Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	church_n	hold_v	2,563	5	5.7841	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77724	A publick disputation sundry dayes at Killingworth in Warwick-shire, betwixt John Bryan, doctor in divinity (minister at Coventry) and John Onley, pastor of a church at Lawford. Upon this question, whether the parishes of this nation generally be true churches. Wherin are nine arguments alleged in proof of the affirmative of the question, with the answer of I. O. thereunto, together with Doctor B. Reply. Also an addition of ten arguments more in further proof of the question, with an answer adjoyned in disproof thereof. Published by both their consents, as appears by the ensuing epistles.	Bryan, John, d. 1676.; Onley, John.	1655 (1655)	Wing B5245; Thomason E823_9; ESTC R207672	61,370	75

his own c. But your fellowship is directly contrary one sortfed with all delicious fare cloathed with gorgeous Apparell and pride abominable and the other sort one company working and toyling more than they be well able and glad if they may be set on work and all to get a few cloathes and food and yet cannot get enough to satisfie they being tormented by the oppression of the rich that as the Lord saith their faces are ground and their burdens are almost insupportable the other sort begging from door to door which is miserable to see in that Nation where many vainely spend so much in one hour as would relieve many a poor creature ready to perish with cold and famisht with hunger all which is evident by lamentable experience and yet you have the boldness to compare your Parishes with those in Acts 2. betwixt which there is as much difference as betwixt light and darkness Those that continue not in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship c. are no true Churches but the Parishes of this Nation continue ●ot c. Ergo they are not true Churches the Major is your own by the rule of contraries the Minor is Evident by that which hath been said You render us a reason of your separation from us which whether it will hold when God shall ask you Who hath required this Reply Dr. B. at your hands you have just reason to question groundless separation and Church-division being as great a sin as Adultery or Theft Our Blessed Saviour and his Disciples separated not from Assemblies whose teachers and members were worse than ours read Matth. 23. nor can you find any command or example in all the Scripture for separating from Societies that hold all fundamental Truths and join together in Gods true worship as ours do The doctrine and practice of the Apostles in Baptizing Jews or Heathens brought within the Pale of the Church professing their Faith and Repentance and desiring to be sealed with this Sacrament for the strengthening of their Souls in this Faith as these here did is the doctrine of our Churches our doctrine and practice of Baptizing Infants of Believers is so far from being directly Contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles there being neither here nor any where els any word of theirs forbidding to baptize Infants as that there is very cleer warrant in this very place to Baptize such Infants For the Apostle makes it his Argument to them to be willing to receive Baptism because the promise is made to them and their Children and to as many as the Lord our God shall call and to their Children this must needs be understood or els the promise to Believing Gentiles is not of the same Latitude as it is to Believing Jews I presume you will acknowledge that the Covenant of Grace is as fair and full to these Now if the Promise be made to Believers and their Children the Command must reach not only to them but to their Children also running thus be Baptized you and your Children for the promise is made to you and your Children if otherwise this that w●s intended to be an effectual motive would have been an effectual disswasive and deterred Parents from accepting Baptism and renouncing Circumcision to which initial sign their Infant-Children till now had right having privilege of Church Membership as well as Parents which by this acceptance they must lose and be cast into a condition like that of Infidels Which losse to the Church by Christs coming seemes to be no less than of denial of his coming in the flesh Moreover the Apostles practice in Baptizing whole families a part whereof and the greatest part for the most part Children are immediatly upon the parents believing is a warrantable pattern for the practice of our Churches Your objection that there is no express mention of Infants Baptized in those families notwithstanding your selves will take liberty to believe that many were Baptized of whose Baptism there is no mention made in Scripture the twelve Apostles for instance nor is it said there were wives or servants in those families You do not well to call all Infants unhued and unsquared Timber have you never read what the Scripture saith of Infant-Children born within the bosome of the Church Esay 65. 