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
body of Christ is a strange paradox For all the elect and called ones which lived before the coming of Christ in the flesh and all the Saints in heaven and all the elect unborn as well as those living in this or that age of the world belong to this body of Christ And now we shall turn his Argument upon himself The body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum or the object of the Pastoral Office but the body of Christ includes all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh and so before the Pastoral Office was instituted and all the Saints in heaven yea heathens even all the elect unborn Ergo all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh and so before the Pastoral office was instituted and all the Saints in heaven yea heathens and all the elect unborn are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office Who wil not easily see the weaknesse of this argument for many members of this body were in heaven thousands of years before any were invested with the Pastoral Office on Earth and surely they were not officers to those who were in heaven they had no need of their officr If body be taken in this sense his major is apparently false The body of Christ in its latitude is not the correlatum or object of the pastoral office 2. If it be understood of the visible body of Chr. then his minor is false The body of Christ i. e. his visible Church or body doth not include heathens to be converted Even the Text he alleadgeth evidenceth so much Iohn 10. v. 16. other sheep I have its true those were Gentiles heathens sheep by election but it is added which are not of this fold which witnesseth that heathens though sheep by predestination yet are not folded into the visible Church of Christ It would be an unscriptural and an abominable assertion to say that heathens are members or a part of Christs visible body or Church which onely is the correlate of the pastoral office Arg. 2. The second argument is taken from 2 Corin. 5. 20. where the reconcilable Mr. Pool p. 13. world which consists of such as are yet without and no members of the Church are made the chief objects and correlatum of the office of the Ministry To whom Ministers act as Ambassadors to them they act as officers But Ministers preach as Ambassadors to heathens convertible and to be converted Ergo His assumption he saith is evident for the termes to be an Ambassador is nothing elâ—e but to be an officer c. His assumption he would prove thus 1. First the scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others Ergo there is no difference 2. Even heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them and that not onely ex vi materiae because of the matter they treat of but virtute muneris by vertue of their Office Luke 10. 16. c. Ans 1. We deny his Major Ministers may act as Ambassadors to them they do not act as officers towards in a special sense and it is observeable that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Corin. 5. 20. for we are Ambassadors so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the work of an Ambassador from a King Luke 14. 22. he sendeth an Embassage and yet the same word is used to expresse the wicked act of those citizens against their King Luke 19. 4. â—is citizens hated him and sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Embassage after him It cannot be proved that those who were sent by these citizens were officers or acted as officers in a special sense in this message yet they acted as Ambassadors herein So if gifted men or other Ministers carry the message of the Gospel to heathens and the reconcilable world upon a command of Christ to goe with it they act as Ambassadors yet not as Officers therein 2. As to his minor in a general sense we grant that Ministers preach as Ambassadors to Heathens i. e. as those that are warranted or commanded by Christ to do a message of peace to them but in a strict sense they do not act as offfcers unto heathens As to his proofs of his minor we say 1. The Scripture concludeth that an officer doth preach as a Pastor Bishop or overseer to his owne Church Acts 20. 28. as over it in the Lord 1 Thes 5. v. 12. it no where saith that he preacheth under any such relation to others it lyeth upon Mr. Pool to prove it if he will assert it it were strange unscriptural language to say that God hath made officers overseers to Heathens or set them over them where are heathens called a mans flock If they were the object or correlate of the pastoral office they must be so for Pastor and flock are Relatives and Ambassadors if in office are the same Officers under an other name And this answereth his first particular pag. 14. and proveth that the Scripture makes a difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others for it concludeth his being in such a relation to his own Church as he stands not in to others and thence must needs arise a difference in actings 2. Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preach not onely for their doctrine nor for their Office sake but for Christs sake who sends them with that doctrine if they preach only as gifted persons not as officers yet it may aptly be said as Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me c. because they are warranted or commanded by Christ to do the message and so it is not their own but Christs he speaketh by them they are his words not theirs as in this instance A master of a family being from home may send a message by some friends or neighbours to his servants commanding some work from them if these servants do not hear those messengers they do not hear their master yet these friends or neighbours are no Officers nor can act as officers over them either in doing the message or in case of disobedience by inflicting any punishment c. So if a preachers message be not heard Christ is disobeyed therein concerning maintenance we have spoken in answer to Dr. Collings and also elswhere in way of reply to Mr. Pool The pronouncing of pardon and denouncing of wrath upon believing or disobeying in preaching are acts as we have sufficiently proved that gifted men may do without an office-relation Arg. 3. If conversion of heathens c. be the principal ground and end why the office of the ministry was instituted and the principal worke of the ministry then the Office of the ministry is related to heathens But the convertion of heathens c. is the principal end why the office of the ministry was instituted and the principal work of the ministry so instituted Therefore the office of the ministry is related to heathens
