c. The Apostles were set in Corinth though not limited or confined to that Church All the strength of their Argument from 1 Cor. 12. 28. dependeth upon the Apostles speaking in the singular number the Church had it been said God hath set in the Churches c. there could have been no shadow of an Argument hence for their being officers to a Universal Church and seeing in the same chapter ver 12. 14. 17. c. he speaketh in the singular number the body the body and the whole body and yet all natural bodies do not make one body and ver 18. God set the members in the body c. yet there is no Catholick body how can his speaking in the singular number the Church ver 28. and that in the application of the same similitude prove a Catholick Church made up of all Churches To evidence that the sin of a people may nullifie the Office of a Minister which they deny Jus Div. Min. pag. 146 we ask whether if they murther him will not this nullifie his Office and if so why may not their sin other wayes make voyd the Office also Object Mr. Poole saith we confound the nullifying of the Office and the hindring the exercise of it 2. He demands whether this hold of the Apostles or no whether if the Catholike Church was confined to one congregation and that proved heretical and voted down the Apostles would this make their Office null or no he saith this followeth upon our principles for the church the correlate ceasing they must needs cease also ejusdem est instituere destituere and we allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people in the same page he telleth the world that we say the Apostles were constituted Officers by the church alleadging Acts 1 He addeth that this doctrine renders it in the power of mens lusts and humours to nullifie the promises of Christ the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadours for now there are none but ordinary Ministers and he supposeth but twenty congregations in the world and each of these may resolve severally to eject their Ministers c. This is the sum of what he expresseth in many words Mr. Poole pag. 32. 33. Ans 1. We have not confounded but clearly distinguished between nullifying the Office and hindring the exercise of it as he that shall impartially read our Book may see 2. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers our question is onely about ordinary Officers The Apostles were neither of man nor by man but were made by an extraordinary call of Christ and so it did belong onely to Christ to null their Office because ejusdem est instituere destituere But we cannot but complain that Mr. Poole hath here offered abundance of wrong to us in reporting to the world that we say Apostles were constituted Officers by the church alleadging Act. 1. and not contenting himself with sayit once he cometh over with it again towards the end of pag. 32. of his Book Whereas we have expressed the contrary and that in expresse Terms in speaking to Acts 1. which he sayeth we alledge for it Let any one read our book Preacher Sent. pag. 268. where we use these words This was but halfe an Election and that is the reason why it did not constitute Mathias an Apostle as appeareth because the choosing of the one which was by God was the constituted act Acts 1. 24. c. by which any one may see that we deny the Apostle to be constituted by the Church and assert it to be by God and therefore he hath done us much injury in this report 3. Suppose a Church murthereth its Officers either he must say that they are officers after they are dead which is absurd or else he must grant that the sin of a people may nullifie the office of a minister which the Provincial Assembly denyeth 4. No supposition may be allowed which implyeth a contradiction to any divine promise For God is faithful and therefore will restrain from every act that would render any promise void Some suppositions may be admitted of but not such as are against Promises otherwise we may answer his with an other himselfe supposeth p. 32. that the Catholike Church may be confined to one congregation if the Elders possibly but two or three should excommunicate that whole Church they should by this juridicall act how un just soever nullifie the promise of the perpetuity of the Church Mat. 16. 18. as much as by his supposition the people should nullifie the Promises about officers In such a case two or three Elders cannot be proved to be the universal Church and Officers to it also and if there be not a Church Officers set in it either the promises about officers or the Church must fail if suppositions against promises be allowed And in what a sad condition then would the Church be in for there would be none to appeal to and thus we might turne his words pag. 34 35. upon himselfe Or we might suppose that persecutors being most of the world might murther that one congregation which he improperly calleth the Catholike Church being but few its true the act would differ one being an act of horrid violence the other a juridical act but both are equally possible and so a supposition may be taken from one as well as from the other and therefore he can get nothing from such supposals The monstrous opinion followeth upon his owne principle Suppose but Twenty Ministers in the World who only have power according to him to ordain and they through treachery and frowardness should refuse to put forth their power for a succession they dye and so the promise of Christ is nullified neither doth his answer to the objection pag. 33. 34. take off this for here the case is not wholly different here is not an act of horrid violence and therefore it is as great an inconvenience to assert that Jesus Christ hath given to Ministers a juridical power as they judge that of Ordination to be by the abuse of which they might if they pleased disanul an Ordinance of Christ CHAP. VII Wherein our arguments for mens being Officers to a particular Church onely and not to a universal are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Pool bringeth against them Some arguments we used to prove that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely and not to a universal Church Mr. Pool pag. 35. den yeth the major of our first Syllogisme but medleth not with the proofs of it and so it remaineth firme still To prove our minor we use this argument Arg. 1. All that flock or Church over which the Holy Ghost hath made a man a Bishop or Overseer he is commanded actually to feed and take heed to and sinneth if he doth not But no Bishop or Overseer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the universal Church c. Ergo Ob. Mr. Pool
not the Office that is in thee So it would follow that either Timothy had the extraordinary gift when not the Office or the Office when not the gift that qualified for it It is a feeble Argument that cannot stand unless there be a receding from the usual signification of divers words and a plain sense of the Texts alleadged for it And himself can find their argument to amount but to an it may be and so we may retort upon him what he groundlesly saith to us pag. 126. all the answer it deserves is it may not be he should not onely have shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for Office and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but that they must be so taken here else their Argument is invalid We said one relate gives being to another Object It is true in esse constituto but consider relations in esse constituendo as they are to be constituted and so somewhat else gives being to them the husband gives being to the wife and the wife to the husband but there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation to wit the act of the Justice or Minister pag. 151. Answ Relata give being one to another in esse constituendo especially if they be voluntary Relations as this between Officer and a Church is thus a mutual Covenant or agreement constitutes one a master and another a servant and so for husband and wife the act of the Magistrate is not constitutive of the relation between man and wife but Declarative What he addeth about Titus was answered before he was not left in Crete to ordain only but to Preach and to perform other acts peculiar to his office CHAP. XIV Concerning the peoples power in some cases to Ordain THat in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers we proved by six Arguments Mr. Pool replyeth to three of them Argu. 1. Else Ordination were unattainable for there is not one precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over Ob. 1. There are divers practices lawfully used which yet we find no president for but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in as excommunication Mr. Pool p. 153. Answ If there be a precept for such practices as there was for excommunication Mat. 18. we do not require a president our Argument was from the want both of precept and president Ob. 2. It is against them if what they say be true then there is neither precept nor president for the ordaining of officers Mr. Pool pag. 153. Ans This is a great mistake also for we did not deny that an ordinary officer hath precept or president for acting in Ordination in the Church he is over but that any of the Texts alleadged for Ordination do warrant his ordaining out of the particular Church he is over this is it which we deny and so if a Church wanteth officers then those Texts warrant none in ordaining and other general Rules authorize no officers of other Churches to do it more then believers without office◠And this answereth also what he addeth pag. 153. 154. we grant that some acts of extraordinary officers are presidents for us but not such acts as are of an extraordinary nature or did flow from an extraordinary power In the act it self of ordaining the Apostles are presidents for us but if Ordination was upon the hands of Apostles Ministerially in every Church yet it doth not follow it ought to be so on the hand of every Minister in this the Apostles are not presidents because they were Elders in every Church so are not ordinary officers as we have proved That the proper Elders of every Church should carry on the work in their own Churches is according to the president but it reacheth no further Ob 3. For 1 Tim. 4. 14. we read nothing of them which was extraordinary Mr. Pool pag. 154. Answ 1. It s very probable it was an extraordinary Presbytery For there is not a word to evidence it to consist of ordinary persons Apostles were Presbyters 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. Joh. 1. and Paul one of the Presbytery 2 Tim. 1. 6. we proved before that no office was conveyed 1 Tim. 4. 14. and if it were onely an extraordinary gift no ordinary Presbytery could convey that himself saith the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary officers p. 150. he that will conclude it an ordinary Presbytery must argue a genere ad speciem affirmative and say it was a Presbytery Ergo it was an ordinary one 2. If it were an ordinary Presbytery which yet is not granted the Call to lay on hands was extraordinary by Prophesie as themselves confess Jus Div. Min. p. 167. and this is enough to our present Argument Ar. 2. Our second Argument is taken from believers acting in a Synod Act. 15. and other publick services Ob. 1. If there be Scripture precept or example for the one and not for the other then they may do the one and not the other Mr. Pool pag. 155. Answ Where hath he any Scripture precept or example for provincial National or oecumenical Synods invested with power of censures he must argue from a parity of reason which is no good plea in that case there being no institution for any such Assemblies if they were instituted their being warranted to do some services might by a parity of reason evidence them to be empowered for other services also and thus believers not in office have a warrant to act in other publick and more weighty services as Preaching c. Ergo they may act in this Ob. 2. I deny that the brethren acted in making the decrees thousands consent to acts of Parliament that have no hand in making them pag 155. Answ The acts themselves are ascribed to the brethren Act. 15. the whole Church is said to send ver 22. and the letters did run in their name ver 23. The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting c. All in whose name an act of Parliament runneth are not onely consenters but makers of the act so here As to what he saith pag. 156. to Numb 8. 10. we leave it to any unprejudiced Reader to judge whether their Arguments or our answers carry most evidence with them Ob. 1. This was an extraordinary case the Levites and Church officers were not yet instituted c. pag. 156. Ans Though the Levites were not instituted before yet there were other officers the Provincial Assembly tell us Jus Divin Min. pag. 188. Aaron and his sons were present and if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders Master Pool saith it is as if a man should argue gifted men may Preach where no Ministers are to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers
such Acts to tell it unto So Ephes 3. 10. 21. 1. Tim. 3. 5. If a man i. e. any man knew not to rule his own house i. e. this or that house how shall he take care of the Church i. e. this or that Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. in the house of God which is the Church i e. in any Church where thou presidest 〈◊〉 Tim. 5 16. Let not the Church be charged i. e. any Church where the any man or woman mentioned by the Apostle having widdowes doth reside Heb. 2. 12. In the midst of the Church This declaring praise cannot be in the midst of the universal Church which never meeteth upon such Acts and therefore it is not meant of this or that particular onely but this and that and the other distinct indeed in distinct individual formes as Plato Socrates are distinct but agreeing in common nature inseparable inherent in them both Thus it is said the wife is bound 1. Cor. 7. 39 every particular wife the man is not of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. 8. nor this nor that man nor any man when the name of an Integrum is given to a part it s not so because its a part but because of the common nature so that the flesh of Iohn and the flesh of Thomas is all flesh as well as the flesh of the Leg and arme of either of them we do not think a particular Church formed unto fellowship according to institution is as so a part or hath its denomination for parts sake but being of the same kind with other Churches of the same constitution it s included in and represented by the same name for kindes sake This may answer the argument from the Apostles who because not officers to a certain particular onely are supposed to have been so to the universal For the Apostles were Officers in and over every particular by vertue of an immediate call and general commission wherin they have no successors which particulers though not parts as is already expressed may be signified by a singular word Church even as many common wealths as to order and government Independent may be so signified and it may be properly said God appointed for a common-wealth Rulers Judgges c. i. e. for this that and the other Common-wealth Nor is it haâ—d to Imagin how one may have power in and over two or three or more yet they have no dependance one upon an other A Father may have ten daughters and each daughter her family distinct the Father hath power in each family though the particular sisters or their o fficers not so Nor are the arguments more cogent taken from baptism and excommunication Baptism makes not any one stand in relation to the Church more then the Lords-Supper nor is it administred that persons may be members of the body we know our brethren will not administer it to the heathens or Idolaters but to persons called from Idols i. e. to members in their sense of the visible Church We know our brethren qualified their Catholick notion with this terme solemn intending not admission in a general sense but solemn admission as the enlisting or enrolment of a soldier is his admission into the Army But its consistency with their other principles we see not If a soldier be casheired he is readmitted by a new enrolment If a member be excomunicate yet when absolved he is not rebaptized We need say no more to this argument here having occasion to meet it againe and to consider the Scriptures whereon it s built We rest very confident that some Parent Master or neighbour who through providence is instrumental to the converting of a sinner doth more to the entring a person into the body of Christ then any Minister ever did by Baptism or can do Though baptism entereth not a member into any Church yet where ever regularly performed is valid to its ends uses and consequential priveledges in every Church not by reason of the unity of Churches but upon an other account Suppose a man be free in London and have the seale of his freedom in that Corporation onely yet he is free to buy and sell in every Corporation in England and interested in common Priveledges where ever he is though not in proper as Jurisdiction and Government If he that sets the seal at London admits not into every Company and Corporation in the Land If communion with every Corporation in some things doth not prove such an union among them all as is between the members of some one Corporation The argument upon Baptism to prove a Catholick Church falleth to the ground Excomunication indeed separateth the person excomunicate from Relation to and communion with the body from which he is cut off 1 Cor. 55. 7. 13. But as a member forfeiting his freedom at London is formerly desfranchised there where he was actually a member and consequently incapacitated to claim the Priviledges which formerly he enjoyed by vertue of that freedom other where though London and other Cities and Townes Corporate make not one Corporation So it is in this case Mr. Hudson objects postcript page 5. several Corporations are constituted by several Charters c. and but the universal Church hath but one Charter from our Soveraigne under the same Systeme of Lawes c. Answ As the World according to the fellowship of Nature hath one Jus Gentium and Law of nature for the whole yet according to the fellowship of Order must of necessity be under other Lawes for the several parts thereof in those combined fellowships so the Church in the fellowship of its Nature or the whole company called to union and communion with the Lord Jesus hath one Law of faith obedience c. For all its individuals yet not one Law for the whole as such for Order Policy c. But the Churches in the fellowship of order have Lawes suitable to their order by the wil and appointment of Jesus Christ It s the Law of the universal Church that the members of it worship the Lord. It s the Law of the particular that the members meet and worship in one place 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. thus they walk together in ordinances so that walking in ordinances with an other Church neglecting it in this is sinful because every one is bound to walk with the same Church whereof he is a member That Text is yet in controversie 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church we said its paralel to God hath set the members every one in the body verse 18 If this prove not a Catholike body nor doth that prove a Catholick Church Dâ— Collings replyeth the body is totum integrale If members had been enumerated not confined to the service of that particular it would have proved a universal body Answ The body to which the Church is compared is totum intigrale Organicum but particulare so is the Church The Apostles had place and power over more then this