20. The Child shall by an hundred years old that is he shall be as well instructed by Gods inward teaching according to that promise Esae 53. 14. As if he had lived under the Churches teaching an hundred years And if some Children be timber hued and squared for the Kingdom of Glory Mark 10 14 why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that they be squareable for the Kingdom of Grace Moreover that place in 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. If duely considered more than probably proves that it was an Apostolical practice to Baptize Infants born within the Church if not it will be difficult to make the Apostles Comparison of the two Churches and their Sacraments and subjects thereof to run parallell Your pleading for Anabaptistical Community I think not worth replying to as neither your declaming against the hardheartedness of some of our rich members you will find as bad or worse among the members of the Churches Apostolical read 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. and Jam. 2. and 5. We are not therefore overbold to compare our doctrine and fellowship with the Primitive degrees of Purity in doctrine and practice we easily yield them above us But the same Truth we hold fast and will not let it go we teach no other doctrine have fellowship in no other worship Ergo we are true Churches Those Christian Societies that have the true Ministry of Christ Arg. 8. Dr. B. set over them for their Pastors and Spiritual Rulers are true Churches Ephes 4. 11 12. But so have the Parishes of England Ergo. That the Ministers of England are true Ministers appeares by their ordination which was by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Secondly by their abilities both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 2. 15. Galat. 2. 14. Thirdly by Gods blessing on their endeavours and labours 2 Cor. 3. 1. I deny the Minor in the proof whereof you forget your self you should Answ I. O. say thus that the Parishes of this Nation have a true Ministry of Christ set over them and then the question is Who set them you say it appeares first by their Ordination c. I answer your Ordination is false and that upon a double account and seeing you either will not or cannot prove it true but onely barely affirm without proof I will give you the grounds of my deniall First the Presbytery by which you were ordained which is the Bishops now it is undeniable they had their Ordination from the Pope and I am sure he had his from the Devill Now the Devill ordaining the Pope the Pope the Bishops the Bishops you how can you be true Ministers by

Minor thus Where ever the word of God is faithfully and constantly Preached to the Ears and Eyes of people and by them attended and submitted unto there Christ is present by his grace But the word of God is faithfully and constantly preached in the Parochial Assemblies of England c. Ergo. Again Where Christ by his Spirit in the Ministry of his word converts confirms and comforts his people there is the special presence of his Grace But in our Assemblies Christ converts c. Ergo he is present with us Lastly Where there is a settled meeting together in the name of Christ for a true worship of Christ there is Christ present But there is such a meeting by the Assemblies of England Ergo. The Major I grant id est 1 Where Christ dwells by the special Answ 1. 0. presence of his Grace as they be golden Candlesticks a house of God a Sion there must needs be a true Church for it is no more but as if you should say thus where the presence of Christ is with a society as they are a true Church there must needs be a Church for all those expressions Candlestick Sion house are but special tearms emphatically to set forth the nature of that one thing the Church for the Candlesticks are the Church Rev. 1. 20. The House of God is the Church 1 Tim 3. 15. But now I deny the Minor I deny that God dwells in the Parishes of this Nation as a Church I deny not but that God may be present with some who walk in the sincerity of their hearts to what they know but that God dwells with the Parishes generally of which the Question is as a Church I deny And now to the proofs of your Minor you argue thus Where ever the word is faithfully c. I deny that the word is faithfully preached in the Parishes of Answ 1. this Nation generally 2. I deny that the word such as it is is generally submitted unto except by assent and by submitting you understand a bare acknowledgment of the things taught to be true then the consequence is abundantly false for the wickedst men in the world perhaps the Devils themselves may assent and submit so far and no man will say such may make a true Church Lastly I deny the Consequence that wheresoever the word is truly preached there the presence of Christ is as it is a Church A bare denial might be sufficient to a bare assertion for you have given neither Scripture nor reason for your Argument But I answer first thus If in many Parishes of this Nation there be ignorant idle dumb doggs for the Ministers of those places then the Word cannot be faithfully preached there But in many of the Parishes of