their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lyes Mr. Pool pag. 17. Ans 1. We suppose he intendeth that they are related to heathens as their correlate else he speaketh nothing to the question and then 2. His Major may fairely be denyed The fighting with enemies c. is the principal ground and end why the office of Colonels Captaines and other leaders of Armies were appointed and their principal work yet those enemies to be fought with are not the correlate to the office of Colonels Captaines c. It is a Regiment that is the correlate to the office of a Colonel and a Troop or company that is the correlate to the office of a captain And so heathens to be preached to are not the correlate to the office of the Ministery but particular Churches The instance of Colonels c. sheweth that a mans great work may lye among those that their relation is not toward 3. As to the minor that convertion of heathens and such as are without the Church is a great worke of officers qua gifted may be granted but that it is their principal work qua officers those texts Mat. 28. and Eph. 4. prove not The office of Pastors was not instituted until Churches were constituted had convertion of heathens been their principal work the institution of them before would have been as necessary as then And that officers and others qua gifted are appointed by Christ to preach unto unbelievers this sufficiently manifesteth Christs care for that great work the convertion of sinners though they do not act as officers in their conversion Thus we have answered his argument against this Assertion that Ministers are officers onely to their own congregations the provincial assemblie used divers arguments which we answered and Mr. Pool seeketh to indicate we shall briefly reply to his most material xceptions They objected that we receive members of other congregations to the Sacrament yet the administration of that is a ministerial act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher Mr. Pool is so disturbed at our answer to this that he saith p. 20. he questions not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it how we are faln from our own principles and pag. 21. would have all men take notice of that and also that we have through incogitancy precipitated our selves into the gulf of Annabaptisme and he doubts not but we will retract it c. And all this because we say If they perform these acts to any not of their own congregations they do not act as Past ors as officers to them therein Ans We see no ground to retract what we have said in this matter and we think any unprejudiced Reader who shall view our whole answer to their objection Preach Sent. pag. 278 279 280. will apprehend that there is more strength in Mr. Pools flourish of words to dazel the Eyes of the weake then of argument to convince the judicious that we are in an Error To clear the case 1. We professe that it was when we wrote our former book and still is our judgement that the administration of the Sacrament is an act which cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher None but an Officer may perform this act 2. Yet we conceive an Officer may administer the Sacrament which is a common Church priviledge unto members of other Churches without being an Officer over them for if any such relation as is between Pastor and the members of his flock did arise upon that act then an obligation unto the mutual duties of the relation must follow also else all in a relation were not bound to the duties of it and who will say that Pastors are to watch over the members of other Churches or that the Lord hath made them overseers of them or that such members are to aford maintenance c. to such Pastors And if they be no Officers over them they cannot be said to act as their Officers And let Mr. Poole and the Reader observe we never said that he who is no Pastor no Officer might act in the administration of the Sacrament but that in administring it to members of other Churches a man doth not act as a Pastor as an Officer to them i. e. in a special sence As Officers in corporations c. may afford some priviledges to such as they are no Officers to which none but such Officers can grant out Or to use the instance Mr. Poole mentioneth pag. 16. with some variation many acts of a Steward of an house in giving entertainment unto strangers cannot he done by any but the Steward except the Lord of the house yet saith Mr. Poole pag. 16. he acts not as a Steward to them whom he entertains whence it is undeniable that there are some acts which none but an Officer can perform wherein he doth not act as an Officer to some objects of them and therefore though none but Officers can administer the Lords Supper yet they may give it to members of other Churches which they are no Officers nor do not act as Officers towards That Rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali holds true onely in materia necessaria not in materia contingenti and therefore if a Pastor gives the Sacrament to those who are not of his own Church not as their Pastor yet it will not follow that every gifted brother may administer it or that our assertion cuts the sâ—news of Christian and Church-communion which he insinuates p. 22. That their Argument was against our practice may easily be seen in their Book not against the assertion but as supposed though ungroundedly to be contradicted by our practice And this is enough to answer what he saith pag. 20. 21. 22. and may clearly vindicate us from his aspersion for Anabaptism He replyeth nothing to what we have said Preacher Sent pag. 281. where we have clearly answered their third particular in the several branches and have proved against them that Ministers are called Elders of the people c. There are seven consequences which they said Jus Divin Min. pag. 140. would follow this assertion To our exceptions against the first and second of these Mr. Poole answereth little or nothing what he saith p. 23. is but a repetition of what he had said before which we have already answered In our reply to the third we argue against that position that a man is made a member of a Church by Baptism Mr. Poole telleth us it is none of their assertion that they allow Infants to be born Church-members and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism and a pari a heathen converted and professing the faith is a church-member inchoate before Baptism and that this onely they say that the solemn publike and visible way of admission of members into the Church is by Baptism Mr. Poole pag. 23. 24. Ans 1. They said that every Minister by Baptism admitteth into the Catholick visible
visible at least who were added to the Church therefore they stood in a visible relation to Christ in order before addition to the Church for this see more in our Epistle to our former book 2. His minor is untrue for multitudes even amongst us are baptized and yet do not visibly stand in relation to Christ but to Satan Ergo Baptism doth not make visibly to stand in relation to Christ Again a man must stand in a visible relation to Christ before baptism Math. 28. 19. They must first be disciples and then baptized And therefore it is not baptism but some thing antecedaneous to it that maketh visibly to stand in relation to Christ. As to Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. They may shew that believers being baptized in the name of Christ are solemnly engaged to professe and conform themselves unto him and that in his death but they do not prove that men cannot visibly put on Christ in his death or that they cannot visibly be in Christ without baptism and therefore they do not evidence that baptizing is that act in or by which they are so much as visibly made to stand in relation to Christ Our answers to this objection do also answer his next argument We say men must visibly stand in a covenant relation before admission into the Church or unto baptism for visible believing or a profession of Faith is pre-required in those that are adulti unto baptism Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. v. 12. 