answer they could not partly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an act of many especially when in an Assembly partly because whatsoever is put to suffrages may be determined by the major voice in case of dissent but this was impossible where there was but two for Paul could not out-vote Barnabas nor Barnabas out-vote Paul If Paul had given his voice for one and Barnabas had discented and had given his voice for another against Paul we aske who should have carryed it When the word denoteth the act of the indivisible God Acts 10 v. 41. it is not taken properly as it is in Acts 14. 23. but figuratively as God is said to have eyes eares hands c. So by a metaphor he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this answereth his second particular Vind. Revind pag. 129. 130. 3. The greek is as strong for us as the English translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth the peoples Election by suffrages and is not so clearly in apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he supposeth but rather in di-junction it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the article 〈◊〉 habet locum in divisienibus according to Grammar And if the praying and fasting related not to the constitution of the Elders as the Dr. saith pag. 130. but to the Apostles departure then the whole verse may refer to the people for it was the usual practice of the Churches to commend the Apostles unto the grace of God by solemn prayer in such parting 's Acts. 14. 26. Acts 15. 40. And Paul chose Silas and departed being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God 4. We had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken for Election or choosing by sufferages and not for orâ—ination and thence infer that Paul and Barnabas could not be the only persons that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our argument for that inferrence is this That which is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas onely But the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people Acts 6. Ergo The powe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas only And whether this be a begging the question or a proving what we assert let the Reader judge He bids us Vind. Revind pag. 131. see if there be one word in the Epistle to Timothy or Titus for the peoples choice We turne it upon himselfe let him see if there be one word in those Epistles for the officers choice or for the giving the power of election unto Officers What he addeth Vind. Revind pag. 132 133. is to deny that every particular Church is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister We have proved their ability from Iohn 10. v. 4. 5. See Preacher Sent. pag. 225. 237. Ob. 1. How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince againsaying Socinian or Arminian or Papist who know not what any of them hold Vind. Revind pag. 132. Answ 1. It is possible for those to judge whether a man be able to convince gainsayers who knowes not what many of them hold The Bishops or Presbiters who were administrators of Ordination in England 10. 20. 30. or 40 years ago could not know what Quakers and other blasphemers would hold yet surely he will not say that they could not judge whether those which they Ordained were able to convince gainsayers And why may not a Church as well be able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gainsayers though it knoweth not what Socinians or Arminians hold 2. Although some Church members know not errors by the name of Socinians c. yet if they hear them broached they are able to judge that they are contrary to sound dostrine As for those which turne from the faithful word in matters fundamental as they are unfit to judge of a Ministers qualifications so they are not duely qualified to be Church members Ob. 2. What belongs to Christs Sheep as Christs sheep belongs to every sheep but this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ. Ergo I hope our bretheren will not say this belongs to the woman yet are they Christs sheep too Nor that every man hath ability if they do and will give us leave we will pick them out Twenty out of every hundred c. Vind. Revind pag. 133. Answ 1. If it doth not belong to every sheep of Christ to judge of ministerial ability yet the reason may be because some want a word or institution of Christ to empower-them thereunto as in the case of women not because they want ability about which the present question is 2. It must belong to every sheep of Christ if Iohn 10. v. 5. reacheth so far as he concludeth it doth pag. 133. For such sheep as are hearers are there asserted to have both ability and liberty to judge what teachers they are to follow and who they are to avoid That one sold v. 16. is one specifically Jews and Gentiles have one kind of Church order not one Numerically all do not make up one Church of Churches But how he can reconcile his owne expressions upon this Text and make them agree in one we know not for he telleth us The Text saith my sheep not my fold what is here made to belong to sheep belongs to every sheep Vind. Revind pag. 133. If our Brethren say the Text is to be understood of Christs sheep as folded together in the Church we grant what they say but say it is meant of the one fold ver 16. Doth not one of the expressions deny it to be Christs fold and the other grant it to be his fold that is there intended 3. Although this or that Church-member taken singly may want ability to judge of ministerial qualifications yet all the members of a Church formed according to Christs institution being gathered together in Christs Name to wait for counsel at his mouth in such a matter will be able and so it may well belong to them to judge whether a man holdeth fast the faithful word be apt to teach and be able by sound Doctrine to exhort and convince gain-sayers CHAP. VI. Shewing that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to a Vniversal Church in way of reply to Mr. Pooles exceptions in the three first chapters of his Book THere came lately to our hands a Book entituled A moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons written by Mr. Poole at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London in way of reply to some part of our Book intituled The Preacher Sent. We shall give some brief animadversions upon the most considerable passages of his Book and
of the circumcision unto Peter Gal. 2. v. 7. but yet Paul to use Mr. Pools words though improper was actually immediately and absolutely an officer at the same time to the Jews hence he is often executing his office amongst the Jews as Act. 21. ver 15. 17. 18. c. And he saith expressely the care of all the Churches was upon him dayly 2 Cor. 11. ver 28. Ergo He had an actual relation to the Jewish as well as the Gentile Churches even to all the Churches and so no double relation did arise by his being the Apostle of the Gentiles but as a father having many children with families of their own may abide and continue longer with some of them then with others yet standeth in the same relation of a father to all So the Apostles though they did abide more with some Churches then with others yet no distinct relation was introduced thereby and therefore this instance of the Apostles is nothing to his purpose For the relation of ordinary Officers to a particular Church is such that if they had a relation to a Universal Church it would not be the same but another and so distinct that themselves assert a double relation and that one viz. that to the Church Universal lasteth though his particular relation ceaseth Jus Divin Min. p. 151. Neither doth it appear that all the Apostles had some Churches more especially assigned to them then others and those that had not must needs be as he phraseth it actually and equally related to all Churches and without any such double relation but were obliged to travel from one Church to another where as ordinary officers are fixed in their particular Churches and obliged to abide there Mr. Poole p. 9. taketh notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which he saith is the great rule in all Church administrations for a Minister may joyntly with others rule a far greater proportion then he can teach he taketh notice that the Apostles could not teach every Church yet did actually rule all the Churches at least which are mentioned Act. 15. c. Ans 1. The question is not whether there be a possibility of a Ministers ruling more then he can teâ—â—â—â— but whether by Christs appointment a Minister is to undertake the Ruling of more then he can teach or oâ— more then a particular Church we can find no institution of Christ for any such thing and without that edification will not be a rule sufficient to warrant the acting in Church-administrations when every thing may lawfully be done that is possible to be done then this arguing will be good 2. It is not proved that any act of Rule or Government was put forth Act. 15. and there is no syllable of proof that the Apostles power of Government was more extensive then their teaching power so much as in the exercise of it He proceedeth to lay down some Arguments to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as officers to more then their own particular Churches Argu. 1. If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Mr. Poole p. 10. heathens then they are noâ— Officers onely to their particular congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible heathens To prove his Minor he saith 1. That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected is undeniable 2 Such are clearly expressed Mat. 28. ver 19 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostical Office and relation Answ 1. There were multitudes baptized by John before the Apostles were constituted Officers Mat. 3. ver 5 6. and either there must be some visible Gospel Church then erected to which these Baptized persons were related and then his Argument is untrue or else that must be a truth which he calleth a monstrous paradox pag. 28. viz. That Baptism doth not admit or make a man to stand in relation to any Church for they were members of the Jewish Church before and so were not admitted into that by their Baptism and if no Gospel Church was at this time erected then their Baptism did not admit them into any Church at all 2. Many did visibly stand in relation to Christ before the Apostles were constituted Officers or had that mission Mat. 28. therefore either his Argument p. 29. must be false or else this his position p. 10. that Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected cannot be true of which he saith it s a plain case and undeniable 3. If the Essence of the Church had been preserved in the Apostles in case all converted Christians had dyed as he supposed pag. 10. how can he deny the Church to have a being the Apostles having a being in whom he saith the Essence of the Church was 4. We desire our distinction formerly mentioned may be remembred we grant the Apostles were and others are in a general sence Officers to heathens but we deny that they were or that others are Officers to heathens in a special sence namely as over them in the Lord and this answereth his supposition pag. 10. of Christians dying and none remaining to be Preached to but heathens and also taketh off his charge against us in the same page for denying Apostles to be Officers unto heathens 5. Apostles were extraordinary officers our question is onely about ordinary Officers and therefore all he saith is beside the question If Apostles were before the visible Gospel Church was erected and if Apostles acted as Officers towards convertible heathens yet seeing they were extraordinary Officers it will not follow thence that ordinary Officers act as Officers towards convertible heathens Object Apostles and Pastors are parallel'd in this case Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. c. the body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum or the object of the pastoral Office but the body of Christ includes heathens Therefore heathens to be converted are the object and correlate of the pastoral office That heathens are a part of Christs body he thinketh evident they are called his sheep Joh. 10. ver 16. he laid down his life for them which he did onely for his body Eph. 5. c. Mr. Poole pag. 12. 13. Answ 1. If by the body of Christ Eph. 4. ver 11. 12. we must as Mr. Poole saith pag. 12. necessarily understand the whole collection of all Christs members in all ages of the Church all which in Scripture phrase go to the making up of Christs body c. then it is the mystical body of Christ that is intended consisting of the whole number of the elect redeemed justified or sanctified ones and these onely And if the body of Christ includeth heathens and visibly unconverted ones as Mr. Poole supposeth it doth here then it must be taken in this sence but that ministers should be Officers or act as officers to this mystical