this Nation there are such Ergo the consequence is undeniable The Minor is your own words For the first time I heard you Preach and excepted against you you applyed those words of the Prophet Esay 56. to some of the Ministers of this Nation Secondly That word that they do Preach such as it is is not obeyed nor submitted to upon your own grounds for if the word be generally truely preached and generally truely submitted to it must unavoidably follow that all the men in all the Parishes of this Nation are faithful people which is false because in their works they do evidently deny it and to say they be faithful people is first to Preach plain contradictions one while denouncing Gods judgements against them as wicked unbelievers another while when you are put to prove them Churches tell them they be faithful people to sow pillows under their elbows and to say Peace when there is none and making them to trust in lying words that will not profit Jer. 7. 4. Ezek. 13. 10. Thirdly I deny the Consequence Though the word should be truly Preached and assented and submitted to that will not prove that place to be the place where the presence of Christ is as it stands related to the Church according to your Scriptures because the presence of Christ in the faithful Preaching of his word and also submission to may be separable sometimes from the Church and therefore cannot be a note seeing that which is a note of a thing to know it by must agree to it and to it only and at all times You argue further Where Christ by his Spirit Converts c. Answer The special presence of Christ may be considered two ways Either with Believers simply as such being fit matter for a Church or Secondly as they be a company of Believers joyned together in Gospel-order being a Temple built up by God for an habitation for himfelf through the Spirit Ephes 2. 21 If the presence of Christ be by you understood in this last sense which is only to your purpose your first Argument standing in that form then I deny the Consequence because that both Conversion by the Ministry of the word c. may be separable from the Church and performed out of the Church as is so evident it needs no proof Lastly you reason thus Where there is a meeting together c. Answ I deny that there is such a meeting by the Parishes of England as that in Matth. 18. for the presence of Christ there spoken of is that when two or three that are truly Godly are met together to desire something of the Lord he will grant their requests because he at that time is present with them but what is this to the general meeting of the Parishes of this Nation where many nay the most are openly wicked some meeting for fashion because others do some for Custom because they have done so to hear a Sermon a Prayer and then depart not knowing what the power of Godliness is what I say that meeting in Matth. 18. is to this is a riddle to me and truly Sir I wonder why you left your Minor so helpless adding neither one Scripture nor Reason to help it You grant my Major but in such a sense as is to me non sense when Reply Dr. B. I say those Societies where Christ dwels by his special presence are his Church you say true if he dwels in them as they be his Church You might have done better to have waved your Asses and given us an instance of any one Societie where Christ was ever so present that could be evicted by the Word not to have been his Church Where ever the Kings Personal presence is there is the Court and so where Christs special Gracious presence is there is his Church the Scriptures which you speak nothing to plainly hold forth this doctrine that the Assemblies where Christ is peculiarly resident and gives out speciall tokens of his grace are his Churches and that he is in such a manner present no where els in all the world I reason thus Christ is only visibly present in his visible Church therefore where he is discerned so present there is his visible Church

it as a Pillar c. Now Sir The Minor is evidently false the very naming of it is Confutation sufficient it being evident to behold that the Parishes of this Nation have always been and still are inclinable to whatsoever their Teachers and Rulers set up without ever questioning the truth of it except here and there a man which is nothing to our question it being of the Parishes generally Look upon them in the time of Popery and produce one Parish-Church much less all that opposed the power of the Pope but all inclinable to that wicked worship so in the time of Prelacy how conformable to that never once talking then of Presbytery and I believe as formerl● so now if the power of this Nation should enact that al should turn Independents they would obey without any general opposition and within this few years would as little think of Presbytery which you think to be truth now as they did then when he was Counted an Hereticke that believed not as the Church believed Which was then the scarlet-coloured whore of Rome and yet you let not to say they have been the Pillar of Truth defending it against all Errors which if true Presbytery is false in that the Parishes of this Nation have born Testimony to two contrary Religions Popery and Prelacy That Church that one time professeth Popery and another while Prelacy being variable according to the times in which she lives that Church is not the Pillar and ground of truth But the Parishes of this Nation have one while c. Ergo and for Revel 2. 