36 37. And therefore baptism neither maketh a man to stand visibly in relation to the covenant or to the Church It s being aseal of the covenant implyeth a precedent consederation or presupposeth a mans being in covenant as being but a ratification or confirmation of a covenant already made We demand whether the Lords Supper be not as wel a seal of the covenant as Baptism And whether that maketh a man stand in relation to the covenant and he be in covenant as often as he partaketh thereof and out when he doth it not If otherwise then it is no contradiction that the application of such a seal should not make to stand in relation to the covenant and surely they must stand in a visible relation to the covenant before a partaking of the Supper and then something else must make to stand in relation to the covenant To his last Argument pag. 29. we reply It is not that which gives the capacity but that which giveth the right to Church-priveledges that makes a man stand in relation to a Church Nei her doth Baptism make a man capable of Church-priviledges no not of the Supper which he mentions for some infants are Baptized and excommunicate persons also and yet are uncapable of that Church-priviledge nay the Presbyterians will not admit to the Supper without examination and the Provincial Assembly plead against admitting the ignorant or scandalous to the Supper Vind. Presb. Govern pag. 56. c. By which it appeareth that though they donot account unbaptized persons capable of the Supper yet they do not judge Baptisme enough to capacitate for the Supper for then they must deny it to none that are baptized His Arguments thus failing his conclusions from them come to nothing We denyed that 1 Corin. 12. 28. or Eph. 4. did prove a Ministers relation as an Officer to a Catholick visible Church if such a Church were intended there for it may properly be said there are set in the Commonwealth Justices Constables c. yet they are limited in their Office to a particular County or Parish c. And it is not improper to say God hath given to or set in the Church viz. this and that Church Apostles Evangelists c. Object 3. That implies that its one political body wherein they are set c. Mr. Poole pag. 30. Answ If there were a Catholike Church and that which is not granted a political body to as a Commonwealth is yet it s being said God hath given to or set in the Church Apostles Evangelists c. would no more prove that they are Officers to that whole political Universal Church so much as in actu primo then it s being said there are set in the Commonwealth Justices Constables c. would prove that they are Justices or Constables to the whole Commonwealth Much less can it be a proof of any such thing where evidence is wanting for a political Universal Church Ob. 2. The case wholly differs for Justices Constables c. have limited commissions c. Mr. Pool pag. 30. Answ So are Ministers limited in their office and confined to their particular Churches as we have proved and therefore this maketh no difference in the cases The case of the Empire we spake to before the Princes do not Govern in common but every one is distinct in Lawes and customes Object 3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon but the sence c. Apostles were so set in the Church that they were also set over the church so are not Justices they are in not over the Commonwealth c. Mr. Poole pag. 30. Answ This 1 Cor. 12. 28. is the main Text urged for a Universal origanical Church and yet Reader thou may est see when it cometh to they are constrained to borrow help from other Texts to shore up their Argument We grant that the Apostles were set not onely in but over all Churches but that this is the sence and explication of the phrase which the Apostle useth or the intendment of this Text so as the Apostle should mean that God hath set over the Church Apostles when he onely saith God hath set in the Church Apostles c. this is not nor ever can be proved And it s very observable that those phrases might be used 1 Cor. 12. 28. and Ephes 4. 11 12. the two places chiefly alleadged for a general visible orginical Church though those Texts should not be understood of the visible Church at all for Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers are set in and given for the edifying of the mystical body of Christ though they be not Officers to it or set over it And a poor Argument is it that hath no better ground to stand upon this answereth what he saith pag. 31. that it is that body into whith we are Baptized both Jewes and Gentiles and one whole body c. for all this may be predicated of the mystical Church or body of Christ But if the visible Church or body be intended the Church of Corinth and a pari all other true churches is the body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 27. Now ye are the body of Christ c. and in the very next verse its added And he hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. seeing this immediately followeth it need not seem strange that the meaning should be this The particular Church of Corinth is the body of Christ and God hath set in this Church or body first Apostles
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
particular yet as Church-Officers no place in nor power over any but particulars It is usual to apply general termes indeterminately to particular things as to say the wife is bound the man is the head of the woman i. e. This and that man wife c. so set in the Church i. e. in this and that and the other Church Mr. H. replyeth further several bodies are one body genericaly not Integraty because not united by one external bond but the Vniversal Church is united into one body by bonds of the same Soveraigne the same Lawes covenant c. pa. 6. Answ Either particular associations are no institutions of Christ or they have several unions Lawes Acts and Ends Men as men have their union Law Acts c. Men as Armies as bodies politick have their union Law Acts differing So christians as christians have their Law proper to that state Christians as a common wealth their Law proper to that state and differing from the other Law If Church Vnion be one and that Catholick union then schism the breach of that union must be as the catholick breach so that though a member cease worshipping with this assembly in this place yet if he worship with any assembly part of the Church Catholike in any place he is no Schismatick upon which reason the loud outcry against Sepration is unjust as it is unreasonable upon an other account we therefore yet renounce the name and thing of a Church of Churches or a visable Catholick Church formed unto fellowship in new Testament ordinances in which term we declared our sense but do not renounce the Scripture nor reason much lesse our own bretheren as Dr. Collings hath rashly affirmed Our thoughts for this Abrenuntiation were confirmed in five particulars wherein all exceptions considered we findâ— nothing for Retractation 1. Nâ— part hath the power of a whole in it Every particular Church hath the power of a whol in it Ergo No particular Churâ—h is a part Exception Dr. Col. A particular Church hath not the Power of the whole because not Power to make a Synod nor to ordain nor to excommunicate Answ His reason from a Synod is reason'esse The common wealth of England is a whole and hath the power of a whole in itâ— yet a controversie arising of what nature soe ver it be between Eng. and another common-wealth or commonwealths Eng. hath no power to constitute commissioners who shall debate determine and compose that difference yet Power to meet in a treaty is as much kingdome power as power to meet in a Synod is Church power Ergo either Englands power is incompleat or the Drs. Argument is so His argument from Ordination and Excommunication is but named therefore in this place we do but deny it Where nothing is proved nothing is found to be answered Excep Mr. Hudson A particular Church is a whole in reference to its own members but in reference to the rest of the Church it is a part as a Corporation is compleat according to its constitution yet a member of a greater body Answ If a Corporation be considered with reference to other Corporations to which it stands co-ordinate it is a whole not a member not a part If with reference to a Kingdome to which it stands Subordinate t is a part a member not a whole So if a particular Congregation be considered with reference to other Congregations to which it stands Co-ordinate it is