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	name_n	2,222	5	5.1233	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31449	Vindiciae vindiciarum, or, A further manifestation of M.J.C., his contradictions instanced in Vindiciae clavium being a rejoinder to his reply (to some few of those many contradictions) in his last book called, The way of Congregationall churches cleared, part 2 / by D.C.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1651 (1651)	Wing C1641; ESTC R23919	36,878	62

members both at once So soon as there were members enough to make a Church they ordained them Elders and made them a politicall Church If not so yet the Apostles Paul and Barnabas were Officers to them before Catholick Officers to them as yet members only of the Catholick Church and now they being to depart ordained them Elders in their stead and made them particular politicall Churches If those members were not confederate by consent whereof the Scripture saies nothing they themselves say they were not a Church but only Materials of a Church and so members of the Catholike Church only or of none I shall say something more to this in another place I prescribe not to any mans judgement but submit it to consideration and proceed 2. The Officers of the Church 2. As a Congregation is called a Church as afore so sometimes the Officers not only distinguished but as separated into a Court are called the Church Our Saviour alluding to that custome amongst the Jews and not relating to a Congregationall Church not yet known nor yet in being And now the question returns upon us To what Church of all these the keys were committed Some say one thing some another you say to the particular Congregation which we shall consider when we have added that 3. How the Keys are given to the Church whether 3. It is to be considered in this question when the Keys are said to be given to the Church which is never said expresly in Scripture how they are understood to be given to the Church Whether 1. Objectivè 1. Objectivè that the Church is the object of the exercise of the Keys that is they are given for the good and benefit of the Church Or 2. Subjectivè 2. Subjectivè that the Church is the Subject Recipient to imploy and exercise the Keys and this either immediatly by her self in whole or in part without Officers or mediatly by her Officers that is whether the Church be the next and first subject of the Keys to convey them or any part of them to her Officers Or that she is said to be the remote subject as including the Officers to whom primarily and immediatly Christ hath committed the Keys for the good of the Church as sight is immediatly intrusted with the eyes for the good and benefit of the whole body And if it should happen that any power of the Keys should appear to be given to the Church as distinct from her Officers whether it belong first to the Catholike visible Church or to a particular Congregation The Question then is clearly this Whether the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be given subjectivè to the Church-Catholike in her Officers on the particular Congregation without or with her Officers And now we shall consider what you resolve upon this question Thus you assert The Church to which the Lord Jesus committed the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 16.29 is caetus Fidelium commonly called a particular visible Church c. To which I answered not as an Avenger there is not the least colour of that but as an Assertor giving also my reasons Of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Saviours words if by the Kingdom of Heaven on earth he meaneth that Church of which he spake in vers 18. But that was either the Catholike visible Church or rather the Invisible mysticall Church c. That one or both of these for by my word rather I do not exclude the other is meant and that primarily is to me still most probable upon these reasons 1. This being the first time that the Church my Church the evangelical Church is named it is not probable that our Saviour would intend it onely of a particular Congregation but of the Catholike Church for that is primarily Christs Church and that is properly built upon the rock and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail whereas as I say afterwards particular Churches may fail and have failed There is farre more colour for a particular Church to be meant Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church because excommunication is executed in a particular Church first and consequently in the Catholike Church but there is not any shadow for it in the text in hand Did Christ mean I will build my Church that is a particular Church onely upon this rock and not rather the Catholike Church and the particular secondarily as a member thereof It may be a question between the Invisible and Visible Catholike Church which is meant there as after but none till of late so much as made the question betwixt the Catholike and particular Church 2. Peter was an Apostle and had given to him the Keyes of the Catholike Church not of any particular Church for he and so his fellow-Apostles were never Pastors of any particular Church therefore it seems more reasonable that the Catholike Church is there meant They had habitually the Keyes of particular Churches in the Catholike as Pastors have habitually the Keyes of the Catholike Church in a particular They were actually Elders of the whole Church as Pastors are actually Elders of a particular Church 3. The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Church are given to Peter as distinguished from the Church therefore they are not there given to the Church As if a Lord should say to him whom he constitutes his Steward I give to thee the Keyes of the Family to open and shut the doors of the House could the servants or children or any for them conclude from this grant the Keyes were given to the Family was Peter the Church to whom the Keyes of the Church were given And therefore as distrusting this sense of this Scripture you say as you had said of the other Apostles and Elders The Church or Congregation of professed believers received that portion also of Church-power The Keys pag. 5. which belonged unto them if not there that is in this text in hand yet elsewhere Not here for certain whether elsewhere or no shall be tried hereafter It is not a reasonable construction of this text to say I give to thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven that is of the Church and to mean I give to the Church the Keyes of the Church I said therefore and I think truly that of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Saviours words that it is a particular Church to which the Keyes were given Matth. 26.19 It must then be taken of the Catholike Church either Invisible or Visible or none But you are pleased to take away the subject of this question denying any Catholike visible Church For say you I do not read that the Scripture any where acknowledges a Catholike visible Church at all It is supposed by very Judicious Divines that you may read of it often in Scripture and in this place for one It cannot be denied but the Church is often put for the