13. When you have proved the Parishes of this Nation Pergamus I will Consider of it I know no advantage I should have gotten if the word Reply Dr. B. Church had been permitted to stand instead of Parishes but rather disadvantage because a National Church is as liable if not more to exception nor can I imagine how this could have hidden the folly of my Argument its folly to pick a quarrell the Church is nothing els but the Parishes or if you will that is the Mother these the daughters the Minor proposition which you deny will appear evident enough by considering the Apostles meaning of Pillar and Ground of Truth and applying it to our Assemblies both which I will do in few words The House or Church of God is so call'd in respect of the profession and maintenance of the true Religion of God which it both supporteth as a Pillar and maketh it openly known to others as Magistrates use to hang and affix their Edicts and Proclamations on pillars or other places of strength and firmness and here consequently is declared the Office and duty of the Church in holding and publishing the Truth and defending it against all Errors Contradictions and Corruptions and whatsoever Societies do this it s written upon those Societies with a Sun beam that they are the true Churches of Christ Now it s notoriously known that the Articles of Religion agreed upon Anno 1562. are published and consented to by all the See the answer of the Elders of the several Churches of New England to the ninth Question p. 26. and Church Covenant p. 40. Ministers endowed in every Congregation of this Nation with the silent consent also of the People and subscription of the hands of the chief of them wherein they do acknowledge no rule of Faith or Manners but the holy Scriptures no divine worship but to God only no Mediation nor Salvation but in Christ only no Conversion by Mans free will but by Gods free grace no Justification but by Faith no perfection nor merit of works with all other necessary and saving truths upon which the Church is grounded and built and which also it holdeth forth and maintaineth This alone abundantly evinceth that the Parishes of this Nation are the Pillar and ground of Truth Besides these truths are daily in most Congregations faithfully opened and applyed and whatsoever is contrary thereunto on the right hand or left convincingly confuted our Parishes therefore keeping Gods Records faithfully are his Registers and consequently his true Churches Your declaiming against the inclinableness of our People to alter with their Governors might have been spared well knowing it was the practice of the Church of Israel to do so and the Churches of Galatia how soon were they removed from him that called them into the Grace of Christ unto another Gospell to the admiration of the Apostle Galat. 1. 6. And therefore it needs be no marvell if our people so easily change from one Church-Goverment to another which they may do without prejudice to fundamental verity which though the Galathians overthrew yet they remained true Churches If you read the Epistle of Christ to Pergamus understandingly and compare our Church with that you will find that we are not worse and wherein any in that Church were praise-worthy for doing or suffering you may find some in ours not short of them From our practice agreeing with the practice of the Primitive Arg. 7. Dr. B. Apostolical Churches Those Societies that continue stedfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and in Prayer are true Churches Acts 2. 42. but so do ours Ergo. I deny your Minor and the reason why we separate from you is upon Answ J. O. that ground you have added neither Scripture nor Reason to prove your Minor but have left it destitute of all proof you could hardly have brought a Scripture in all the Bible which in every thing both in doctrine and practice makes so directly against you as this that you have brought for you For first your doctrine is contrary secondly so is your practice for doctrine first after that Peter had preacht the Lord Christ to these men it working upon their hearts ver 37. they cryed out What shall we do the doctrine of the Apostle to them ver 38. is Repent and be Baptized and so they were ver 41. they were the same day added to the Church but you both Ministers and People go directly contrary first Baptize them at three or four dayes old and so make them members of your Church and perhaps twenty or forty years after preach Repentance just contrary to the Apostles doctrine and Gods examples 1 King 6. 7. Ephes 2. 21 22. 1 Pet. 2. 5. First you take into your house unhued stones and unsquared timber and twenty or forty years after fall to squaring them for the building Now for your practice in your fellowship the powerfull operation of the Gospell of Jesus Christ after it had workt them from the world and from themselves and one into another in the unity of the Spirit as one man it is said ver 44 45. and all that believed were together had all things common and sold their possessions c. And chap. 4. 32 34 35. and the multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul neither said any of them that ought that he possessed was