a whole not a part If with reference to a Church to which it stands Subordinate t is a part not a whole But there is no such Church The Subordination which our brethren plead for is of the Church to Officers not of a Church to a Church And that Officers are not called the Church in Scripture we shall shew and that by their own principles they cannot be stiled so 2. Every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts Collectively considered no Church of Churches is really distinct from all particular Churches Ergo There is no such Church Except Dr. C. Mr. H. There 's a fallacy in the Argument It is a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsa non dissert a partibus simul sumptis unitis Answ Our Argument is right according to that Rule Partes simul sumptae do not constitute a Totum except they be unite or the whole differs from all the parts Collectively considered though unitively considered it differs not suppose ten heaps of Corne in one Room contayning all the Corne which is in the World which afterwards are reduced into one great heap when they are ten they are not one and when they are one they are not ten Of the supposed union of the universal Political Church something hath been spoken already and more will occur under the head of union 3. There is no universal visible meeting to worship God Ergo No universal visible Church for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Congregation or Assembly company meeting together Except Dr. Collings There is an universal meeting of the Church Catholick visible at the Throne of Grace c. Answ We wonder at his discourse upon this Argument for from our instance of the Church of the first-borne gathered indeed in one spirit united unto one head meeting invisibly in one worship he would obtain this That although there be no local meeting yet there may be a visible Church when it speakes plainly thus much viz. as invisible union and invisible communion is necessary unto the being of the invisible so visible union visible communion is necessary to the being of the visible church although we may be present with Dr. Collings in spirit and he with us never coming together in the same place yet visibly present we cannot be nor in the performance of any visible work Exc. Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a calling out not a calling together the particular congregation is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ That particular Congregations and Assemblies of people whether civil or sacred are in Scripture alwaies termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr H. cannot be ignorant what he writes therefore is not a Corrective from the writings of weake men but for the Scriptures of the most wise God by which alone we desire to measure our notions and expressions in this controversie Be it so that the Scottish word Kirk and the English word Church comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies the Lords all assemblies are not so properly the Lords as Church-Assemblies as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as is the Church so is the union thereof so the worke and meeting thereunto the Vniversal Church is the general assembly Heb. 12. 23. meeting in one place spiritually and invisibly they are all come to mount Sion to the City of the living God To the heavenly Jerusalem Heb. 12. 22. They are all chosen out of the World 10. 15. 19. i. e. called
out of the World else the World would not hate them they are all gathered unto Christ Gen. 49. 10. The particular Church is a particular assembly or a Society of men assembling together for the Celebration of Ordinances according to Christs appointments not that their assembling thereunto constitutes them a Church but it is a main end of their union and the fruit issue and manifestation of their constitution by such union The meetings of the Jewish Church at appointed times were as extensive as the Church it selfe wherefore we yet conclude if no National meeting no National Church if no universal meeting no universal Church entrusted with the administration of ordiâ—ances according to the mind of Christ. 4. There are no distinct officers appointed for such a Church Ergo no such Church Exc. Dr. Col. No need of distinct Officers because the Officers of particular Congregations which as parts constitute the whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole The Church is one body and as it is una so it is unita in one common profession c. To the same purpose Mr. H. Every Minister hath an indefinite Office which is equivalent to a general Every Minister hath power in actu primo to dispense the word in any sacred convention and though not an actual Officer of the whole yet hath an habitual power c. Answ It cannot be denyed but in all civil policies our argument stands good no greater body is made up of lesser but it hath a greater authority distinct in Law and government from the lesser divers Townes united into one hundred divers hundreds into one County diverse Counties into one Common-wealth are in their several subordinations distinguished by several acts and Officers appointed unto them If diverse Churches were united into one Church surely it would be so also In the Jewish politie it was so besides the Ruler of the Synagogue besides the Priest and Levite through every Tribe disperced there was a greater authority distinct in Law and Government in order and ministration from them viz. the High Priest Who knowes not that a Church Catholick visible intrusted with the administration of Ordi nances bath been hotly contended for by the Papists as a fit body for the Pope their head But as earnestly contended against by the reformed They saw no truth in what Dr. C. affirmes viz. That a Church may be a universal visible yet have no Officer over it or Act performed in it but what is particular Nor will it salve the businesse to say every Minister is an indefinite Officer with habitual power c. An Officer actu primo to the Vniversal Church who as a Justice of peace may be commissioned for a County though exercising but in a part thereof For a Justice of Peace hath power by vertue of his commission to act in the whole County without any other Call fundamentum Exercitii which is Ans of the Assemb paâ— 10. denyed a Minister an Officer actu primo is furnished with all power needful unto and productive of a second act He that is general of an Army in actu primo hath power over the Army exercere cocrcere a particular Officer not so He that is a King actu primo hath power to governe a Kingdome a Mayor of a City not so When any thing is in the first act it is in a capacity for a second act in nature and extent like unto the first If a minister hath not the exercise of power in every Church if he hath not the foundation of the exercise in any but his particular Church to whom he stands related as their minister he is not a minister actu primo to every Church The case of an Officer definite to some viz. to a particular Church and indefinite to others viz. to a Catholick Church is a strange case instances sometimes given in Lawyers Physitians c. reach it not who as so are not officers over any nor have they office rule to paralel it There is no Church greater then that which hath power to hear and determine upon offences committed but that is particular Exc. Dr. C. This Argument is nothing to the Question which is not which is greater but whether there be any Catholick Church or no The particular Church hath not power of final determination Answ When a question is de toto made up of divers parts it being out of question that a whole is greater then its parts he that proves the preended whole not greater then the supposed parts pr ves that to be no whole and these to be no parts and so speakes to the Question and resolves it That power of final determination is in the particular Church we proved Mat. 18. 