pag. 35. denyeth the major and saith a minister is not obliged actually to feed all his flock and addeth every Apostle was a Catholâ—â—â— Pastor and so had the whole Church for his flock Mat. 28. 19 20. But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church and all Nations c. Answ 1. His denyal of the major is little better then a denyal of the very words of Scripture for the Apostle saith Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church c. Is it not plain that actuall feeding is enjoyned and that not onely some but all a mans flock is thus to be sed 2. This doth not answer our argument but leaveth us under a new seeming difficulty 3. If his reason should be wholly granted we do not see how it justifyeth his denyal of our major or taketh away the force of our argument and had he not left out the conclusion of his Syllogism he might easily have seen it himself For the utmost he can conclude from those premises is but this Ergo every Catholike Pastor who hath the whole Church for his flock was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church all Nations c. And what is all this to the purpose If every Catholike Pastor or every one who hath the whole Church for his flock was not will it follow hence that no officer is obliged actually to feed all his flock May there not be some officers who have no such large flock and may stand under such obligations If every Apostle was not yet may not every ordinary Officer be obliged actually to feed all his flock What shadow ofa consequence is here This might be enough in answer to that which he supposeth to be an unanswerable reason but that his reason taketh not away the force of our Argument we may evidence these waies 1. Because the impossibility of every Apostles looking to all the Churches is the reason which himselfe giveth pag. 7 8. why they did it not But our argument is drawne from a command to ordinary Officers fixed in a particular Church all which it was possible for them actually to feed and so the cases run not paralel And that a universal Church should be their flock the hundred it may be the thousand part whereof by reason of their fixednesse in a particular Church they can never feed and yet be commanded to feed all their flock who can Imagine it Or doth not such a comand rather determine their particular flock to be all over which they are made Overseers 2. Because the Apostles had immediate directions from God which gave them a dispensation for an actual feeding every Church 3. Because if every Apostle was not commanded actually to feed all that flock or all those Churches that they had liberty by their commissions to act as Officers towards seeing every ordinary Officer is commanded to feed all the flock he is an Overseer to Acts. 20. 28. hence his supposed unanswerable reason faileth in the main thing it should prove If Mat. 28. 19 20. were spoken to this or that Apostle singly then that being a command of actuall teaching and baptizing every Apostle was obliged actually to feed or teach all Nations and then his minor is untrue But if it were spoken to all the Apostles together v. 16. 19 20. then if every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed all Churches or all Nations yet all the Apostles together did actually feed all the Churches in that age and were obliged to do it and all officers together in after ages are under the like obligation yet no one ordinary Officer is obliged actually to teach all Nations but every one is bound to feed all the flock over which he is made an overseer Arg. 2. If Officers now were actually to feed and take care of all the universal Church then their power were as extensive large as the Apostles c. Prâ— Sent. p. 11. Obj. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation but in the independancy superiority and singularity of jurisdiction Mr. Pool pag. 36. Answ 1. If this were true yet it proved what we produced it for viz. That no ordinary Officer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the unisal Church for himselfe granteth pag. 6. that it was peculiar to the Apostles to be actually Ministers to the whole Church 2. But that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation seemeth to us very false For 1. Apostles had universality of jurisdiction Ergo Apostles had generality of relation Ordinary officers have not universality of jurisdiction Ergo ordinary officers had not generality of relation Nomans jurisdiction can be extended beyond his relation and therefore none can deny the Apostles universality of relation and that ordinary officers have so extensive a jurisdiction let him prove that will assert it 2. As Apostles had general relation so they were under obligation to actual discharge of the duty of the relation in like extent 2 Corin. 11. 28. and so were the Churches towards them But ordinary Officers are not under an obligation for the actuall discharge of the duty of their relation to all Churches as we have already proved from Act 20 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. neither are all Churches under such obligations to duty towards them as their officers either â—o submit or afford maintenance c. to them and therefore ordinary officers relation doth not extend to all Churches 3. Apostles general relation obliged them to an Itinerant execution of their office so as they could not fix in any Church but ordinary Officers are not engaged to such an execution but by Divine appointment are fixed in some one church and are bound there to reside which is inconsistent with such a relation as the Apostles had 4. The general relation of the Apostles was so special as all Churches might plead a like interest in them and call them their officers with ordinary officers it is not so our brethren themselves being judges Jus Div. Min. pag. 143. If ordinary officers be not equally related to all Churches they are not at all related to them for relations do not suscipere magis minus unlesse the subject or foundation be mutable Arg. 3. Ministers are Pastors onely to them whom they can exercise Church government towards as well as teach Obj. Then the Apostles did not preach as Officers to heathens for towards such they could not exercise Church-governement Mr. Pool p. 37. Ans If Apostles did Preach as Officers over heathens it did arise from the extraordinariness of their Office for no ordinary Officers civil or military can act as Officers toward any that they cannot govern and having the Rule over and being over others in the Lord is made the specificating distinguishing Character of ordinary Officers from such as
brethren as we shewed Preacher sent p. 326. As to what he saith pag. 142 to Tit. 1. 5. we answer We do not call ordination an unnecessary adjunct The Apostles paines might have been very usefull in other places when yet the Lord would have them abide at Jerusalem and so Titus at Crete The setting in order things that were wanting is expresly and firstly mentioned as the cause of Titus his staying at Crete and as that concerned but the wel-being of the Church no more did ordaining of Elders in every City for Churches have a being before Officers Acts 14. 23. and if Titus himselfe had acted in neither of these works but onely had taken the over-sight of those Churches and directed them therein yet it would have been necessary enough especially in that Infant state of the Church that Titus should a bide at Crete but doubtlesse he had preaching work enough there which was greater then his ordaining Elders Ob. 2. From the Nature of Election Deu. 1. 13. look what Moses was to the Jewes that are Ministers unto the Church c. Here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers onely the one is civil the other Ecclesiastical Mr. Pool p. 143. Answ 1. The Commonwealth of the Jews was a Thearchy in respect of the Legislative part of Government but it was a Monarchy in respect of the executive part and Moses the Monarch thereof the spiritual Commonwealth or Ministers not so 2. The power of Moses was Supream all other powers subordinate unto him the power of spiritual officers not so 3. Moses had power to appoint Officers of a new species under him Exod. 18. ver 24. Ministers not so 4. Christ is compared with Moses Heb. 3. not so with Ministers of the Gospel 5. Moses was over Babes and such as were under Tutors and Governours Ministers over a free people 6. Yet Moses gave to the people those that they gave to him so Christ the King D. 1. v. 13. 15. of Saints giveth unto his Churches those that according to his directions they chuse That freemen in a Corporation give the Essentials of a Call to their Officers c. is enough to shew that such as have no Office-power yet frequently do make Officers which answereth the Provinc Ass especially seeing they ground their objection upon a general Rule nihil dat quod non habet c. That Christs free-people may have office-power eminently in them as well as those instanced in is enough for us here we being in the defensive part But whereas he calleth p. 144. for Divine institution we reply 1. Many like instances lie giveth and we have as good reason to Call for a Divine institution there as when he telleth us pag. 7. of a vaste number of sheep committed to twenty Shepherds c and p. 8. of a general relation to the whole Empire a special respect to their own Territories we crave a Divine institution for any such order in the Church and so for his instances pag. 131. 132 about a presentation and the Archbishop and a D◠of Physick and 137. 138. of a Corporation a Court of Aldermen c. let him shew a Divine institution that it is so in the Church and why doth he require of us and not give it himself The use of such examples is to clear some general rule to illustrate and to shew that there are cases paralel and ours go thus far 2. We gave an institution in our Arguments to prove that Election giveth the Essence of the Call As to Ministers being before the Church we sufficiently disproved it in our former book pag. 303 304. It is evident that Churches were before Elders Act. 14. 23. it concerneth him to prove that any ordinary Elders were before a Church and that they act as officers to such as are no Church else he saith nothing to the purpose that Churches to are be gathered and baptized by them 〈◊〉 answered in the place even now quoted To prove that the Essence of the Cal I doth consist in Ordination they used five arguments he pleadeth for two of them The former is taken from 2 Tim. 1. 6. stir up the gift of God which is in thee 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee c. Object He saith 1. It was an ordinary Presbytery 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for Office as well as gift 3. That a man may be said to stir up his Office and office may be said to be in a man 4. That an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary officers who were inferiour to him 5. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the gift 2 Tim. 1. 6. and of the office 1 Tim. 4. 14. Mr. Pool from pag. 146. to 151. Answ 1. That it was an ordinary Presbytery is not proved extraordinary Officers were Presbyters 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly signifieth an absolute gift its questionable whether it be used any where for office 3. It is a stirring up as fire and it s very improper to say that office is so stirred up especially seeing the gift is said to be in him which is not true of office Though a man may be said to be in that which is in him as being swallowed up or overcome thereby as a man in sin in bear or drink in joy c. Yet it cannot with any propriety of speech be said that is in a man which is but upon him office is onely adherent to a man not inherent or in him it were very improper to say to a Major Bayliffe Justice Constable c. stir up the Office that is in you 4. If an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary Officers which is not proved yet their Argument is of no force unless he can prove that it was done here what he addeth pag. 149 of its being ordinary in state and Church for a Person to have an Office conveyed to him Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him c. doth plainly contradict what himself said p. 138. 160. That the less is called of the greater and by this Rule though the people be inferiour to their Officers yet they may convey their Office to them His instance of a King whose Office is conveyed by some of his Subjects if true proveth that those who are placed in a state of subjection yet may have authority enough to give the Essence to their Officers and so answereth what he saith pag. 139. 5. It is seldom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there is no evidence that it must be so taken here 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for gift 2 Tim. 1. 6. and for Office 1 Tim. 4. 14. is altogether without proof or probility of truth For as the phrase were improper neglect
how these arguings agree we know not Object 2. No doubt they were the first-born that did lay hands on the Levites Ans This is fully answered Preacher Sent pag. 344. most that he saith from pag. 157 to 161. is either inconsiderable or answrable or answered before Object 1. We hear not a syllable of the peoples concurrence in ordination c. p. 158. Paul in all his Epistles to the Churches speaks not a word about ordination surely the Scriptures silence is Argumentative p. 159. Ans If this will stand many of his principles must fall for we hear not a syllable in holy writ of the subordination of a Church of Christ in point of Government unto Assemblies made up of the officers of other Churches nor of the subordination of Synods one to another nor of its being an ordinary Presbytery which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. Nay there is not a word in Scripture for an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over upon an ordinary Call and so the Scriptures silence is as much argumentative in case a Church hath no officers in it against Ordination by officers of other Churches our officers as against Ordination by the people Object 2. There is the same reason for the Apostles being a president for Ministers baptizing and not the people and for their ordaining and not the people pag. 158. Ans We have reasons against the peoples baptizing which are not fetched from the president of the Apostles baptizing and which speak not against the peoples acting in ordination when a Church is without officers as for baptisme being a part of worship only by institution which as worship the people are no where warranted to perform in the acts of it whereas the Essential act of Ordination is prayer which though reqâ—â—red by Gospel Rules on that occasion yet in it self is an act of natual worship which the people may perform so Baptisme is a seal of the Covenant c. Ob. 3. We never find Ordination practiced but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. Ans 1. Then 1 Tim. 4. 14. cannot speak of Ordination by an ordinary Presbytery for Timothy was an extraordinary officer and so was not inferiour to an ordinary Presbytery either this or else what he saith p. 149. 154. must be false 2. We never find Ordination by ordinary officers upon an ordinary Call out of the Churches they are over and so the case is as difficult on his part as on ours His last Argument p. 160. viz. That Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in office we confuted before And thus we have finished our reply to the chief matters in his book onely for a conclusion he accuseth us to the Reader 1. For novel and strange passages 2. For self-contradicting passages Mr. Pool p. 160. 161. 162. 163. we shall briefly answer to these 1. As to his list of novel strang passages we answer 1. Our words pag. 13. do not so much as implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Jewes as a Teacher by office That Text Mat. 13. 54. 57. was alledged onely to evidence that stumblers at and opposers of the word in respect of him that teacheth may be said to be taught this is all we produce it for as any Reader may see and this it clearly proveth that no meer man can be an officer to such we prove but it is by other mediums not by that Text neither can any inferrence be drawn from our words against Christs being an Officer to such especially seeing Christ was an extraordinary person even the Law-maker and determiner who men should be Officers to As to the Apostles in a large sense they were officers to heathens but not Officers over them or in a strict sense as we have shewn in this book Ch. 7. 2. The second we own if the rest of our words be added to it neither hath he disproved it we would know from whom Apollo had a probation before his preaching 3. The third is proved in the pages he quoteth and also in this book Chap. 10. Let him evidence that an outward call from man is any where in Scripture stiled a mission or sending or that any but God doth send in the sense we take it in there We do not deny that a Church is to give a Call to Office but we deny that sending is that call 4. The fourth we own neither hath he disproved it and the same we say to the sixt and seventh As to the fist about administring the Sacraments not as Pastors we desire the Reader would view our former book pag. 280. and this book Chap. 6. As to the eight ninth we have spoken to them Ch. 6. 2. As to his accusation for selfe-contradicting passages we answer 1. We can find nothing like a contradiction in our words if pag. 20 and 149. be compared For if a man may lawfully preach yet may there not be divers things pre-required unto his preaching here or there May not a man have power to preach and yet want requisites unto the exercise of that power in this or that place do not they say a man may have power and yet without the consent of some or a special call may not exercise that power in such a place Jus Div. Min. pag. 144 Doth not Mr. Pool expresly assert it pag. 6. Yea he saith pag. 48. It is true no preachers are in Scripture oblidged to preach in such or such a place c. what do we say more We may turne his words pag. 163. upon himself say how can a man preach but he must preach in this or that place quod nusquam fit non fit So that the contradiction if it be one is as much his as ours 2 It is his grosse mistake to say that we are guilty of selfe-contradiction in the other two particulars which he mentioneth pag. 163. For what he rehearseth out of our book pag. 300. to make one part of the contradiction is an objection of theirs they are not our words but the words of the provincial assembly Jus. Divin Min. pag. 133. And that which he maketh the other part of the contradiction is our answer to the aforesaid objection and so we do but oppose them pag. 302. not contradict our selves They are their words from p. 300. l. 21. to p. 301. lin 14. this he might easily have seen though it be not printed in a different Character And now we shall put Mr. Pool in mind of some of his 1. novel and strange passages 2. Selfe-contradictions 3. Repugnancies to the provincial Assembly whose case he pleadeth the Dr. 1. novel strange passages 1. He saith that a Minister may be a Minister though he have no particular Church to which he stands related p. 11. by Minister he intends an officer pag. 10. 2. He saith that heathens are a part of Christs body pag. 13. And therefore are the object and
