Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	bind_v	earth_n	lose_v	7,562	5	7.5060	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88947	A modest & brotherly ansvver to Mr. Charles Herle his book, against the independency of churches. Wherein his foure arguments for the government of synods over particular congregations, are friendly examined, and clearly answered. Together, with Christian and loving animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said booke. All tending to declare the true use of synods, and the power of congregationall churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne officers, and censuring their offendors. By Richard Mather teacher of the Church at Dorchester; and William Tompson pastor of the Church at Braintree in New-England. Sent from thence after the assembly of elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about church-government.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.; Tompson, William, d. 1666.	1644 (1644)	Wing M1274; Thomason E37_19; ESTC R16954	50,642	62

in the last place must needs consist of seaven persons or more As for that speech of our Sauiour where he speaks of 2 or 3 gathered together in his Name Mat. 18. 20. He doth not thereby acknowledge such a small number to be a Church but fetcheth an argument from thence as from the lesser or lesse probable to prove the firm and inviolable authority of the Church and her Censures of which he had spoken before v. 18. As if he should say if two agreeing together upon earth shal be heard in whatsoever they shall aske and if I be present with two or three gathered in my name then much more shall the whole Church who is a greater number and a more solemne assembly be heard in their prayers and have Christs presence in the midst of them to bind and loose in heaven what they shall bind or loose in earth But the former is true vers. 19. 20 Therefore the latter is true also vers 18. And for excommunication ordination and censures there is nothing in Scripture nor proved in this discourse of yours that these matters belong onely to a Synod and not to a particular congreation yea wee conceive it will not bee easie for any man whatsoever to prove that Synods and they onely have power to ordain officers and to excommunicate offenders and till this be proved the Independants as you call them need not to relinquish their judgement and practice in these particulars Sure it is that Synod in Acts 15. did neither meddle with ordination nor excommunication but onely determined the controversie about circumcision and gave rules for practice to be observed of the beleeving Gentiles for avoiding of offence among the Jewes We acknowledge that where there is no consociation or neighbourhood of congregations or single Churches whereby they may with conveniency be aiding to each other and whereto the particulars may have recourse there a single congregation must not be denied entirenesse of jurisdiction If you acknowledge thus much which yet is no more then truth requires to be acknowledged and wherin we for our parts fully concurre with you then we suppose a man may improve this grant of yours to a confirmation of that independencie of Churches which you plead against and to a disproving of a good part of that authority of Synods which you would establish For if a Church that hath no neighbourhood of other Churches have power of jurisdiction entirely within it selfe as here you doe acknowledge then first let it be considered whence such a Church hath such power and see if that ground will not reach to prove the like power in other Churches also Now we suppose none will deny but such a Church hath this authority or power by the gift of Christ and the liberty which he hath granted to every Church as it is a Church which we had rather expresse in Doctor Ames his words then in our own The power it selfe namely in reproving scandals and purging out the wicked of right or in respect of the first act cannot be separated from a true Church Because it flows immediately and necessarily from its very essence For it is contained in that Covenant whereby beleevers are gathered into a Church Cas. Cons. lib. 4. cap. 24. Q. 4. Now if this be so that power of Jurisdiction doth immediately and necessarily flow from the very essence of a Church and so belongs to a Church as it is a Church then it will follow that this power must not be granted to be in such a Church as hath no neighbour Churches and be denied unto one that hath because a Church that hath neighbours is a Church and hath the essence of a Church as truly as that which hath none Power of Jurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church belongs indifferently to all Churches to one as much as to another without respect of what neighbours they have whether many or few whether any or none Secondly let it be considered also what is the end and use of the consociation and neighbourhood of Churches and the same truth will thence appeare also which neighbourhood where it is affoorded is from the benefit of Churches but not for their hindrance and losse And therefore it may be helpfull by casting in more light but cannot abridge them of any power which they had before When Doctor Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 39. Sect. 27. had said that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church nor ought by any means to take away or impaire that libertie and power which Christ hath left unto his Churches sith it serveth onely for the directing and furthering of the same what saith Mr. Paget hereunto This saith he we willingly grant Paget Defence pa. 107. Now if this must be granted then that dependencie of Churches and that power of Synods which you plead for must not be granted For let a Church have entirenesse of Jurisdiction before she have any neighbouring Churches and be deprived of the power when God sends such neighbours and by this meanes she sustaines losse by having neighbours and comes to be in this respect in worse condition then when she had none which is against the true intent and use of the consociation of Churches Moreover if this grant of yours stand good then what shall become of that which is intimated pag. 6. and pa. 10. as a reason against the Independency of Congregations where you say that it is against the very light of nature that the adverse party be the sole Judge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the offended party meaning the Congregation should be the sole and finall Judge of the offence Sure we cannot think that there can be such a case imagined wherein you would grant it lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of nature And yet you grant that the case may be such that a single Congregation may have entirenesse of jurisdiction within it self which seems to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to be so independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within it self is not against all equity nor against the light of nature as is intimated by you in the pages afore-mentioned But sith in one place you grant that in some case a Congregation may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within it self and in another place do seem to imply that it is against all equity and the light of nature that they should be granted we for our parts are not able to discern how these things do stand together But that too much may not be made of the grant of yours you do qualifie it in your subsequent words wherein you say that this is a case extraordinarie and falls not within the compasse of the Question which is about the ordinarie rule of Church-government Whereunto we answer two things 1 That