17. which Scripture either is no rule to bring the offence unto the Church particular at all or is a rule to end it there And if Christ hath placed power in the hand of seven we may not remove it to place it in the hand of seventy though more wise and juditious then the Exc. Mr. H. By the Church Christ doth mean the Elders The people never had any right of judicature among the Jewes but the Courts where appeales were from three Judges to 23. and from 23. to the Sanhedâ—im no Christian congregation was instituted when Christ spake Mat. 18. 17. It s to be taken therefore in the Jewes Dialect c. Answ That the eldership of a Church is by a Synechdochâ— called a Church in Scripture cannot be clearly evinced from one Text nor is it suitable to Mr. H. his principle to attribute that denomination to Officers either in congregational or classical or higher assemblies For he saith vindic p. 126. The body of Officers is a governing body But the whole Church whether general or particular is not a governing body Ergo Say we the body of officers is not the Church general or particular again every Church saith he is a similar part of the Catholick obtayning its denomination upon that account pag. 123. and else-where whence this is clear that the Eldership of lesser or greater Congregations is not a Church Such a body indeed is a body of Organs not an Organical body though it should be supposed a part of the Catholick yet could it not be said to be a singular part so that upon the account of similarity it should though a particular bear the name of the universal and be stiled a Church That offences among the Jewes were never brought before the people to be judged and sensured but before Officers meeting apart from them we believe not mos suit Hebraeis rem ultimo loco ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. eorum qui eadem instituta sectarentur producers cujus tamen multitudinis juditia seniores tar quam presides moderabantur Grot. in Mat. 18. 17. and this was the custome of Christians in Tertullians time who was converted to the faith Anâ—o
Dom. 200 and had his approbation in his famous apology for Christians more then 1400 yeares old who Cap. 39. denies the Christians being a factious society as they were aspersed and shewes their manner We make saith he a Congregation by certaine knowledge all conspire in the service of the true God where we live united under one discipline c. We assemble together by Troops in our prayers to God in these assemblies we make Exhortations and Threatnings and Exercise Divine censure that banisheth sinners and excludes them from our communion c. That our Saviour in saying tell the Church should send his Disciples in case of scandal Suppose committed against Religion and his Law to those Courts to whom Religion it selfe was a scandal and offence is not by sober men to be imagined That he should allude to those Courts intending such like to be erected when the Jewish politie should be taken downe as it leaves the offended without remedy to day So the Rule impracticable till Christ be â—ead and risen again It is far more probable that as the Temple yet standing and the great Congregation meeting therein Pharisees Saduces Essenes c. Had their caetus proprios their distinct Assâ—mblies in which they did consult the peace and prosperity of their Order respectively and sensure and judge Offences committed against the Lawes and institutions thereof So Christ having gathered a company under him and made known his Law this company did meet together Acts 1. 21. where with reason we may conclude the concernments of Christianity were propounded and considered and offences heard and finally determined if this were the Church of which Christ Mat. 18. 17 doth speak it cleares our Argument but suppose the Rule were impracticable for the present yet he cannot so speak in the Jewes dialect as to assert that such Courts should â—e erected as were amongst them for the word Church is never used in Scripture for an Eldership but for a company of visible believers united to walk together in the same numerical Ordinances and it is plain that Christ would have the offence told to such an Assembly as he giveth the name of Church to And also Christs order here is quite different from that amongst the Jewes they after private admonition had not an institution for taking one or two private persons to admonish before bringing the matter to their Courts In the close of our discourse for the compleatnesse of a particular Church and against a Universal we minded this object viz. Though Churches meet not in all their members yet they may meet in their representatives which being met may be called a Classical Provincial or National Church To which we answered that such a Church is not a true Church Dr. Collings replyeth A Synod is a true Church or our definition is not true for a Synod is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in means of worship c. Answ To say a representative is a true Church is to speak contradictions If it be an image it is not a man if a shadow it s not a substance if the representative of a true it s truly a representative but not that which is represented in truth A Synod in Dr. C. sense differs from a Church by us described toto coelo 1 Saints as so are fit mater for a Church but saints as gifted are only fit matter for a Synod Saints qualified for Synodal debats and determinations 2. Saints as united are a Church or stand related unto it Saints or holy men delegated are a Synod or stand related to it 3. In a Church body members are united unto fellowship in meanes of instituted worship In a Synod unto council c. Here is differing matter differing form and differing ends But we now returne from walking the bounds of the Church to take a further view of the buildings thereof and of the precious stones therein we said of this particular company It is an Holy company a company of Saints This D. Collings grants Saâ—o sensu as he saith upon some arguments conclusive enough urged by us Mr. H. doth distinguish of Saints Some by dedication and consecration some by regeneration and supposeth we mean by visible Saints such as are so in the former sense Accordingly the Dr. not dealing with our arguments but going about another way doth deny that a visibility of saving Grace is needful to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it and Mr. H. saith we have no certain rule to judge of the regeneration of another In which discourse they do in effect speak thus unto us you do well to see that your Church members be Saints Holy persons but you have nothing to do to enquire about truth of Grace nor to conclude of Saintship and holynesse from the appearance or visibility thereof As if holinesse or saintship could under the Gosple be placed at the foot of any other account then that of the presence or appearance of Grace Special saving grace is indeed an invisible thing and of it we can make no true i. e. certain and infallible judgement yet we may and must make a Church judgement and a judgement of saving Grace in order to communion in the Lords Supper he doth allow though he saith a judgement of saving Grace is impossible what consistency there is in such expressions let him consider yea in the close of his Epistle he sits in judgement upon our hearts but how he should diserne our secrets that doth professe against inquiring about the inward work let the Reader judge The children of the members we regard as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. not barely from the parents profession but the manifestation of God saying he is their God and of Christ saying of such is the kingdome of Heaven they are partakers of that fulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as professors are which the Elect and called are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partakers of The Apostolical practice doth not evince Acts 2. Act. 4. That the thousands baptized were baptized upon a bare owning the Gospel without any respect to saving grace They which were baptized renouncing the Religion in which educated embracing the Gospel under persecution and contempt they were pricked in heart they gladly received the word Acts 2. 