A VINDICATION OF THE PREACHER SENT OR A VVarrant for publick Preaching without Ordination Wherein is further discovered 1. That some Gifted men unordained are Gospel Preachers 2. That Officers sustain not a relation as Officers to the Universal Church and other weighty questions concerning Election and Ordination are opened and cleared In answer to two Books 1. Vindiciae Ministrij Evangelici Revindicatae or the Preacher pretendly Sent sent back again By Dr Colling of Norwich 2 Q. warrante or a Moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the Preaching of gifted and unordained persons By Mr. Pool at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London WITH A Reply to the exceptions of Mr. Hudson and D. Collings against the Epistle to the Preacher Sent. Published By Frederick Woodal Minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk Samuel Petto Minister of the Gospel at Sandcraft in Suffolk LONDON Printed by J. T. Livewell Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1659. An Advertisement to the Reader IT is Recorded of the most holy that when the cry of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah came up unto him he went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry thereof before he executed judgment upon them and this is written for our instruction that where indictments are drawn up against persons or things we may not proceed to sentence upon the charg untill wee see the proof thereof We are not ignorant of cries even outcries against the liberty of Prophsying we contend about and we fear notwithstanding our former and present defence if the question be moved about it what evil hath it done the answer will be returned unto it away with it crucisie it Our brethren are preparing Spirits unto this while they represent it an Idol the City of Jericho which was not to be built a Trojan horse full of Error nonsense and blasphemy A Pandoras box whence all sorts of mischeivous soulpoysoning opinions fly out c. See their Epistles And here suffer us a little to expostulate with them Is ordination indeed as a Venice-glass that can hold no poyson are you not partial who can finde Errors Heresies impertinencyes among persons not ordained but among the ordayned omnia bene Alas what learned non-sense amongst many of them what empty notions What Aiery speculations how often are people served with bones instead of bread How oft have they froth for drink They that condemn too much Lead in a window because it hinders light might be offended with painted glasse We confesse and deny not we have seen Theeves and murtherers going out and in at this door as also in the other way who deserve indeed that their mouthes should be stopped but their evil flowes not from our principle but from the abuse thereof not from the principle as stated by us although Mr. Pool in his Epistle thinks it done very loosly because though we assert it inexpedient mischeivous and uncomfortable to preach without approbation from others yet we say in some cases for ought we know it may be so done Preacher Sent. pag. 20. wherein we might promise our selves favour for them whose principle it is that in some cases it may be lawful to preach without Ordination Mr. Pool pag. 68. 102. If they put Ordination in the place of Aprobation yet say in some cases a man may preach without ordination where is the offence But Dr. Collings doth judge that no rule of Regulation can or will be fixed by us upon this liberty so that it differs not from licentiousnesse but is a very strumpet harlot Mother of abominations c. We answer 1. If by this rule of Regulation he mean the form or patern to which all doctrine must conform which therefore is called regula regulans the Rule is fixed viz. the sacred Scriptures 2. If he mean the measure or standard for qualification the Rule needs not be fixed by us where it is fixed as in Rules of examination unto Ordination it is rarely observed and a man may be qualified for one place or people not for another 3. If he mean the order of reducement in case Error or heresie be preached or the liberty any way abused the Rule is fixed Mat. 18. 15 16. The Church hath power over preachers and over Pastors Coloss 4. 17. 1 Corin. 5. 12. Rev. 2. ver 2. Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers That Church and the Angel thereof are commended for trying of Preachers Those that may and disapprove may approve where there is cause here is a Scripture rule for approbation of Preachers and that not so much as in order to Ordination Courteous Reader we desire thee to take notice of these few following particulars 1. That we do not repeat all the words of Dr. Collings or Mr. Pool but what is most material in their Arguments which liberty they have taken to themselves in replying to us 2. That although we have cause to complain that many Arguments in our former book yet remain untouched and some but slightly wounded are buried alive with too much of the dust and ashes of reproach cast upon them yet hoping and expecting that the determining Reader will examine and compare Arguments and answers impartially we shall be silent 3. That very many of Mr. Pools Arguments and replies are drawn from the Apostles and that in matters wherein they acted as extraordinary Officers Also necessity is often urged against us whereas necessity cannot justly be pleaded to justifie actings unless it be in natural duties Their instance of the Shew-bread reacheth no further it was a natural duty to eat that for the preservation of life to kill a man in self-defence is a natural duty which may further answer what Mr. Pool saith pag. 102. about necessity we say to defend the life of a man or to take away the life of a murderer is not a peculiar work to a Magistrate but to command persons to the one and the other is the Magistrats work and this a private man may not do in a case of necessity and if they will grant preaching to be a natural duty how can they deny gifted men liberty for doing of it 4. That thou art to expect this the last thou shalt receive from us in this controversie we cannot absolutely promise it because the righteous and the wise and their works are in the hand of God Eccles 9. 1. but are very much inclined unto it amongst others upon these grounds because we have spoken fully to the matter in our former and this book and there is no end of words neither do we love alwayes to be wading in a controversie which diverteth from more practical things at present and at the last must be left to the Reader to judge and we would not by multiplying replies carry thee away from those Arguments we used in the first Book which they have left behind without any thingof
him If they be under a general obligation to Preach when opportunity or a call is offered so are gifted men If he will say they can command it let him prove it whom they may require to hear when Churches are full of Pastors We urged diverse Arguments for the Preaching of some men without Ordination Argu. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination Preacher Sent. p. 29. Obj. Dr. Collings knoweth no need of any Preaching in order to election but onely twice or thrice to try a mans utterance and denyeth the election of a particular Church as necessary to precede Ordination c. Vind. Revind pag. 45. 46. Answ A tryal what gifts a man hath for Scripture interpretation and of the sutableness of a mans gifts to such a people c. maketh ordinary Preaching necessary in order to election as well as the tryal of utterance 2. Election did precede Ordination Act. 6. vers 5. they chose Stephen vers 6. And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them Dr. Collings asketh whether we think that the election there was by the whole multitude We answer yes for it is expressely said v. 5 the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen c. they who chose the Text answereth the whole multitude Their being divided because some widows were neglected in the daily ministration did not hinder their agreeing together in the chusing of Deacons which was propounded as a means purposely for the healing of those divisions neither doth the number if it were so great forbid it for more have met We expected his attempting to give some Text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election but he waveth that altogether Argu. 2. From Gospel commands 1 Pet. 4 ver 10. 11. Hebr. 10. 25. Preach sent p. 32. Obj. Dr. Collings his chief exceptions against this are 1. If any one who hath ability may dispense the the gift then gifted brethren may administer baptisme and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text. Vind. p. 50. 2. The context speaketh of the good things of this world pag. 50. 3. If the ability to Preach be the gift only meant he that never had the Oracles of God committed to him cannot speak them as the Oracles of God And however this was when the Church was in a scattered state pag. 51. 4. He inclineth to take it in the latitude for any communicable gift but it must be ministered in a due way and order and upon a regular Câ—lâ— Vind. Revind pag. 55. Ans 1. We do not limit it to the gift of Preaching but say that is one special gift intended 1 Pet. 4. v. 11. If any man speak c. and so it cannot be restained to this worlds goods And the foregoing and following exhortations being left in general amongst the Saints and a note of universality being used here v. 10. as every man c. hence the generality of those that have grace and the gift of Scripture interpretation are commanded to Mister that gift and hence gift cannot be restrained to Office seeing many are so gifted who are no Officers And the gift of Preaching being a publike gift i. e. such as fitteth for and is mostly laid out in a publike way hence it is very probable that an use of it in publike Assemblies is that which the Apostle driveth at especially seeing other Texts do warrant gifted men in such publike actings as Hebr. 10. 25. Act. 18 26. 28. 2. Neither may every one that is gifted administer Baptisme and the Supper by vertue of this Text. For 1. The gift of Preaching is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 11. the administration of Sacraments not so 2. Some Preaching is an act of meer charity no ministering of Seals is so Every friend of the bridegroome according to his ability may serve the Bridegroome in acts of charity but none can serve him in those rites wherein mutual engagement is Sealed but one appointed especially thereunto 3. Dr. Collings is at liberty to Preach many Sermons without the knowledge or expresse consent of his eldership but not to suspend one member from the Supper or admit one thereto there is then some difference between the dispensation of the word and the administration of Sacraments 4. Baptisme and the Lords Sâ—pperare act so purely of institution that they would never have been duties nor could have been known to be so without Scripture-light and so are not to be dispensed by any though gifted without an allowance thereunto by the institution which is the onely determining rule about the Adminstrator and Administration But as prayer is a natural duty though commanded over in the Gospel and many rules laid down to regulate direct in the performance of it So Preaching in it self is an act of natural worship if there had been no Scripture rules laid down about it yet man by natures light might have learned it to be a duty to publish the will God his Creator unto others according to ability and opportunity and therefore the Law of nature doth firstly lay gifted men under obligations to Preach and this is seconded by Gospel rules as in the Text alledged 3. It is nothing to his purpose if gift be understood of Alms or Office unlesse it be exclusive and that it cannot be limited to them onely we proved in our former book and he inclineth to take it for any communicable gift Vind. Revind pag. 55. and so he cannot restrain it unto Alms or Office But if his Arguments did prove it very probable that by gift is meant Office which they do not they were equally strong to prove that Alms are not the gift chiefly intended It might then be said the gift is to be administered as Stewards and to acts of Office are instanced in ver 11. and therefore it is meant only of Office not of Alms which many men out of Office may give and when some of his Arguments will serve as answers unto others or when he is found answering himself let the Reader judge whether that childishness which he mentioned Vind. Revind p. 49. be to be found in our replies or in his Arguments 4. The Church was not in such a scattered state but that it had Officers in it for it s said 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort c. If gifted men may Preach in Churches that have Elders in them much more may they do it elsewhere 5. The main stress is upon the Call Quest What gives a Call to Preach Ans 1. That which maketh an habitual Prophet Preacher c. although we allow not actual and habitual in relations yet otherwise we allow it justifies the actual except the hearers be incapacitated as to that priviledge If men be Prophets in the collation of grace and a gift through the use of means who will forbid them prophecy but rather wish as Moses Num. 11. 29. 2. Christs command concerning a work is mans Call to do
fourth argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples Act. 13. 25. c. Apollo preached publickly yet was not ordained and the scattered Saints Act. 8. Dr. Collings may see Preacher Sent. p. 66. that we intend not Gospel presidents by an extraordinary call and therefore what â—he saith Vind. Revind pag. 57. 58. about Apostleship the holy Kisse c. is but to raise a mist before the Eyes of the Reader Ob. In these instances there is not a parity 1. In the species of their gifts there might be office or extraordinary gifts Apollo is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1. 12. called a Minister 1 Cor. 3. 5. and was mighty in the Scriptures It is plain he preached onely in order to office p. 59. The scattered Christians were of the 8000. who were filled with extraordinary gifts Acts 4. 31. pag. 60. 2. In the Acts nothing found to evidence that they Acts 8. did preach in publike assemblies p. 6. 3. In the state of the Church it was an infant state and a persecuted state they might be under a necessity oâ— precept those extraordinary gifts might be attended with a praeceptive impression Acts 4. 31. there was necessitas medij there was no other ordinary meanes of Salvation for these people Vind. Revind p. 61. 62. Ans 1. Apollo's gifts were not of an other species Adam and Abel not two species of men though Adam by creation Abel by generation nor the habits in Adam a divers species from them in Abel because they infused these acquired If Apollo's gifts had been infused which yet is not granted this would not prove them of a divers species but his being mighty in the Scriptures maketh it probable that he received them in an ordinary way as now a dayes viz. by the Scriptures and not otherwayes as the Doctor argueth He wrongeth himselfe and us in affirming pag. 59. that we say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it the contrary may be seen Preacher Sent. p. 71. 72. 73. yet it being an endlesse work to answer the groundlesse â—urmises of men we had reason to desire proof But Apollo knew onely the baptism of Iohn Acts 18. 25. Ergo Apollo neither had extraordinary gifts nor did preach in order to office or ordination for without knowing more then the baptisme of Iohn he could not know these which belong to the baptism of Christ Mat. 3. 11. He i. e. Jesus Christ shall baptize you with the holy Ghost And that he should preach as a Probationer to a woman Priscilla and that at Ephesus in order to Office at Corinth how unlikely is it As to the Scattered Christians If all mentioned Acts. 4. 31. had extraordinary preaching gifts and were 8000. in number which yet we do not grant then the Gospel knoweth occasional preachers for so many could not have opportunity for constant preaching in that Church neither can it be proved that they did it else-where before the scattering Also then he must say that here was a whole Church of Preachers which is more strange then that in these dayes there should be in Churches some gifted men besides Officers who may Preach Some think that the speaking the word with boldnesse mentioned v. 31. hath reference to the Apostles as an answer of that prayer for them v. 29. 30. but we say it cannot be proved that they were the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost that they are there said to be filled with and so the objection vanisheth 2 As for parity of Acts Apollo preached publikely in the Synogogue and Christians heard him Acts 18. 26. and this he did not with the allowance of the Jewish Church onely but of Christ And if afterward he were an officer which we know not but he might though upon his proofs we do not conclude it yet now he was none The scattered Christians went every where preaching Acts 8. 