it immediatly from Christ I desire you would consider whom M. Hooker meant in those words That conceit is more wide from the mark c. pag 195. sect 2. It is strange that all this while you should agree no better Obj. 7 I said lastly The Church there meant is called the Kingdom of heaven but a particular Congregation of beleevers is never called so being but a member of it c. You answer It is not materiall whether it be called so or no it is enough it is called a Church yea as distinguished from Church-Officers Acts 25.22 Suprà pag. 7. 23. c. I gave the sense and rosolution of that Text afore The sum is this it doth not hold a Church of beleevers as existing without Officers for that Church had Officers but only distinguisheth the Integrall parts as your self call them above of that Church into Officers and members The Apostles Elders and whole Church ver 22. that is the brethren or beleevers ver 23. assembled together ver 25. which is no more then if he had said the whole Church consisting of Apostles Elders and Brethren But you must remember that you are disputing the power of the Keyes to be given to a Church beleevers without Officers and you bring an instance of a Church that had Officers Shew if you can a Church of beleevers existing without Officers which took upon them the name of a Church or the tide of the Kingdom of heaven I yet beleeve whereever the Church is called the Kingdom of heaven in Scripture it is meant of the whole Church not of any particular Congregation Your own Texts produced do hold out as much Mat. 20.1 It is called a vineyard which signifies either the state of the Gospel or the whole visible Church If he had meant it of particular Churches he would have rather said into his vineyards for all those Officers could not be hired for one particular Church You say It was into this or that particular Church respectively true with respect to the whole visible Church which is but one A man that hath a large vineyard hires servants to work in several places or parts of that vineyard but this or that part is not called a vineyard but with respect to the whole they are all hired to labour in his vineyard Or what if that Parable be rather understood of particular persons then particular Congregations God cals all Christians into his Church and sets them to work Some come in at one hour some at another they that come first think they deserve more then they that come in late at the eleventh hour Christ would intimate that God is free and his grace free to do what he will with his own and there is no merit at all Many are called but few are chosen But your Exposition restrains the parable only to Officers as distinct from the Church of beleevers The like my be said of your second Text Mat. 25.1 2. It is not meant as an a description of the estate of each particular Church as you strain rather then interpret it but of every particular professing Christian whereof some have lamps of profession but no oyl of true grace others have both And the scope of the parable is intimated in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or application ver 23. Watch ye therefore every one of you for you know not the day nor hour when the Son of man cometh Your next of Luk. 17.21 is wider from the mark The Kingdom of God is within you that is either the Messias whom you seek as absent is now among you as Beza or the power of the Gospel is within you or upon you Those other of Rev. 1.6 and 1 Pet. 2.9 are as much mistaken if applied to a particular Congregation All the faithfull are Kings and Priests and all together are a Kingdom of Priests both Officers and beleevers I suppose you will not apply this either only to the Officers or only to beleevers but to both singly and jointly and respectively to the whole Church To conclude this whole first Section I added a particular Congregation is but a member or Corporation of that kingdom and it were as improper to call a Congregation Christs kingdom as to call London the kingdom of England You answer Every similar part of a similar body doth properly partake both in the name and nature of the whole Every part of water is water c. and such a part of such a body is a particular visible Church But such is not the state of London c. You said a little above It was not in your minde to understand any other particular Congregation but one furnished with Officers But then if you will speak properly and strictly you cannot say that a particular Congregation of Officers and beleevers is a similar part of a similar body for it is a d●ssimilar body consisting of dissimilar parts and so London and it agree in state and that Church can no more properly be called the Kingdom of heaven then London the kingdom of England Again if you will to help your self out of this Labyrinth understand it of a particuar Church without Officers you fall into another gulf as bad as the former For if particular Congregations consisting of similar parts of beleevers only may be called Kingdoms as they are called Churches then it will fairly follow that every particular member of that similar body may be called not only a Church but a Kingdom too because every similar part of a similar body it is your own reason doth properly partake in the Name and Nature of the whole So then as every drop of water is water so every member of such a Church is a Church and of such a Kingdom is a Kingdom Your following of metaphors and Parables too far is guilty of these miscarriages as I elsewhere often shew where I also shew how a particular Church consisting of Officers and beleevers may in a candid sense be said to be a similar body to which I referre you SECT II. What the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are IF in opening what the Keys of the kingdom of heaven be it was not your intent to enumerate them all distinctly and particularly as you here say Surely you intended not the businesse you had in hand when you were purposely engaged to answer this Question What are the Keyes of this Kingdom would not any Reader expect from an Expositor of that text a full and perfect enumeration of the Keys what and how many they are Had you said only thus The Keys are the Ordinances which Christ hath instituted to be administred in his Church You might afterwards have referred them as you say to their severall subjects But when you adde As the preaching of the Word as also the administration of the Seals and Censures Would not any Reader take it for a full distribution of the Keys And when you adde By the opening and applying of these both