37. 41. a bare profession where that also is a carnal ingagement is not so signal in the hundred part His easy answer to our question concerning tryal of Grace in order to Communion in the supper and not to Church Communion is indeed as he calleth it an easy answer we no where find saith he let a man Examine himselfe and so come into the fellowship of the Church he thinks the 3000. and the 5000. had scarce any leasure before their admission to do it throughly Answ Commendable was that fear Acts 5. 11. not onely the fear of the Church but of others also ne laederent hunc caetum nec contemnerent nec
nothing to his purpose we grant that though he be sick or in prison and so cannot execute his Office yet he is not only potentially but actually an officer still But suppose the City of Norwich should either by fire or sword or famine or any such sad providence cease to exist if the Mayor should be left alive we ask whither he could be deemed a Mayor or an Officer still when there were no City of Norwich existing to be the correlate to him as a Relate The like we say in the case in hand how can a man remain in the Office of the Ministry if there be no Church as a correlate for him to stand related to Either he must be an Officer or no Officer If there be no Church existing that he is over then no Officer existeth for they exist and perish together as to the same degree of being What he meaneth by habit of Office we know not He intends not we suppose the indelible character which Bellarm. saith is qualitas absoluta as every habit excepting the tenth predicament Office cannot be proved a qualitative habit forasmuch as it is not any thing inherent in body or mind but something adherent onely And now Christian Reader thou mayest see Dr. Collings dealeth not kindly with thee in perswading that Officers are nominal relations Is it not more likely that Office should be such a relation as is between a father and child master and servant husband and wife Magistrate and subject then such a relation as is between scibile scientia a thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing Object But may not a man be in the Office of Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the goverment of them it is his Commission makes him an Officer Vind. Revind pag. 15. Ans This is but a similitude and so proveth nothing and it will serve our purpose as well as his for his Commission doth not make him an habitual Officer nor give him a power in actu primo to act as a Colonel in the goverment of all Regiments in the Army but limiteth him unto one particular Regiment and so will speak as much against a mans being an Officer to any but a particular Church as it may seem to speak for the actual existence of a relation without a correlate 2. Here is a begging another question viz. That Ordination doth Commissionate men to be Officers this being denyed there is no parity in the cases and so no strength in the objection We have proved that Election with acceptation doth make men to be Officers and so the correlate viz. the Church electing doth exist as soon as the Officer 3. We would know whether a Licence given a man from his Prince whereby he is impowered to keep so many servants unto such an end and so to govern them doth make a man a Master when not one servant is engaged by him or related to him 4. A Colonels Commission before he hath a Regiment doth authorize him to raise one giveth him right unto a Colonels pay and so maketh him an Officer nominal and Titular but it is the Assignment or submission of a Regiment unto him that maketh him an Officer reall and actual Many Captains and Colonels retain Commissions and former Titles when Wars are ended and Companies are disbanded yet are no Officers but as is expressed If he will yet contend that a Colonel as is instanced is an officer we say further In ordinary cases a Regiment is Assigned to him and if he hath none he can be but an extraordinary Officer answerable to Apostles having Commission from the General of the Army as the Apostles had their call and Commission immediately from Christ not from men Ergo there is no parity in the cases and so the instance is vain Obj. 3. To our third Argument he saith The Gospel owneth the Church as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry Acts 20. 17. 28. But not alone he saith it owns the work too Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. and Ephes 4. is as much Gospel as Act. 20. 17. Vind. Revind pag. 16. Answ In the Major of our third Argument nothing is wanting not alone or onely for the Church alone or onely is the correlate to a Church Officer should we say a wiâ—e is the correlate in wedlock not onely but cohabitation c. Or a Son not onely but Education whatever we might be for Logicians yet in this our Logick would not be good In dividing between the correlate and the end non dividimus componenda sed distinguenda which upon second thoughts he will not blame us for That Ephes 4. is Gospel we grant but that it owneth the work as the correlate we deny It owneth the work of the Ministry as one end of Office-gifts not as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry It is said he gave some to be Apostles c. and if it be enquired for what end the answer is for the work of the Ministry Obj. 4. To our fourth Argument he saith It is a feeble Argument Vind. Revind pag. 17. 18. which is drawn from names and titles If we say that all their titles have the Church onely as their correlate he desires to know whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have so 1 Tim. 27. c. He saith every rational creature yea God himself is the correlate and therefore they are called the Ministers of God c. He desireth us to shew one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called the Minister of the Church he addeth that we speak no Scripture phrase when we call Ministers i. e. preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church c. Answ 1 An Argument from Names and Titles surely is as feeble when our brethrâ—n use it as when we use it against them doth not D. Collings argue from the name of Officers to their acts and particularly from the title of Teacher Vin. pag. 34. yea in this very book Vind. Revind pag. 89. lin 1 2 3 4. 5. Also to prove the Office of the Ministry of divine institution the London Ministers argue expressely from their Names and Titles Jus. Divin Minst pag. 8. 9. 2 So far as Nomen is notamen rei so far definitio nominis is definitio rei Consider Father in a naturall sense and the definition of the Name is the definition of the thing The names of Pastor Teacher Elder c. Notifie the relation and so are forcibly Argumentative for a Churches being the Correlate 3. The intendment of some names and titles is not to expresse what is the Correlate but some thing else about a relation as Officers may be called Ministers of God and Christ onely to intimate who is the Author and institutor of their office Ministers of the Word to intimate what is the subject of their preaching Cryers or preachers as in the Texts he mentioneth 1 Tim. 2. 7.