4. and therefore they acted publickly as well as privately He must assert an order of private preachers who may goe every where preaching in private houses but may not do it in publick or else this exception Vind. Revind p. 61. is vain 3. As to the state of the Church as it was an infant state so Christ provided extraordinary Officers as Apostles and gave extraordinary gifts for the nursing of it up in infancy but as we have proved Apollo had no such gifts and the Dr. saith p. 59. its plain that he preached onely in order to Office by which he plainly granteth that for the present he was no Officer at all of a Gospel Church And let it be proved that any others had an allowance in that infant state to act in Gospel-administrations which were at other times peculiar to office as Apollo had if preaching were so all presidents or examples recorded in the New Testament refer to that infant state of the Church and therefore no argument for Gospel presidents could be vailed if the infancy of the Church could hinder it because that may be alleadged against all that some presidents have the force of a rule himselfe granteth Vind. Revind pag. 58. and others Jus Dinin Min. pag. 160. 161. as for those Acts 8. there being in a persecuted state will not make such a case of necessity as he speaketh of for it doth not appear that all these scattered Saints which preached had such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost however such extraordinary preaching gifts are to be used in the most tranquil setled state of the Church though many Ministers ordained be present and therefore persecution about which we are now speaking could not put them under any such preceptive impression as might render their preaching lawful now which in a setled state of the Church would be unlawfull And upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people no such necessity as he talketh of will be evinced from it If Churches had lost their Officers by persecution there were a greater colour for such a plea but here the case was otherwaies for the Apostles who were Officers were not scattered neither was it the persecuted Church that was preached to but others How mens being persecuted from their habitations can render their preaching Lawful which otherwise were not or lay them under either a natural or moral necessity to preach in their travels beyond what they should have if their occasions did lead them to the same places without persecution we understand not And the Apostles who were by Christs appointment to preach not onely in the Regions of Judea and Samaria where this scattering was Acts 8. 1. but in all Nations Mat. 28. 19. were neither scattered nor necessitated that it appeareth to stay where they were by the persecution and therefore there was other means of salvation for those people though these scattered Saints had not preached when the Lord had Officers of his own near viz. Apostles yet he would honour
Generat work p. 50. Key to Myst N. pag. 248. Knowledge of the times pag. 97. he doth not speak of it as certainly and infallibly to come to passe that yet we find and if he had many worthy men have been mistaken in the mystical numbers and therefore it is an unworthy act to seek thus to blemish his name after his death That which he speaketh of Prelates is but to cast odium for neither Arch-Bishops nor Bishops can shew any institution of Christ for their office they have not an immediate vocation or infallible direction or power for miraculous operation and therefore they cannot rationally pretend to such a general Commission as Apostles and Evangelists had 2. If by ordinary he intendeth Common in that sence the gift of Tongues and healing in those dayes were ordinary though the way and manner of conveying those gifts and the end of them was extraordinary Act. 2. ver 3. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 22. Tongues are for a sign But that was ordinary which had not a temporary reason for its use or which did not require an extraordinary Call to enable to and warrant in coming up to it or which men are commonly in after ages gifted for even unto this day and whose nature acts and ends were not extraordinary And whether our Arguments do not prove prophecying in these respects to be ordinary and so still continuing let the Reader judge Mr. Rutherford saith that these Prophets and our Pastors differ not in species and nature and that to him this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets c. which still rendreth us perswaded that Mr. Rutherford thought the gift of Prophesie was ordinary for surely he knew that an extraordinary gift did make one differ in species nature from ordinary Officers Only he judged that the way and manner of conferring that gift was extraordinary ordinarily it is acquired by study and industry then he supposed it was infused But as it was an ordinary visive faculty as other mens which was conferred upon the man born blind and wine of an ordinary species which was made John 2 though the manner of production was extraordinary so the gift of prophesie was ordinary in his account though by a maze of words Dr. Collings would perswade the Reader otherwise We proved this prophecying to be an ordinary gift and so still continuing because 1. The Rules to regulate the work are ordinary 2. The description of it ordinary 1 Cor. 14. 3. 3. One great end of extraordinary prophecying viz. to be a sign is denied to this 1 Corinthians 14. 22. 4. Women are forbidden this publike prophecying 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet extraordinary publike prophecying is allowed to them Luke 2. 36. 38. Obj. 1. The act may be ordinary and yet the gift not so Extraordinary Officers and gifts were to come under general rules of order 2. So far as it is a description it is a description of the act not of the gift onely such ends of prophecying are expressed as were common to that with other Ordinances and duties 3. This Text onely proves that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not The onely end of foretelling things to come was not to be a sign Their chief act as be conceiveth was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift which indeed to them that believed not the Scripture would be of no use 4. Women prophetesses are not mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 34. we do not find that Anna Luke 2. 36. spake things to come and this liberty was restrained 1 Cor. 14. 37. Ans 1. Extraordinary acts will follow extraordinary gifts for operari sequitur esse That the work of prophecy is ordinary is not a fallucious but a firm Arument to prove the gift to be ordinary also and still continuing none but ordinary rules are mentioned to regulate prophecysing nothing in the description of the work but what is ordinary and a large chapter is spent chiefly in directing about prophecying and nothing extraordinary is predicated either of the gift or act in the whole chapter and surely this will prove an ordinary gift or work of prophesie to be here intended as strongly as the enumerating onely of Officers or persons extraordinarily gifted Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 29. if granted can prove extraordinary prophesie to be there intended as he would have it Vind. pag. 70. 77. And extraordinary directions were given to regulate Apostles and Evangelists in the exercise of extraordinary gifts Mat. 10. 2. The act and so the description of it must be sutable to the gift Exhortation is here assigned unto prophesie and also Act. 15. 32. Being Prophets exhorted the brethren with many words where the act of prophesie is denoted by it and that here onely some common ends should be expressed by it how unconceivable is it Is not exhortation an act Edification and comfort are not so and therefore what triflling is it to say the Text proves them to be the act as well as the other or will not the words as rendred by him out of the Greek serve as well to our purpose as the Uulgar translation and can the sence be perfect without to or some such word we know not to what end his high words here serve but to make a flourish 3. That the extraordinary gift or act of fore-telling things to come cannot be the prophecying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. we prove because one great end of prediction viz. to be a sign is denyed unto this prophecying and that denial is to be found ver 22. Our Argument was not taken from a denial of the act as he reporteth pag 73. but of one end which indeed by consequence denyeth that to be the gift or act He faith this Texthat believed not that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not We answer this which he granteth it doth prove enough to evidence that fore-telling things to come is not the prophesie here intend for that was a sign to them that believed not Mat. 16. ver 3 4. The sign of the Prophet Jonas was given to convince a wicked and Adulterous generation Neither is there a word in the chapter to prove that the prophecying 1 Cor. 14. was a sign to such as believed or that the infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift was the act of those Prophets both which he suggesteth 4. If he intendeth onely that women Prophetesses are not expressely mentioned 1 Corin. 14. 34. we might answer all his arguments at once with this for the Scripture doth not expresly command all preachers to receive Ordination If he will say they are no way mentioned or intended Then 1. He contradicteth the London Ministers who use these words by women here are not meant women simple but women Prophetesses in opposition to men Prophets formerly spoken of Jus. Divin Min. pag. 100. yea contradicteth himselfe for he faith it is to be understood of women that had or pretended to have
both which we mentioned Preacher Sent. pag. 203 204. argue that none else may act herein nor wil officers be useless and un-necessary as to those acts if gifted men may preach and the Church act in government And this answereth divers of his exceptions pag. 103. 104. only we shall add that his straining one of our similitudes to make it run on four feet for the drawing this out of it That gifted men may preach or may let it a lone and then adding many lines pag. 103. to disprove what himselfe hath wrested out of it is far from a canded dealing with us especially seeing the very words of our similitude do plainly deny this sense of it and these words he hath concealed Our similitude runneth thus A Christian friend or neighbour may and ought to give gratious and wholsome instructions c. If he had rightly applyed the similitude he must have said so gifted men may and ought to preach and then he would not have used so many words to prove that they are not at their liberty whether they will preach or no. Likewise our words are the one is under a standing obligation by the parental relation to performe such acts the other not He giveth our words thus The one is under a standing obligation the other not Whereas our words do not deny friends to be under an obligation to such acts but assert their obligation to be indifferent from that which is parental He granteth pag. 105. that our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture and whether there be any ground in Scripture for the preaching of gifted men let the Reader judge That Apostles and Evangelists differed in nothing from Pastors and Teachers but in the extent of their power which he asserteth pag. 105. we apprehend is a great mistake for besides a power of miraculous operation they had immediate inspirations and infalible directions from the holy spirit As to their being Officers it s answered Preacher Sent. Pag. 209. We conclude that Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and Teachers also were needful then but his argument seemeth to us to deny some of them to be necessary in those dayes We might as well say that where Pastors and teachers were resident there was no need of Apostles or Evangelists for preaching or such ordinary acts as he may say pag. 106. that when they were resident in this or that particular Church there was no need of Pastors or Teachers and his reason will be as strong for us as for him because they could do all their acts And surely when there were many Apostles at Jerusalem and Prophets at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. though all did not speak at the same time yet none were un-necessary no more are gifted men We may turn his argument pag. 98. upon himselfe God doth nothing in vain But in case the preaching of Officers could render it un-ecessary for gifted men to do it then he had done something in vain for we have proved that he hath appointed gifted men to preach Ergo it is false that gifted men may not do it Arg. 4. His fourth argument is taken from the committing of Gospel truths to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others by Gods Timothies 2 Tim. 2. 2. Vind. Revind pag. 106. To what he saith about mens being able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into their own Tongue we answer 1. We grant a knowledg of the Original to be a good help yet it s not absolutely necessary as himselfe confesseth 2. It is learning in Gospel mystries that the Text speaketh of 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things thou hast heard of me commit c. As to what followeth we say it is a commitment of the word not of persons they to whom this commitment was were set over none thereby It was to be committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Epethite of members Eph. 1. 1. The Church in other Scriptures not Officers onely is the object of the commitment Rom. 3. 2. called therefore the pillar and ground of truth 1. If the ability be before commitment then he must say a man may be morally able to preach before Ordination for id possumus quod jure possumus and so his argument falleth for the committing is not ordaining If the ability be attained by committing those things to them Why doth he pag. 107. deny it to be an effect or end thereof And seeing the Gospel owneth a committing doctrinal and this doth make men naturally able how will it ever be proved that a morall ability is onely intended And unlesse that be proved his argument is of no force for men must be naturally able before they may warrantably be ordained if that were a committing of Gospel truths to men And that the ability is subsequent is plain who shall be able 2. It cannot be concluded that the future is used for the present-tense but when â—special reason doth enforce it and none is found here 3. Men ought to commitCospel truths unto others doctrinally without a certaine rule to assure them who should be converted strengthened or comforted and as well might he do it in this case without assurance that every one should be able and therefore his query pag. 107. how could he know who they should be is of no concernement 4. It must be proved not onely that ordination is necessary but that it is the committing of Gospel truths which is spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 2. or else this argument is of no force 5. He required what means the restriction of faithfull men Vind. Revind pag. 40. We answered this in our former book and shall add thus much The Apostle careth about a succession of truth which might be most hopefully expected from faithfull men and therefore he would have it committed unto them especially for that end thus the restriction Iob. 21. v. 15. 17 feed my sheep doth notifie that they especially are to be fed 6. We do not grant that the other committing is meant but if it were the manner must necessarily be understood else it will not help him at all We do not deny that teaching publikly is intended but how he can tell us it s meant of publike teachers and yet say the Apostle plainly speakes de re of the thing not de modo of the manner of performance Vind. Vindic. pag. 140. would be considered And if it be understood of Officers that is not exclusive of gifted men Arg. 5. His fifth argument is from their requiring lawfully a maintenance Vind. Revin pag. 109. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 18 Math. 10. 10. Gal. 6. 6. Hespeaketh very little to our replyes unto this we say the Scriptures alleadged speak of a constant preaching he denyeth that Mat. 10. 10. or Gal. 6. 6. hint the least of such a thing Why will he trouble the Reader with such words without profit Will he allow of any occasional if not why doth he so much as seem to deny these to be constant