only the Baptism of John verse 25. who were not Ministers in office publickly which work hath had the approbation of God by accompanying these men in this work with his holy Spirit making their preaching effectual to the conversion of Souls Therefore all who have gifts enabling them to preach publickly may by a Scripture example and the approbation of God concerning that thing The Consequence I think no man will deny that ownes the Scripture as a rule of direction for us to follow The Antecedent is evident in both branches First Acts 8. 1. they i. e. the Church were all scattered and they thus scattered went every where preaching● verse 4. which preaching was approved of by God in accompanying them in this work by his Spirit Acts 11. 21. But to this you object First that we cannot prove but that they were Officers I Answer That we can evidently first it is said they were all scattered and all thus scattered preach'd Now all men know all a Church is not Officers but to this you object The word All signifies not every one Answer true but where the Scripture sayes All except such as it excepts with what forehead dare any man say the contrary It is in effect as much as to say the Apostle said not true evident it is Philip preached Acts 8. Object Philip was an Evangelist Answ True by gift in that he brought the glad tidings of Remission of sins by the Blood of Jesus to the soules of sinners but both he and Stephen Acts 7. by Office were Deacons Acts 6. 5. by which office they had no more to do to Preach than any Disciple Object Saul entred into every house haling men and women c. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial therefore not all scattered Answ There is never a syllable in the Text that proves this was in Jerusalem but it might be in other places whither they fled for refuge and for the burial of Stephen that was before they were scattered for the persecution arose about the stoning of Stephen Acts 11. 19. But the last shelter that you are forc'd to fly to from the cleer Countenance of this Text is that this was extraordinary as Davids eating that bread in time of hunger that at other times was unlawfull Yet necessity might justifie the action to this I Reply that some things in case of necessity may be done that at other times are unlawfull and that necessity justifies the action I grant but now there is not the like Connexion betwixt persecution and preaching as is betwixt hunger and bread a man in ex●reme hungar cannot well forbear bread but a man in time of persecution may forbear preaching was it lawfull for these men to preach it could not be persecution that could make it lawfull what though they were persecuted a thousand times they might hold their tongues for all tha was it unlawfull for them to have done it nay rather of the two it tyed them to hold their peace being persecuted for what they preach'd Thus it appeares that all that can preach may and such who can by preaching convert a soul to Jesus may Baptize him so converted though no Minister in office And whereas you say no man can be a lawfull Administrator unless Elected c. That 's apparently false for both Philip Acts 8. 38. and Ananias Acts 9. 18. Baptized and were never Elected to that work See but the natural face of your assertion No man can be a lawfull Administrator unless elected to that authority by Baptized persons But neither Ananias or Philip were elected so Ergo. Neither of these were lawfull Administrators the Major's your own the Minor is evident Philip a Deacon Ananias a disciple Thus your assertions cast dirt in the face of the Scripture Now for the inference that you say is drawn that we have no Mission c. I answer I never yet heard any man from such questions draw such inference had you but done me that favour to have told me who they were I should have been ready to answer them I have cause to suspect from whom it comes and I fear themselves are the men to whom every part of that result may with ease be applyed but seeing you say you make no such inference I am willing to let it pass it being you only I deal with Thus having answered this which you have most spoken to I shall expedite an answer to the rest of your Arguments which it seemes you make less account of in that to some you have endevoured to add a little proof and to some none at all If the separated societies be not true Churches then our Assemblies Arg. 11. Dr. B. are for certain it is Christ hath some true Churches amongst us and the only question is whether the Parochial or separated Congregations but you are not true Churches which I prove by an Argument of your own Those Churches that are not righly gathered are no true Churches but your Churches are not rightly gathered The Minor I prove thus The way of gathering your Churches hath no warrant in Scripture Ergo. I put you upon producing one precept or president in all the Scripture of gathering Churches out of Societies that hold and profess the fundamental verities 2. Those Churches that rob Gods people of their right are no true Churches but so do yours for you take away Church-membership from the Infant Children of Believers in denying the Sacrament of Initiation appointed for Gospel-Churches which was granted them under the former administration and is no where repealed but confirmed rather Rom. 11. Acts 2. 