or else it is as well sacrilege or stealth taking it from the right owners if the Lord hath not given them this honour as it is to deny it or take it from them if the Lord hath given it to them Lastly and so you will have done with me you conclude It is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive the Ordinances much lesse power themselves to to dispense Ordinances as children and women c. This is very true yet you asserted before Every member of a particular Church hath a calling to put forth some Acts of power in his own Church c. Then say I women and children for they are members too yea we think except but that of speaking in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.11 12. expresly forbidden and we do not finde any one thing granted by Christ in respect of the power of the Keys to men the common members of the Church that women may not be allowed to act as I often told you in Vind. Clav. 1. Women widows at least who contribute maintenance may have some power in choosing that is in your sense ordaining Officers 2. To propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves to be admitted 3. To admonish in case of private scandall 4. To judge with a judgement of discretion you sometimes allow the brethren no more Keyes pag. ●4 They may tell the Church they may consent and concurre with the Elders at least passively 5. To withdraw from one excommunicate c. as was suggested to you elsewhere And now before I conclude I shall set before you an observation of your inconstancy in assigning the first subject of the power of the Keys The Keys were given 1. To Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a beleever 2. To Peter not as an Apostle not as an Elder but as a believer and consequently to all believers 3. Not to believers as believers but as making publike confession of their faith before the Lord and their brethren The way cleared part 2. pag. 39. and publike profession of their obedience of the faith to the Lord Jesus in the publike Ordinances of his worship pag. 40. 4. Not to believers as believers but as believers covenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment M. Hooker Surv. par 1. pag. 203. Or as you here it is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive or dispense Ordinances as not that place or order of children and women c. Whereas when first you began you asserted The Keys were given to Peter as a beleever and so by your own argument a quatenus tale to all beleevers as beleevers you are forced to make severall distinctions to help it out That position that needs so many distinctions gives strong suspition it is not the truth And now I shall conclude this second Section with your own words Let every soul enjoy such priviledges and liberties as the Lord hath given him or her in their place and order and neither effect nor attempt more Happy had it been for the Church of God if this had been done The Keys p. 6. I shall but minde you of what I suggested to you in Vind. Clav. pag. 13. in your own words I pray you seriously consider Whether by this sacrilegious breach of order investing the people with a Key of power even above those Elders that labour in the word and doctrine to open and shut the doors against them p. 9. of Keys which is the breaking of the files and ranks in an Army Satan is not like again to rout and ruine a great part of the liberty and power of Church-Officers and the purity of the Churches and of all the Ordinances of Christ in them SECT III. I now expected you should have gone on with Vind. Clav. and have vindicated your book and self from those other many wickednesses and contradictions charged I still think justly upon you But you fairly if you doe not rather in way of Revenge shake hands with me or rather slightly shake me off and never meet again And this is the more remarkable because you promise at least three times with attestation of the name of God twice at least pag. 15. and pag. 16. and again pag. 19 a further consideration of them In the first place thus when Vindex takes in hand to evade the Scriptures alledged I shall return him God willing further answer In the second place thus again What reason there is for their the Brethrens power in Church-censures we shall further consider God willing in its place To which places you never come near Is not this to take Gods Name in vain And new in the third Section you promise though you undertake those two Reverend Antagonists M. B. and M. Ruth Yet by the way not to neglect what personal exceptions Vindex hath taken at your self But reading over the following discourse I finde not that you do so much as take any notice of me or your threefold engagement but as if Vindex were some contemptible person that deserved to be slighted as his best answer you neglect all his I shall only say Et si ego dignus hac contumelia vel maximè At tu indignus qui faceres tamen Who both are charged with so many contradictions which for your own honour it concerned you to answer and also have charged your self three times to give a further answer Besides this there were seven Chapters in Vind. Clav. wherein you were not a little concerned to give if not me the world satisfaction and you are pleased to answer if you have answered but to one and but to two Sections of three in that chapter which is a slighting and contempt of an adversary not usually heard of And now I leave it to the Judicious Reader to resolve who deserves best Adversarius litis non personae and most justly the name and title of Vindex or Avenger Yet you give some reason of this slighting and neglect for so you say I conceive it losse of time and labour to argue the question with Vindex alone whose exceptions so far as they concern the point in controversie are but collections out of the writings of others who have more distinctly and elaborately disputed the cause I pray Sir why do you conceive it losse of time and labour to argue this Question with me Do you mean your answers would be so unsatisfying as the former now will appear to be as that the time and labour would be ill spent Your Reader will think so if you answer no better to that remaining then to what is gone before And why do you say this Question as if there were no more betwixt us then this But I most of all admire why you should say my exc●ptions are but collections out of the writings of others I beleeve the Reader will finde my exceptions are Collections of contradictions out of your own writings more then out