p. 2. pag. 432. Trelcatius Instit Theol. l. 2. pag. 204 205. Duae sunt causae cur inter suum Christi baptismum distinguat Priâ—r ut notet differentiam inter baptismum extrenum aquae baptismum internum spiritus altera ut distinguat inter personam officium suum inter personam â—fficium Christi c. Qui patris de discrimine utriusque baptismi egerunt aut de circumstantiis modo patefactionis Christi egerunt tantum non de substantia aut efficatia ut Origines Justiâ—us Nazianzenus Chrysost Cyrillus aut de baptismo sive externo Johannis sive interno Christi seperatim ut Basilius Tertul. Cypria Hieron aut humanitas a veritatis trumite aberrarunt ut Agustinus pag. 206. in answer to the Papists objection from that very place Acts 19. v 3. 4. 5. he useth these words ex ambigua significatione vocas baptismi nihil sequitur Nec enim baptismus a quam solum significat sed aut re baptismi aut ipsam Johannis doctrinam Mr William Lyford in his Apologie for the publike Ministry by way of reply to this very argument from Apollo's preaching without ordination pag. 26. useth these words The baptism of Iohn and of Christ distinguished Acts. 19. v. 4. 5. are not two baptismes of water but onely one with water which is called Iohns baptism Acts 19 3. and the Lordâ— baptisme Acts 8. 16. But Christs baptisme in distinction from Iohns was the pouring forth of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles and others in those daies as St Peter does expound it Acts 11. 15. 16. c. From all this it is evident that although some Protestant writers as Calvin Piscator Spanhemius and others have strongly asserted the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be â—â—e same as to the substance and essence oâ— them yet even they and many others before them as Cyprian Tertull. have asserted that the baptisme of Iohn and Christ were distinguished at least in Circumstances secundum modum patefactionis Christi And the aforementioned Mr. Lyford though he was against preaching without ordination yet granteth the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be distinguished in that very place which we alledge for it Acts 19. 4. 5. Wollebius Theol. pag. 126. saith there is baptismusfluminis seu aquae luminis seu doctrinae Mat. 3 11 Mat 22 25 Acts 18 25 And Scharpius Symphon pag 37. saith baptism is taken Synecdochiâ—e cum non tantum pro externo baptismo sed etiam pro tota doctrina sumitur ita in baptisma Johannis baptisati dicuntur ita Mat. 21. 25. baptisma Ioh. quod fuit pars Ministerii pro toto ministerio vel ut sigiâ—â—um pro tota doctrina obsignata sumitur And thus our assertion may divers waies hold true for Iohns water baptism Mat. 3. 11. is distinguished from Christs baptism with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit Acts 1â— 5. And the baptism of Iohn i. e. his doctrine is distinguished from the baptism of Christ i. e. from those doctrines which may be called the baptism of Christ wherein are contained many things about Gospel Churches Gospel Officers and Ordination c. which neither Apollo nor any other could know by the baptism of Iohn the revelation of them being in order of time after Iohns baptism and this difference is sufficient to cleare our argument We neither deny as the Papists do that grace might be conserred by the Spirit of Christ in or with the baptism of Iohn nor do we assert as the Papists do that all who were baptized with the baptism of Iohn ought to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ Nor are we yet perswaded that those Acts 19. were rebaptized with water-baptism though Musculus and learned Zaâ—chy and others who were neither Papists nor Socinians were of that judgement as we say with Dr. Ames Bell. Enerv. t. 3. l. 2. p. 297. Si rebaptizati fuerunt non fuit hoc propter imperfectionem baptismi Johannis sed propter aberrationem scioli alicujus a quo baptizati fuerunt Yet we are not perswaded that v. 5. is a continuation of Pauls narration of Iohns baptism but we shall not for the present contend about that We shall add but this who hath most cause to be ashamed we for bringing such an argument or Dr. Collings for giving such a reply let the Reader judge The residue of his book is spent about the three Scriptures which we bring for Election viz. Acts 1. Acts 6. and Acts 14. and the peoples ability to choose Iohn 10. we shall reply very briefly 1. As to Acts 1. v. 15. 23. how much it speaketh for the peoples Election may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 1â—7 c. In answer to his objection we say 1. Himselfe useth a like argument from a greater Officer to a lesse Vind. Minister Evang. p 31 32. for ordination he alleageth Acts 13. 3. and useth these words Their being Apostles makes but the argument afortiori better If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostles that were most eminently gifted with the holy Ghost should yet be solemnly set a part to the work of the Ministry how much more requisite is it for those who hath no such gifts and indowments We may now turne his reply to us Vind. Revind pag. 122. upon himselfe and say because all the people of a countrey may choose Parliament men by the Law it will not follow that they may châ—se Justices of the peace c. and the answer is as strong against his argument from Acts 13. 3. for Ordination as it can be against our Argument from Acts. 1. 23. for Election and so either his own argument must be nought or else ours is good for both stand upon the same foot we may put in Election for Ordination and use his own words thus If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostle that was most eminently gifted and indued with the Holy Ghost should be chosen by the people how much more requisite is it for Pastore and Teachers who have no such gifts and indowments as to his instance we say The people in choosing Parliament men to make them Lawes either choose Justices of peace who are established by their Lawes or abridge themselves of a liberty to choose them 2. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated and two stood as he rendreth it pag. 122 it must be by Gods direction else it would not have been followed with Gods approbation in that after Election v. 24. 26. neither could they have prayed in faith v. 24. that the Lord would shew whether of these two he had chosen if that act v. 23. had not given them a knowledge that one of these two and not any other of the company should be chosen which must be by some visible tokens thereof And if God witnessed this to them mediately we know not of any other meanes besides the Election of the people which we
are pleading for If it be said it was immediately and as he supposeth p. 122. by an extraordinary motion of the Holy Spirit as they at least might think as it is not like that the Spirit should so stir up two to offer themselves unto aservice which it was certaine but one of them should be appointed unto so there is not a syllable in the Text to countenance such a conjecture And their thinking it to be from the spirit could not have given a ground for that prayer v. â—4 3. Whereas he telleth us Vind. Revind p. 122. 123. if any did choose it is not said the multitude did it and he conceiveth by Disciples v. 15. only the Apostles are meant distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer it was in the midst of the 120. that Peter stood up and spake for they are expressely said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place and therefore not onely the Apostles but the 120 were meant by Disciples Acts 1. 15. for those in the midst of whom he stood up are called Disciples Again it is not said that besides the Disciples there was 120. but the number of names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place was about 120. and therefore the Apostles being in that same place as appeareth ver 13 14. were part of the 120 and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there mentioned And as it were purposely to answer this objection of the term Disciple being distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is said Luke 6. vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the company of â—is Disciples And that the directions about the choice should be given to all the 120. in that one place and onely the eleven Apostles who least needed such directions should be the onely choosers who can imagine it 4. Whereas he saith pag. 123. God here chose We answer The Election of two out of the company was given to the Disciples the Election of one of these two belonged to God because else he could not have had an immediate Call or have been an Apostle Suppose it were referred to the people of a County to pitch upon two and this determined that one of the two should be a Parliament man or some other officer to the County it would be reckoned that the people had a great priviledge yea that they did chose the Parliament man or other officers though the choice of the Supream Magistrate did determine which of the two should stand so in the case in hand the peoples choice did determine that one of the two should be an Apostle though God chose the one And if he will say as pag. 123. that this is just nothing let him consider that the word used to expresse the peoples Election Act. 1. 23. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same that is used to expresse Ordination Act. 6. 3. Tit. 1. ver 5. onely with the addition of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as learned men observe doth not specifically alter the signification and so according to his assertion Ordination must be just nothing too 2. As to Act. 6. ver 3 4 5. it clearly holdeth forth the peoples power for election We have evidenced the validity of our Argument from the less to the greater affirmatively Preach Sent. pag. 225. 226. but if he liketh it not this way we have argued from this Text for the peoples election from the less to the greater Negative pag. 227. and surely it will hold one of these wayes Object 1. That Church Acts 6. was the Vniversal Church as well as a particuliar Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all man-kind c. Vind. Revind p. 124. Answ Nothing can be said to be both particular and Universal 1. Universal and particular are distinct species as nothing is proper and common ordinary and extraordinary at the same time so nor Universal and particular 2. Universal and particular are relata nothing is both relate and Correlate in the same relation Ergo nothing can be particular and Universal Let him not think to improve this against us upon the rule of relations posito uno ponitur alterum Vniversale fundamental we grant not fâ—rmaâ— A multitude of Churches and in each the common nature really particular conceptively Universal according to the rule Vniversale est unum in multis 3. Adam was a particular man an individuum in the day of his Creation and afterward nothing more nothingless the common nature was in him apt to be predicated of many but it was not proper to say Adam was man-kind or Adam was a Catholick man Homo est Vniversale was true not est Vniversalis 4. He taketh Universal for an integrum made up of many as parts and how can an integrum exist in one member a heap in one stone a flock in one sheep c Object 2. The persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning spirits Act. 2. Acts 4. 31. Answ If extraordinary gifts made the act extraordinary as to Election then so also as to Ordination and therein it s no president for the persons had as extraordinary gifts who ordained Act. 6. v. 6. Object 3. The power as to the choice of Church Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawful to choose the greater and yet unlawful to choose the less c. Vind. Revind pag. 125. Answ 1. Our Argument is the same that the London Ministers use onely we apply it to election they to Ordination as may be seen Preach Sent. pag. 224. And therefore it is no certain Argument for them if it be not for us 2. The main if not the only argument for Church Government by Classical Provincial National and oecumenical Assemblies is taken from the less to the greater Affimatively and many things speak it to be invalid and non-conclusive in that case which cannot be alleadged in this Thus they argue from Mat. 18. see Answer of Assemb pag. 178. 3. An Argument from the less to the greater in some cases is so certain that it is a ground for â—aith to act upon Mat. 6. ver 26. Luke 12. 6. 7. and 11. v. 13. as we shewed Preacher Sent. pag. 126. And must it not needs be a certain Argnment when those pleaded for are undoubtedly invested with power to put forth the same act not distributing onely but collectively and in the same manner and when an instituted relation cannot be introduced nor the ends of it in an ordinary way be attained without the act and when other grounds and reasons are more strong for exerting the acts towards the greater then towards the less And this is the case in the present Argument for the people in a
Apostles had not this gift of prediction c. Mr. Pool pag. 77. Answ There is not a word in this Chapter or elsewhere to evidence that these Prophets had any such extraordinary gift of infallible teaching by immediate Revelation there is as great a silence about this as the other That divers of the Apostles had not the gift of prediction proveth that they were not extraordinary Prophets but how this is against us we know not for they had an extraordinary office upon them viz. their Apostle-ship though they were not Prophets Ob. 2. I am prone to conceive that the prediction of future events was rather a priviledge indulged to some new Testament prophets then common to all prophets c. pag. 77. An. 1. We have no leasure to disprove his groundlesse conceits 2. That it was not common to all Prophets we assert those 1 Cor. 14. were without it but that there were many new Testament extraordinary Prophets without a gift of prediction of future events let him prove Our Argument is from the denial of this gift to them v. 22. not barely from its not being mentioned Though the gift of prediction was chiefly for the sake of unbelievers yet also for the sake of believers Acts 11. v. 27. 28 29. and this answereth his third particular p. 78. Ob. 3. It is not said that these prophets were given not for a signe to them that believe not but that that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a signe Mr. Pool pag 78. Answ 1. The Antithesis plainly sheweth his denying prophesying to be a for signe 1 Corin. 14. 22. else it had been enough to say Tongues are not to them that believe but the Apostle saith Tongues are for a signe c. and in opposition to this he addeth but prophesying c. and therefore prophesying was not for a signe 2. He speaketh of prophesying not of one act only of prophets ver 22. but prophesying serveth not c Surely prophesying includeth all acts that are proper to them as prophets yea foretelling things to come is prophesying though the Apostle denieth that to be here intended by denying it to be for a signe Therefore his denying prophesying to be for a sign is as much as if he had expresly said that these prophets were given not for a sign Whereas he saith pag. 78. they had divers other extraordinary gifts as that of Tongues and the interpretation of them c. We answer That these Prophets 1 Corin. 14. had such gifts is not proved and however these did not betid-them as Prophets but if they had them were a priviledge indulged to them as they were to many others in those dayes who were no Officers at all Act. 10. 44. 46. Our fourth Argument is from it s not being allowed to women 1 Cor. 14 34. which extraordinary prophesie was Luke 2. 36. 38. Mr. Pool thinketh that Anna did it not in a publick Assembly pag. 79. We answer It s said expressely Luke 2. ver 37. she was a widow which departed not from the Temple and v. 38. And she coming in spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem That she should be said to be in a publick place the Temple and to speak to all c. and yet should speak onely in a private way or severally to them is irrational to imagine and a meer shift As to what he saith pag. 80. 81. it hath very little weight in it for he granteth 1. That Doctrine is ordinary and giveth no probable grounds that here it must be extraordinary as for the office being extraordinary it is confuted already 2. That there is ordinary Revelation and his reasons to prove extraordinary Revelations to be here intended are very weak Object 1. The word is of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be revealed not if it have been revealed Mr. Pool pag. 80. Answ 1. Dr. Collings will tell him the enallage of tenses is very ordinary in Scripture Vind. Revind pag 107. It is said Roman 1. ver 17. The righteousnes of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is revealed yet this doth not deny either that it was revealed before or that it should be afterward So if it were in the presence Tense if it be revealed this would not deny the Revelation of the things to be before 2 It is one of Mr. Pools grosse mistakes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the present Tense for 〈◊〉 is the first Aorist it is generally rendred thus si revelatum fuerits si patefactum fuerit not if any thing be at present but if any thing hath been revealed so that quite contrary to what Mr. Pool saith the very Tense doth intimate that they had the Revelation before their sitting by and thus his Argument is built upon a meer mistake Object 2. The posture in which it is revealed when he sitteth by pag. 80. Answ It onely intimateth what posture they were in after the things were revealed as is already proved not what posture they were in at the time of their Revelation one that was sitting by had the Revelation but that he had it whils he was sitting by the words prove not in the least Object 3. This Revelation was not common to all the Prophets but peculiar to one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some one that sitteth by and therefore surely it cannot be the Revelation by the word which is common to all the Prophets yea all the Church pag. 80. Answ 1. If this Revelation were not common to all the Prophets then it will prove an Argument against him if such extraordinary Revelation be intended for we may argue thus Those to whom extraordinary Revelations were not common were but ordinary Prophets for they cannot be extraordinary Prophets without such extraordinary gifts But some of the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. were such saith Mr. Pool to whom extraordinary Revelations were not common Ergo Some of the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. were but ordinary Prophets Surely therefore upon second thoughts Mr. Pool will say it was common to all these Prophets to have these Revelations at one time or another though at this or that particular time it was peculiar to one or two to have them and then we answer 2. It s being peculiar to some one to have them doth not prove his having them by immediate inspiration but onely intimateth a possibility of others coming without preparation because all the Prophets might not come prepared by premeditation to prophesie therefor it might aptly be said if any thing be revealed to one that sitteth by c. and so it may be meant of ordinary Revelation by the word which is common to to all the Church to have in some degree though it be not common to all the Prophets to have at this or that time in such a degree as to be in readiness to prophesie As now a dayes its ordinary for many Ministers to go to a Lecture and sit