39. 3. Your Churches want a right form Ergo. The consequence is cleer because form gives being The antecedent is certain because an express Covenant is no where made the right form of a visible Church If this be the right form then why are not Popish Churches true there being such a Covenant between Popish Priests and people If by separated societies you mean all that are separated from you Answ J. O. the consequence may be good otherwise not There not being fulness enough in the division If you mean all I deny the Minor both of the first and also of the second framed to prove it and also the Consequence of the third and after all the result is you put us too no proof that we are no true Churches we are not rightly gathered the way of our gathering hath no warrant in Scripture and that this is so I put you to prove that it hath This is the pittifullest proof that ever I heard man make had I undertook to prove your Churches false and after three Arguments drawn such a Conclusion you would even have hist at it sure your schooles never taught you thus to dispute I had thought you had ingaged to proove Sir prove that you the Parishes of England generally hold and profess the fundamentall verities Secondly That it is unlawfull to separate from a people so professing c.

bad that is fain to make use of such poor proofs to hold it up viz. That the Ministers of this Nation generally are set by Christ in these places and yet many of them visibly abominable that have nothing to do to take Gods Word into their mouths seeing they hate to be Reformed and that all these are able rightly to divide the Word of Truth and that God hath blest their Labours which is so evidently false that the naming of it is confutation sufficient You did or might have heard from my mouth a full discourse Reply Dr. B. in vindication of the Ministery of England and of the lawfulness of their Ordination wherein all that you have here objected and much more was fully answered You have therefore no reason to say that either I will not or cannot prove it true your self or friends have the Notes at large which you may remember were publiquely produced the next Month day after the Sermon was preached Two things I shall lay down as to the charge brought against our ordination by Bishops First That the Bishops by See joint consent answer to the 4 objection against the whole body of our Assemblies p. 19. whom we were ordained cannot truly and properly be called Antichristian because they held the truth of doctrine and prof●ssed all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith many of them have written powerfully against P●pety and suffered much for defending the Truth of Christ against Antichrist some of them yet living such Gospell Ministers against whom Envy it self cannot except fulfilling the Word o● God by fidelity of dispensation and sincerity of Conversation Let all such places of Scripture be Consulted where Antichrist is described and you will find him always markt out by his falle doctrine though therefore it be confessed that in the Authority which our Bishops had and the exercise thereof there were something Antichristian yet it is as unchristian to call them Antichrists upon that account as to call you an hypocrite because there is something of hypocrisy in you Secondly Suppose them to be indeed Popish and Antichristian it will not follow that the ordination we had from them is so It is confest by all that this Nation had not the light of the Gospell and consequently the ordination of Gospell-Ministers from Rome but from Jerusalem even in the times of the Apostles or soon after and though the succession of this ordination hath passed through all the times of Popery since and the ordination of our first Reformers was from men of the Popish Religion yet is not the rightfulness of our vocation to the Ministery hereby Nulled the Scriptures themselves Baptism and the Articles of our Creed have all passed through the Papacy to us and yet they cease not to be true Scriptures true Baptism no more does Ordination Ministerial Acts are not at all vitiated much lesse made null though they passe through the hands of the worst of men Scribes and Pharisees were worse than naught Judas was a Devill Math. 23. 2 3. John 6. 