Rom. 10. 14. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to signifie their declaring or publishing their message as Cryers or Heralds use to do Some names and titles are not intended for the discovering what is the Correlate to the Office of the Ministry but for other ends and therefore our Argument is firme though all titles have not the Church onely as their Correlate 4. We judge his first answer which he calleth most proper to this Question To whom are they Officers most improper For it is this to Jesus Christ Should a King passe through a street and it be enquired what or whose King goeth there and one should answer Christs King he should give a very improper answer and leave the enquirer in the dark but he that informeth that he is the King of France c. leadeth into light So for a Mayor its improper to say there goeth the Protectors Mayor but there goeth the Mayor of Norwich is proper 5. Whereas he saith p. 18. every creature is the Correlate to office as well as the Church 1. If so then the Elders of the Church are the Elders of the World Angels of the Churches Angels of the World then Pastors and Teachers set in the Church are set in the World too but where did he ever read of Elders of the world c. 2 We would know what is the foundation of the relation between a pastor and the world is it founded in nature as that of Parent and children or in Will or consent as that of Husband and wife Master and Servant or in some third thing 3. Then it s more proper to call Officers World-Officers then Church Officers as to call the Protector Protector of England rather then of London because of the extent of authority and office-power Nor is that reason in the least cogent viz. Officers are appointed to gather out of the World members unto Christ Suppose an Embassador from England be in France dispatching businesse for his master there he is not thereby related unto France So an Embassador for Christ in the world is not related unto the world as his Correlate but onely to the flock he is ever in the Lord. He saith moreover That God is the Correlate that God is the Author and institutor thereof we acknowledge upon which account there ariseth a Metaphysical respect between Officers and God and they are the Ministers of God but as the Correlate of a King is a subject and only that in predicamental relation he who is to be governed Ruled and not God So the correlate of a Church Officer is the Church and onely that which is to be watched over prayed for instructed by vertue of a special bond in which the Officer is engaged unto it The duty of a relation terminates upon the correlate God were to be governed if he were the Correlate of a Governour 6. Preaching Ministers are expressely called Elders of the Church Acts. 20. v. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church And this is as much as to say The Minister of the Church if not more for Elder is the name of Office They are called by that Church whereunto they are related Revel 2. v. 1. Vnto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus v. 8. Vnto the Angel of the church in Smyrna so v. 12. 18. and this is as much as to say the Ministers of such a church for what is it to be the angel of such a Church but to be the Minister thereof And whereas he beseecheth us not to endeavour to abuse simple Souls with such wofull falacies Vind. Revind pag. 19. Now let the Reader judge who hath gone about to abuse him most Dr. Collings or we Whereas he saith this is no Scripture phrase to call preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church Our second position is this Posit That Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to an universall Church Dr. Collings insiâ—â—eth upon an explication of the word Church and some other premises from pag. 19. to pag. 27. or 29. to which we shall not give any further reply at present then he meeteth within the answer to his Epistle Ob. 1. In his reply to our first Argument He complaines of fowl disputing because we take away the subject or suppositum of the question Answ When the question was whether the Pope were the supream Officer of the Universal visible Church Learned Protestants denyed the being of the Universal visible Church disputing fully against the adversary not fowlly as he saith Ob. 2. He tels us Vind. Revind pag. 29. what we say may be granted and yet nothing is proved by it Answ This we confesse we understand not how it was possible that the subject or the suppositum of a question can be taken away so as nothing should be proved if the whole be granted we desire to know of him by the next But what is his reason If the Gospel knowes a Church Vniversall under any notion though not under a Political forme it is enough Vind. Revind p. 29. Ans No Organ is related but to a body Organical hands and feet armes and legs as so are not related to flesh and blood as so but as so formed Rulers are not related unto men as so but as formed in societies and reduced under policy and Government as he referreth us to Mr. Hudson so we may refer him to Mr. Hooker Mr Stone and to our owne Epistle Our second Argument he putteth into a form of his own under a pretence to mend some faults it it and is not satisfied with that forme which himselfe put it into but then putteth it into an other and thus findeth himself work Surely this is not fair dealing he might have shewn us the faults of our argument and lest it to us to mend them and not cast them into his own form and then spend time in answering them we shall onely say this in way of answer Answ 1. As he hath formed the Argument the Office of the Ministry is made the correlate whereas we assert the Church to be the correlate let the Reader now judge whether he doth not wrong himself and us by this way of proceeding 2. Our Argument proceeded upon those Relative names and Titles which the Scripture expresseth Officers by and which they cannot lose without losing their Office and which are used upon the most special occasions and these Titles forbid a Universal Church to be the correlate unto Office as is shewn Preacher sent pag. 10. 11. c. As to Acts 20. 28. It concludeth that an Officer is commanded to feed all the flock that he standeth in the relation of a Bishop or Overseer to and so denyeth a Universal Church to be that flock which he is an Officer or Overseer to for he is not commanded to feed all the Universal Church And this sheweth that the terms Pastor and Teacher when used to expresse Office are