by and yet not go prepared to Preach Object 4. The effect of the Revelation is to give astop to the others discourse pag. 80. Answ It cannot be proved that a Revelation given to a second was that which caused the first to hold his peace as if it made an interruption or put him upon breaking of his discourse sooner then he would but onely it intimateth that two were not to speak together nor one spin out all the time if others came prepared to speak and that this is the meaning is evident by the reason which the Apostle addeth 1 Cor. 14. 31. For ye may all prophesie one by one c. Object 5. As to what he addeth pag. 8â— that it fell out beyond expectation and therefore is brought in conditionally If any thing be revealed c. Answ This doth not prove the Revelation â—o be beyond his expectation that had it but onely intimateth a possibility that diverse might have Revelations or might come with preparations to prophesie as it is said Act. 13. ver 15. If ye have any word of exhortation say on So that It is not needless yet doth not deny the Revelation to be ordinary and common CHAP. X. Answering some arguments brought against the preaching of men unordained to Office and especially that from Rom. 10. 15. about mission WE having vindicated our Arguments for the preaching of men un-ordained to Office from the exceptions laid against them by Mr. Pool and having fully answered their Arguments in our former book against our assertion we might desist further troubling our selves about them but we shall add a few words to shew the invalitity of them notwithstanding all that Mr. Pool hath said in their defence Argu. 1. Their first and chief Argument is taken from Rom. 10. ver 15. How shall they Preach except they be sent Jus Divin Min. pag. 68. 69. We desire it may be observed by the Reader that in our former Book we have largely and fully answered the Argument of the provincial Assembly from this Text and also many objections but in this as in many other places of his Book Mr. Pool saith nothing or very little in the defence of the Argument as they lay it though he hath undertaken their defence but by some new notions of his own seeketh to patch up an Argument from the same Text and replyeth to a few and but to a few of our reasons and so leaveth iâ— What is said by Mr. Pool if it were cogent will not prove what is said by the provincial Assembly to be so What reason hath induced him to take this course we know not The Provincial Assembly would gather from this Text That mission is Essential to the constitution of a Preacher Mr. Pool saith there is an apparent fallacy in part of our reply Object 1. A mans preaching may be unlawful 1. Circumstantially 2. Substantially If he wanteth mission the very substantial act of preaching is unlawful Mr. Pool pag. 83. Answ There is no fallacy in our words for It may properly be said How can they Preach lawfully without those that are onely circumstantial requisites unto Preaching and this undeniably proveth against the provincial Assembly that this interrogation cannot evidence mission to be Essentiall unto the constitution of a Preacher and this was it we inferred from it Had we made it equally unlawful to Preach without Circumstantial requisites unto that work as without those that are substantial what he saith might have seemed more pertinent but the question here being whether the foresaid conclusion can be groundedly inferred from that interrogation how shall they Preach c. we cannot understand how his words are the to purpose it is rather a begging part of the question to say that the want of mission maketh the very substantial act of Preaching unlawful Object 2. The sum of what he addeth pag. 83. 84 lies in this That sending is sometimes taken for the mission of a person already authorized to any place or people sometimes for the authorization of a person to a work or office That a providential doth not exclude but rather presuppose a ministerial mission That God sends by some call That the Apostles did send by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands Answ 1. Let it be observed that he granteth there is 1. A providential sending 2. A mission that doth not authorize to a work or Office but is of persons already authorized 2. We grant that a providential mission doth not exclude but rather presuppose that mission which consists in Christs commanding or assigning Preachers to go with the Gospel unto such or such persons of which we have spoken Preacher Sent. pag. 125. c. 3. We cannot grant that mission is the authorization of a person to a work or office or that a mans Call to Office is his mission our reasons for the denyal of this may be seen Preacher Sent pag. 121. 122. where we have proved by diverse Arguments that sending is not a Call to Office or any act that doth constitute a man an Officer or Preacher And therefore it behoveth Mr. Pool to prove that a Call authorizing men to Preach is Gods sending men to the work of preaching For the Scripture he alleadgeth p. 83. 84. we apprehend either they onely speak of a sending which is after authorization to the work they are sent to do and this is mission properly which indeed presupposeth a Call and authorization unto that work a man is sent about Or else they speak of sending figuratively as often things Antecedent are expressed by those which are subsequent as Gen. 3. ver 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread Sweat which followeth labour is put for the labour which goeth before Mark 6. ver 9. put not on two coats i. e. do not provide two putting on which is an after act is used in stead of providing or taking which is aforegoing act and so it is explained Mat. 10. 10. Thus crowning is put for the constituting one a King c. So sending which is a subsequent act may expresse authorization which is Antecedaneous thereunto Pray the Lord that he would send forth labourers into his harvest how send them surely they were not bidden by Christ to pray only that a Presbytery might ordain or a Church elect those that were already furnished for such a work but that the Lord would furnish men with gifts qualifications and all requisites unto their labouring in his harvest Here many things precedaneous unto authorization to the work yet are expressed by the sending Gifting is not sending properly yet here that is set forth thereby In this acceptation of the word the authorization of Christ the Apostles Isaiah and all the other which he mentioneth may be denoted by their sending yet their mission was not the act that did authorize them unto their works or Offices but was subsequent to their authorization But we know not any reason against a taking mission in the
this Mr. Pool again would answer with necessity but that in any case they may preach but may not administer the Sacrament it speaketh their Argument invalid We tell him Mat. 28. is no commission authorizing them to preach and baptize and so their being joyned together there is no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize Object 1 Mr. Pool thinketh that they were not Apostles nor had their Commission as Apostles till Mat 28. 19. 20. this he saith is probable by these three considerations 1. That an Apostle was a new Testament Officer and the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ 2 They had not Apostolical gifts before the death of Christ 3. They wanted Vniversality of jurisdiction c. Mr. Pool pag. 105. Ans 1. When we urged Mat. 28. 19 20. he taketh it for a mission that doth not authorize to a work p. 87. else his answer cometh to nothing and yet here would have it be the Apostles Office-making Commission how he is consistent with himself herein we see not one of these replies must be naught 2. Long before the death of Christ its said Luke 6. ver 12. 13. He continued all night in prayer to God and when it was day be called unto him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom also he named Apostles We prove that they were Apostles before Mat. 28. 19. 20. by these considerations 1. Christ imposed the name of Apostles upon them Luke 6. 13. before Mat. 28. Ergo They had the Office of Apostles upon them before For surely Christ would not put the name of an Office upon them if they had not the Office that answered that name The seventy were sent out to preach yet had no such title put upon them but the name of Apostles was constantly given to the Twelve before the death of Christ Luke 17. 5. Luke 22. ver 14. Mat. 10. 2. and therefore Mr. Pool is too bold with Scripture to put other names upon them as Prophets or extradinary Teachers when the Gospel never knoweth them by these names but by the name of Apostles 2. Christ chose them before Mat 28. the name of Apostles being at the same time put upon them hence they were chosen to be Apostles Luke 6. 13. and this was after solemn prayer Ergo They were Apostles before for Election is the constitutive act of their office 3. They had Apostolical gifts though not in so full measure before the death Christ Mat. 10. ver 1. He gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease And this answereth his second consideration 4. Matthias was put into the same Office that Judas was in before the death of Christ for it s said Act. 1. ver 25. He is to take part of this ministry and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell Now Matthias undeniably was an Apostle Ergo so was Judas and the eleven before the death of Christ Yea this Text calleth the Office both of Judas and Mathias an Apostleship and to be sure Judas was not an Apostle after the death of Christ for he did not onely betray his Master but also hanged himself 3. To his first consideration we answer The new Testament if taken for the doctrine of the Gospel as 2 Corin. 3. of which they were Ministers was begun long before the death of Christ Luke 1. 78. and 2. v. 10. as also in other acceptations of it but suppose the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ Baptisme is a new Testament Ordinance and this he cannot deny seeing he maketh it the onely door of admission into the new Testament or Gospel Church p. 25. and it is easie to prove it upon truer and better grounds Yet baptisme was administred by the twelve long before the death of Christ Job 4. ver â— 2. and to multitudes by John the Baptist And the first constitution of Apostles new Testament Officers might as well be before the death of Christ as the first administration of Baptisme a new Testament Ordinance might be before it If after the new Testament began Apostles became officers and Baptisme an Ordinance thereof yet as it was the same Baptism so they were the same officers viz. Apostles before and after And this also may answer his third consideration If those that were Baptized before the death of Christ were Church-members then there was a Church which the Apostles might have jurisdiction over if they were not why might not they be Apostles without jurisdiction as well as persons be baptized without Church-membership if Baptisme be as he would have it a door of admission into the Church Officers he saith they were and to be Officers without any jurisdiction as he saith these were is as strange as to be Apostles without Universality of jurisdiction And if all this were not enough the extraordinariness of their Call or that time might better be alleadged in this case then it is in many against us Object 2. It must needs be granted that it is a renewing confirming and enlarging of their former Commission and this double work being equally imposed upon them must by like reason be equally restrained to them unless better grounds can be shewn to the contrary c. Mr. Pool pag. 14. Answ 1. Any impartial Reader may see enough in our former book Preacher Sent pag. 168. 169. to take off this reply It was an enlargement of the Apostles Commission to the Gentiles making them capable of being preached to and baptized but it s no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize If it should be said to Elders and Deacons Go teach Rule and distribute to the Church in such a place would the joyning of these together in an exhortation prove that every one who may Rule may Teach or that none may distribute but he that may Teach Surely no. Thus Mat. 28. 19. 20. It s said to Preachers and Baptizers Go Preach and baptize all Nations yet this cannot prove that none may preach but those who may baptize it onely sheweth that such as had power to Preach might now lawfully Preach to the Gentiles and such as had power to baptize might now administer baptism to the Gentiles which before they might not He imposeth the works on those that had power for them doth not restrain the power to perform the one unto them that had power to perform the other The intendment of this Text is not that it can be proved to shew that all who may Preach may Baptize but to warrant such as may do those works in their Preaching to and Baptizing the Gentiles 2. Let it be observed what their Argument is come to it should prove that none may Preach but those who may adminster the Sacraments and at last it is unless we can shew reason to the contrary the works are equally strained we have given reasons enough to the contrary and so