70. Acts done by vertue of Office may be just and allowable though the Men and their Religion be naught You are not ignorant of the instance given of Popish Landlords and Judges whose Leases and sentences are not therfore Antichristian So in this Case Ordination is an Act of Office and derived from Christ and is not Popish though it be executed by Papists He that thinks Christs Ordination better for the Man that confers it is justly thought to incur the danger of that Curse denounced Jer. 17. 5. Much more may be said to stop your mouth but that so much is written already that all our adversaries are never able to resist Touching the exception against our entrance that we were not thosen by our People but presented by Patrons many things have been Answered that may suffice to give satisfaction to any sober minded First That the right of presentation that patrons have was given first by the Peoples free consent and therefore the choice they make may be accounted to be the choyce of the people Secondly The Law of our Land in the worst times required that People should have the same Election for substance which you plead for Thirdly Many of our Ministers were chosen by their People Fourthly The faithfull in many Congregations by their glad receiving of Ministers placed by Patrons and submitting themselves willingly to their godly directions at least by taking no exception against them consent to their entrance Fiftly Though it be very unfitting that People if fit to chuse should have a Minister thrust upon them yet there is no cleer Scripture-evidence that Ministers must be chosen by their People the meaning of that word in the Acts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be no more but this that the event of the Lot was approved by the common consent and no marvell because it was determined by God but hence it followes not that it was their choice to accept or refuse him for an Apostle or if it did follow what is this to ordinary Ministers To that in Acts 6. not to say as some do that it might be the Apostles indulgence to the People Certain it is that an example without a precept makes not a constant Rule again from the Peoples Election of Deacons to their Election of Ministers the Consequence is not valid as it is not from the Election of a Maior to the Election of a King That place in Acts 14. 23. seemes most potent but the word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not strong enough because it 's used to signify any Choice whatever though made by one alone Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles were Elected by Christ alone Mark 6. Moreover the word is vsed by Ecclesiastical writers for to signify Imposition of hands which no way belonged to the People but was always referred to the Apostles and their successors 6. Suppose it necessary yet it is Evident enough that there may be some entrance into the Ministery sufficient where the People at first have not made Election as in Case they have not knowledge of their right or have not been suffered to use it but yet afterwards yielded themselves subject thereunto 7. Those that Consider how the Office of High Priest in our Saviours time was bought and sold and the succession ordinarily broken and yet how valid Acts done by them were to all intents and purposes will be abundantly satisfied that these allegations to null our Ministerial Office are lighter than vanity The other two Reasons to prove our Ministers to be sent of God are such as you threaten to examin but finding them too strong to deal with you leave them but leave not to cast filth upon his Faithfull Labourers because there are many unfaithfull ones among them as if the Priest-hood under the Law were made null by the ignorance and wickedness of a multitude in that Office If there were but a tenth of

vertur of that Call and yet no man can communicate that to any other that he hath not himself and the Devill never being Authorized by Christ to ordain Ministers and yet you having no other must needs we think be false Secondly for manner of entrance that Church that is in want of a Minister is to elect such a man as she shall judge sit which man thus chosen is to be solemnly ordained by the approbation of the body for whom he is to officiate And you were made Ministers such as you are not only by them whom Christ never authorized to ordain but also before ever you knew what flock to Minister to which is a ridiculous foolery seeing Pastor and Flock are relates the one gives being and the essential Constituting Causes to the other and then get to the patron or to those in whose power it was to establish you and make the place sure and then intruding your selves into the service of those demanding nay forcing wages from those that never set you at work whereby we judge you false Ministers The other is this A society of believers as yet no Church in order assembled together in the Name of Christ to reassume an Ordinance of Christ appoint one man for the performance of the work not as a Pastor but as a man enabled by God to be instrumental in the discovery of this Truth Now whether there be the like reason upon the same principles to judge of the one as the other I leave it to be considered And which of these two