◊〉 was sent for by Paul to Rome Chap. 4. 9. was even then with Paul at Rome and joined with him in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon Chap. 1. 1. Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy could not 〈◊〉 written at the same time as that to the Colossians was 3. Not after the Epistle to the Colossians was written For then Timothy who joined in the Epistle to the 〈◊〉 must have been gone back into Asia before St Paul which 't is certain he did not Heb. 13. 23. or else he must have returned again to Paul at Rome and once more gone back into Asia with him In like manner 〈◊〉 who carry'd the Epistle to the Colossians from Paul and Timothy must have returned unto the Apostle at Rome and thence been sent back unto Ephesus 2 Tim. 4. 12. And all this during the Apostle's first Imprisonment which is not in the least Probable 'T is such a Wild-Goose-Chase as no rational Man can admit Therefore the second Epistle to Timothy was not written after that to the Colossians If then it was written neither before nor at the same time nor after those to the Colossians and Philemon it was not written at all during the Apostle's first Imprisonment therefore it must needs have been written in his Second 2. The other Argument is grounded upon the Story of Demas as 't is related in the second Epistle to Timothy and in the Epistle to the Colossians and that other to Philemon I shall