the Argument proveth just nothing Argu. 5. Their fifth Argument is To Preach without calling and Ordination to the work is to usurp authority over the Church to prove which they assert preaching to be an act of authority Hebr. 7. 1 Tim. 2. 12. The weaknesse of this argument we largely shewed Preacher Sent pag. 171 172 173. but Mr. Pool replyeth not to what we have there said He telleth us pag. 107. if a man preacheth to heathens he cannot usurp authority over the Church and this enervateth their argument We deny that men use office-authority towards heathens in preaching to them they do not act as over them his very instance confuteth this for an Ambassador hath not authority over him that he is sent to treat with in a large sense we have proved that gifted men have authority and that from the Scripture to preach without ordination and so we do not crosse the golden saying of Tgnatius which he mentioneth pag. 107. As for Hebr. 7. we said amongst other things he that blesseth by an original inherent power as Christ doth he is greater then he that is blessed and of such blessing the Text speaketh c. Ob. This is very grosse the Text evidently speaks of Melchisedeck who blessed onely ministerially and not by an original power c. pag. 108. Answ 1. We did not say that Melchisedeck blessed by an original power our words plainly give that power to Christ onely 2. That the Text hath reference unto Christ who hath an original power to blesse we proved and it is clear Heb. 6. v. 20. Jesus made an high Priest forever after the order of Melchisedeck and Heb. 7. v. 11 12. 14. 17. After the similitude of Melchisedeck there ariseth another Priest ve 15. Whence it is evident that the Apostles main scope drift and designe is to set forth Christ in his greatnesse and excellency by comparing him with Melchisedeck for severall things are spoken of Melchisedeck that do more properly belong unto Christ then to him as he is said to be without Father without Mother and withuut beginning Heb. 7. 3. yet Melchisadeck was a man and not God and so as to his natural being had a Father a Mother and a beginning and therefore these things are spoken of him as Calvin saith as of one cloathed with the person of Christ Thus the Apostle declareth not onely how Christ concurred in the particular act of blessing Abraham but the greatnesse of Melchisedeck who blessed Abraham is mentioned chiefly to notifie the greatnesse of Christ who blessed the faithful after that similitude viz. with an extraordinary High-Priests blessing From all which it is evident that if Melchisedeck blessed only ministerially yet seeing the chief designe of the Text is to set forth Christs acting as a high-Priest in blessing hence as it hath reference unto him so a blessing by an original power is intended 3. Melchisedeck blessed by an extraordinary authority and this can be no proof that all ordinary persons who blesse others have a superioriry over those that are blessed and so this speaketh nothing to his purpose As to 1 Tim. 2. 12. we told them there is a plain distinction and difference in that very Text between teaching and usurping authority as nor doth intimate Ob. 1. It is a familiar thing to use a word disjoyning one thing from an other when indeed the one explaines the other Rev. 22. 15. Gal. 1. 12. Mr. Pool pag. 108. Answ 1. If sometimes a word disjunctive be expositive yet usually it is not so multitude of instances might be given where things disjoyned by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in 1 Tim. 2. 12. must be distinct one from an other 2. The Scriptures he alledgeth speak not for him Rev. 22. 15. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is copulative and so doth not necessarily disjoyne as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth The things are distinct in Gal. 1. 12. I neither received it of man neither was I taught it c. i. e. I neither was taught it by others nor did I learn it of my selfe by my own study and industry there is a teaching and so a learning which is not by other men a self-teaching Rom. 2. 21. and a natures teaching 1 Corin. 11. 14. yea there are Satanical teachings which are not by men 3. When the Scripture useth a disjoyning word as here it doth the things spoken of are distinct unlesse where cogent reasons enforce the contrary and what a weak argument then is it to prove teaching an act of authority when these are disjoyned with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very Text that is produced for the proof of it viz. 1. Tim. 2. 12. Ob. 2. On the one side of it teaching is forbidden on the other side silence is enjoyned and nothing can be more evident then that he speakes of that usurpation of authority which consisteth in teaching and is opposed to silence Mr. Pool pag. 109. Answ 1 If things be never so distinct yet one must be expressed before the other and therefore the putting teaching before usurping authority doth not prove usurpation of authority to consist in teaching neither is the injoyning silence after any proof of it for women may usurp authority by private speaking and so silence is opposed unto usurping of authority which is not publike teaching 2. Many other phrases are so◠hemmed in on both sides and yet the things are certainely distinct one from another as 1 Cor. 3. ver 7. watering hath planting on the one side and Gods giving increase on the other side will any say therefore watering consisteth in planting so Gal. 1. ver 1. and Gal. 5. 6. neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith c. uncircumcision hath circumcision on the one side and faith on the other side but will any say that uncircumcision consisteth in circumcision no more doth teaching on the one side and silence on the other prove usurpation of authority to consist in teaching Mr. Pool speaketh here with much confidence but with no evidence Ob. 3. The man here is not to be understood singularly for her husband but indefinitely for any man for the Apostle is comparing Sex with Sex in the general it concerns such women as have no husbands it is authority in a Church affair that is spoken of Mr. Pool pag. 109. Answ 1. If the man here be understood indefinitely any man then the gift 1 Pet. 4. 10. is to be understood indefinitely any gift and this answereth what he saith pag. 45. about an indefinite expression 2. If as he saith the Apostle compareth Sex with Sex in the general then the prohibition belongeth only to women and so it maketh nothing against the preaching of gifted men 3. The whole sex is forbidden teaching but only those that have husbands may be forbidden this usurping of authority because only they are required to be under that obedience of wives The promise of salvation in child-bearing mentioned but
that is much more they being moderators therein Object 3. They ordained who going away commended the people to the Lord pag. 125. Ans Paul and Barnabas for ought we see were they that were commended and the Churches the persons commending them to the Lord as we have further shewn in answer to Dr. Collings We did not insist so much upon its reference to ver 22. but as strange references are found in Scripture As to the faint conclusion which he mentioneth pag. 126. we firmly proved Preacher Sent pag. 231. 232. that it cannot be meant of a chusing or ordaining onely by Paul and Barnabas and that is enough against him Prayer used in managing Election is no Essential act thereof as it is of Ordination and so the Tautologie doth not remain on our part as he supposeth pag. 127. The Scripture neither useth such Tautologies nor expresseth imposition of hands by that word which signifieth quite another thing our present work was to deny that Paul and Barnabas onely did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what we said if granted will evince this and this answereth what is said pag 127. What we have replyed to Dr. Collings about Churches fitness to judge of Ministerial abilities will answer his exceptions pag. 128. 129. we shall add a few words in the next Chapter CHAP. XIII Concerning Election as Essential to a Call to Office THe second question is whether the Essence of a Call to Office lie in Election or Ordination We prove it to be in Election our first Argument is grounded upon Act. 14. 23. and is vindicated already That the Essence of the Call lies not in Ordination we prove divers wayes Argu. 1. Ordination doth not set a man over a Church Ergo Object 1. This is but a begging the question pag. 131. Ans There is not a word of setting over a Church by Ordination in the question It s an apt medium that which giveth the Essence of the Call doth set over a Church Ordination doth not set over a Church for 1. A man may be ordained and yet be over no Church at all 2. If it did then there must be an iteration of Ordination both these we proved Preacher Sent pag. 246. 247. c. Ergo Ordination doth not give the Essence oâ— the Call Obj. 2. Election may be necessary as the causa sine qâ—a non and yet Ordination may be the causa formalis of the Call pag. 131. Answ 1. That which maketh a Superiour and inferiour is the Causa formalis of Office-power and that which setteth over a Church doth so and therefore must needs be more then a causa sine qua non even the cause formalis of Office-power That which setteth a man over a woman as her head is the causa formalis of the conjugall relation That which setteth over servants is the causa formalis of the relation of a Master So here 2. His instances cannot help him To that of presentation we say 1. The Magna Charta of Christ empowereth a Church to Elect without submission unto other men 2. In such a case the essence is conveyed in Election the Gentle-mans approbation or representation is only a causa sine qua non exercitii 3. The instance is impertinent because it proveth not a call to office but a civil call As to that of Arch-Bishops it is a begging the question that his call did lye in consecration the King did write to certain Bishops to confirme the Election now confirmation followeth creation nor can the essence of the call be in it Ob. 3. His ordination sets him over a Church indefinitely his Election sets him over this or that particular Church pag. 132. Answ 1. Three arguments we give against this Preacher Sent. pag. 248 249. which are unanswered 2. We would know which setting over giveth the call to exercise office-power that which giveth operari giveth esse man can challinge neither audience nor maintenance untill a call to exercise It is a strange paradox that one should be set over the Catholike Church when yet he may justly be denyed a liberty to exercrse office-power in any particular Church 3. His instance of a Dr. of Physick is impertinent Physitians are not Rulers are not over any by a choice or otherwise neither is there a parity between Academical and Ecclesiastical preferments Arg. 2. Our second argument is from ordination being consequential to a mans having the essence of the call to Office Acts 13. 2 3. Ob. 1. There is an Ordination ad munus to an Office and another ad opus to a work this text speaks of ordination to a work pag. 132. Answ We believe that the Apostles had no ordination to office but onely to Office-work and therefore his ordination which came after did not give his call to Office no more doth it give it to any Gospel Officers in a proper sense Ob. 2. They â—assert that the essence of the call lyes in election and to urge this they urge the Election of an Apostle Acts 1. as in that Election so in this ordination some thing was extraordinary and peculiar to the Apostles viz. That the essence of their call did not lye in this ordination pag 133. Answ 1. This is a grosse mistake for we do not as he injuriously reporteth urge the election of an Apostle Act. 1. to prove that the essence of the call lyes in Election we plainly deny it Preacher Sent. pag. 267 268. though we improve their objection from that Text against themselves It is to prove another proposition that we urge Acts 1. viz. That the power of Election belongeth to a Church Preacher Sent. pag. 216. and therefore Mr. Pools argument pag. 133 is nothing to us 2. That it can be no good plea in this case to say it was extraordinory in that particular we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 252. c. 255 256. and that it should be a compleat ordination in all the Acts and requisites belonging to it and yet not attain the main end which â—e supposeth is the giving the essence of a call to Office who will believe it The Apostle needeth not ordination if the use of that had been to give the essence of a call 3. This clearly proveth that a call to Office and Ordination are separable a call may be as here before and yet a compleat ordination in all its Acts come afterward and therefore the intendment of Ordination is not to give the essence unto a call to Office Ob. 5. Peradventure Paul had the essence of his call from his ordination men were used as instruments yet to speak properly it was not men but God that was Pauls ordainer for the Holy Ghost said separate me c. pag. 135. Ans 1. This is grosse for Paul was an Apostle divers yeares before this Ordination that was after he had been at Jerusalem Acts 12. 25. and 13. v. 2 3. But God had revealed Christ in him and made him an Apostle above three years before
that Gal. 1. ver 16 17. 2. The Holy Ghost saying seperate me Barnabas and Saul c. was a command to men to ordain and so though the call were immediate yet men were as properly ordainers as they are in these daies Acts 8. ver 29. The spirit said unto Philip go near and joyne thy selfe to this Charet He may as well say that properly it was not Philip but God that did go near and Joyned to the Charet because the spirit said go c. or as Acts 10. 19. he might say it was God that was to arise go down not Peter properly because the spirit said arise c. as he may say That properly God was theordainer of Paul because the holy Ghost said seperate me c. Arg. 3. Our third argument is taken from the nature of Ordination it consists in prayer c. Ob. 1. If the essence of the call did consist in Election and prayer be used before Election how can they pray in faith c. pag 135. Answ Prayer before Election is for the Churches direction into a right choice and so may be in faith though it be uncertain whether the person shall be chosen or not but prayer in ordination is for a blessing upon a man in a work Acts 13. 2 3. and so a knowledge that a man is called to it which presupposeth his having the Essence of a call is necessary unto praying in faith there Ob. 2. In such cases our prayers have ae facit condition that God would blesse him in the work if he shall be set apart for it pag. 135. Answ Prayer in ordination is the very act by which a person is set apart and therefore there can be no such facit condition admitted of here If he shall be set apart implyeth uncertainety whether he shall or no whereas in due Ordination it is alwaies certaine for the setting apart is by prayer Ob. 3. Ordination consists not in fasting nor prayer nor laying on of hands but in the designation of fit persons by officers unto the work signified by imposition of hands and introduced with fasting and prayer p. 135. Ans 1. That there is a separation of an officer to his work in ordination we granted preacher Sent. p. 258. but the Essential act by which that separation is made is prayer himselfe saith pag. 135. imposition of hands is such as ordination is not null without it and he will say as much for fasting and then prayer is the essentiall act or nothing 2. No Scripture doth evidence that the essence of Ordination consisteth in any designation to work which is a constitutive office-making act neither hath prayer or any other thing which belongs to ordination a tendency to produce such an effect as our argument proved He useth one argument to prove that the essence of the call doth not lye in the Election of the people Ob. The people neither are nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry for 1. They have no authority 2. They have not ability to judge of a mans fitness c. Mr. Pool pag. 136. to 141. Answ The people are in a capacity to give the essence of the call 1. The people have as much authority as is necessary to their giving the essence of the call for nothing is required thereunto but a putting themselves into subjection to a person duely qualified it being a voluntary not a natural relation and this is done by election with acception for we proved before that these do set a man over a Church He saith they have no authority because in a state of subjection pag. 139. but he answereth himselfe by his instance pag. 138. For in Democratical governement the people are in subjection civilly unto those very officers to whom they give a call yet have authority to call them are lesser and yet greater then their Officers though women were present Acts 1. yet it followeth not that they did give their suffrage they will allow women to be present at an Ordination when they act not 2. The people have ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry it cannot be denyed that Iohn did write to the people 1 Ioh. 2. ver 12. I writ unto you little children so they are called little children v. 13. 18 28. and 1 Ioh. 3. ver 7. and yet these little children are commanded to try the spirits 1 Ioh. 4. ver 1. Beloved believe not every spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the world This necessarily supposeth them in a capacity to judge whether they were false Prophets or not for it had been in vain to bid them try if they could not draw up a judgement upon the tryal If they be not fit to judge unto a choice they are not fit to judge of the doctrine of him that is chosen and so must take all upon implicit faith and still the same persons are written to ver 4. and both that appellation and also the matter of the Epistle is such as concerneth all believers and so cannot be restrained to Officers Also the people have sometimes judged right when the Rulers have condemned them for it and taken a contrary part undervaluing and contemning their judgement Iohn 7. ver 48. 49. They grant that the peoples election maketh a man their Minister we ask whether they see with their own eyes therein It is evident that many insufficient ones are ordained It is not a careless people we plead for but Bereans and all that are godly that are believers fit to be admitted Church members are fit with the rest of the Church to judge of a Ministers abilities which answereth what he saith p. 141. about its being a necessary qualification in every Church-member If one Church-member could not judge of it yet all together have ability Some arguments against election as giving the essence of the call he seeketh to vindicate Ob. 1. As to Acts 6. the Apostles are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chusing and appointing are distinguished from and opposed to one another and the act of appointing is ascribed to the superiours c. Mr. Pool pag. 142. Answ 1. Chusing and appointing are not there opposed Chusing is unto office appointing is unto work Acts 6. ver 3. whom we may appoint but to what it is not said unto this office but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this businesse And himselfe supposeth pag. 132. that there may be ordination to a work and yet the essence of a call not consist therein its evident that ordination to a work is subsequent to and sodoth not give the essence of a call to office Acts 13. 2. so neither of these places can prove in the least their position 2. It is not clear that we hath reference to the Apostles seorsim as if it were their work only but conjunctim with the