is the rightlyest authorized let all men judge And how the holding that an unbaptized person in case of necessity one rightly Baptized not to be found might Baptize will prove us Schismaticks in separating from a true Ministery is to me a riddle the unfolding of which belongs to the Learning of him that doth assert it Hence your first scruple may be removed viz. how the first Baptizer had his Call being one who never did Baptize himself nor yet rested contented with his Infant-Baptism neither yet sent of God to begin a new Institution as John the Baptist was but one enlightned to discover that old yet new appearing institution unto us For if what you say was truth as it is not there having been some in all ages bearing testimony to this Truth viz. That this way was not till 1500. years after there was no need of beginning a new Institution for that Matth. 28. 18 19. is to last to the end of the world whether men obey it once in a thousand yeares or not now whereas you demand by what authority this first man Baptized seeing to Baptize is an act of office c. And no man can be a lawfull Administrator unless Elected c. I Answer by what Authority I have already shewed and for Baptizing to be an act of office and so not not to be performed but by officers I deny And the Scripture you bring to prove it Matth. 28. 18 19. proves the plain contrary as is evident for such as had received Abilities from Christ whereby they were enabled to Convert a soul to Christ might Baptize such a person so Converted The Commission holds alike for both Disciple and Baptizer c. Now this Commission though it was given to the Apostles it was not given to them as Apostles but as Disciples and in them to all others so gifted to the end of the world as your self well know and undeniable it is that they were to Preach and Baptize by vertue of Gift and not by vertue of Office seeing these men were such as were never elected by any Churches to the Pastoral charge for that was not Congruent to their Comission the Election of the people tying to the Church by whom they were elected and the Comission sending them forth to all the word to prepare matter for the Church whence it is evident that such who can disciple men to Christ may Baptize such so discipled disciple and baptize c. but some that are not Ministers in office can do that Ergo. The proposition is evident from the words the Assumption I suppose no man will deny except it be some who do endeavor to Monopolize Preaching only to themselves and stop the mouthes of all others though never so eminently gifted except they have served a prentiship to the same trade that they have done or els come under their Bishopping by laying on of their hands that so they may ty them to preach after their fashion which opinion is so grosse that I am loth to spend time in confutation Yet seeing though you dare not deny but that all who have received gifts whereby they are enabled to preach may yet deny that they may publickly preach and this preaching Matth. 28. is a publick preaching I shall give you an Argument or two to prove that If there be tolleration given by God to all who have received the gift of Prophecie to Prophesie in the Church Then there is tolleration given by God to all who have received the gift of Prophecy to Prophesy publickly but the former is true 1 Cor. 14 31. Therefore the latter This whole argument you have granted to be true only you say that Prophecy was extraordinary but that it was not I thus evince That Prophety is there meant that came within trial and Judgment but extraordinary Prophecy did not so therefore that 's not meant To this you Reply that extraordinary Prophets doctrine did Acts 17. 11. to which I answer That Judgment spoken of in the 14. of Cor. was such a judgment as presupposed the Prophets might err but this searching of the Bereans to see if the things Paul spake were so was no such thing Therefore nothing to the purpose it only shewed that Paul preaching and alleging Scriptures as his manner was thus and thus it is written and yet citing neither Chapter nor ver●e That they did seek to see if it was as he said and did in no wayes presuppose that Paul was liable to err in what he preacht Secondly That Prophecie in that place that men that are gifted are tolerated That Prophecie in that place women though gifted are forbidden but extraordinary Prophecy women are not forbidden Ergo. The Minor viz. that women extraordinary gifted may deliver their Prophecy in any place I think no man will deny And for the Major viz That the same manner of Prophecy that the gifted disciples were tolerated in verse 31. is the same that women are forbidden verse 34. is evident to all that will Consult the scope of that place Secondly we have an example in Scripture of such men preaching See also Acts 18. 28. If it be objected Apollos was an officer 1 Cor. 1. 12. Answer first It is not probable it was the same man Secondly If it was the consequence is bad to say Apollos was an officer when Paul wrote this Epistle therefore he was one when he preacht in the 18 of Acts knowing