taken in a strict sence to denote onely a relation to a particular Church for Bishops Pastors and Teachers are the same officers under different names 3. If we were convinced that there were such a Universal visible Church made up of all particulars we should then grant that the Office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister had that Church of Churches for its correlate as much as the Office of a Justice of peace which he instanceth in as it resides in the whole number of Justices hath the whole nation as a correlate but still we should think that every particular Minister were limitted in his Office to a particular Church as a Justice is to a particular County Dr. Collings useth three Arguments to prove that the Office of the Ministry relates not onely to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. that they may do acts of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Argu. 1. Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Vind. Revind pag. 33. Christ are related to the Universal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4. 12. 13. Ans 1. This Argument from Eph. 4. v. 12. 13. for the substance of it is answered Preacher sent p. 295. 2. This Argument doth not conclude the question if such a Universal Church could be proved we might grant them to be some way related to it yet not as Officers His Argument if it were to the purpose should conclude not onely that Pastors and Teachers are related to the Universal Church but 1. As Officers 2. As to their correlate whereas if a Universal Church were the body of Christ there intended the place alledged Eph. 4. doth only specifie that the edifying of that body is one end of giving Pastors and Teachers and a correlate must be existing before the end of the relatoin can be attained and so that body may not be the correlate to Pastors and Teachers In his following this Argument there is an altering of the phrase from the Universal visible Church or body about which the question is unto the mystical body of Christ. If we grant that Pastors and Teachers are related to the mystical body of Christ which is made up onely of the Elect yet we may deny them to be related to it as Offices or that to be the correlate to their Office They may be given for the edifying of that body although they have no work appointed them by Jesus Christ to do but onely in a particular Church that body is edified if any member of it be edified Argu. 2. Those whom God hath commissionated to Preach and Baptize Vind. Revin Pag. 34. all Nations are not related onely to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his Ministers to go Preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo Ans 1. His major may fairly be denyed if it speaketh to the question as stated by himself Vind. Revind pag. 33. We say those whom God hath commissionated to Preach to and Baptize all Nations are so related to particular Churches as that they may not do acts materially and formally of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of the particular Churches they are over As the whole number of Justices of Peace in this Nation are commissionated to perform the acts of Justices in all Counties and shires in England yet the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person as himself observeth Vind. Revind pag. 31. 32. is limited by his Commission to such a County and he cannot act as a Justice beyond the bounds of that County of shire So the whole number of Church-Officers may be commissionated to perform acts of Office in all Nations yet the Office as it resides in this or that particular person is limited to a particular Church so as none may do acts of Office beyond the bounds of that particular Church which the person is over 2. To his minor we say The commission Mat. 28. 19. was not onely for the Apostles in the substance but in the Universality it was for them onely Apostles as such were extraordinary Officers and had no successors Were this Commission ours in the Universality we see not how we could fix with a good conscience As warrantably might a man confine his ministry to a family when appointed to a Church as confined to a church when appointed for all the world Our granting that the commission reacheth Officers now in the substance of it is enough to evidence how far we are from shaking hands with Socinus Smalcius c. though we deny their Office to have the same extent that the Apostles had Argu. 3. His third Argument is drawn ab absurdo Vind. Revind p. 35. There are five absurdities which he layeth at our door against which we have sufficiently justified our selves in the body of our discourse out of the womb of two principles he mid-wives forth these Pr. 1. That the Authority of him who Preacheth is that which makes the action of the hearer duty Pr. 2. That an act of Office cannot be done by him who is no Officer Vind. Revind pag. 35. Ans The latter of these is fully spoken to Preacher sent pag. 278. 279. 280. And in the same book we have largely proved this principle That many gifted men who are not in Office have Authority or a command and warrant from Christ to Preach From which joyned with Dr. Collings first principle aforementioned it will appear that the absurdities Vind. Revin Pag. 36. he talketh of are pitiful non sequiturs For hence it followes 1. That where there are no particular Churches formed yet the people are bound to come to hear because many gifted men not in office have authority to preach and it is the authority of the speaker saith he that maketh the action of the hearer duty and this taketh off his first absurdity 2. That in England where there is neither Church nor officer yet they may wait upon that publike meanes which is a special appointment of Christ to save their souls for gifted men not in office have authority to preach and so his second absurdity cometh to nothing 3 That where a particular Church is formed when their Officer preacheth not on the Lords day yet the members are bound to hear though gifted men not in office preach for they have authority from Christ to do it 4 That persons not of that Ministers Church who Preacheth may go in faith for he hath authority as a gifted man to preach unto those that are not members of his Church and so his fourth absurdity is taken away His fift Concerning giving the Sacrament to one that is not a member of his Church we have spoken sufficiently to elsewhere And here let us expostulate a little can Dr.
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
gifted persons in the work of preaching and this sheweth that neither his necessitas praecepti nor necessitas medii can weaken the force of this argument We are at as great a losse to find any ordination of an ordinary officer without a precedent Election by a particular Church as he is to find it before the ordination of Paul Barnabas and Timothy who were extraordinarily or immediately called to Office and so needed not such Election Ob. And whereas he saith that in such cases of necessity they may be said to preach by extraordinary authority which the word of the Lord hath given them which may be called a Mission and they may be officers as to that time and state yet it will not follow but in another state of the Church Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister Vind. Revind pag. 63. 64. Answ Here he hath found out a Mission by the word which is not by the Church commanded Electing or Ordaining and so either his objection or else his Argument pag. 112. or both must needs be naught and he be guilty of selfe contradiction let his words be compared Those who preach in such casesof necessity where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear may be said to preachby an extraordinary authority which the word of That Gods revealed will in his word is called sending as his word is now written is of the Lord hath in such cases given them which may be called a mission Vind. Revind pag. 63. not proved nor can be proved Vi Revind pag. 112. He asserteth pag. 63 a mission by the word and denyeth pag. 112. that any such mission can be proved His officer in case of necessity hath no mission either mediately â—or immediately by any of the waies he mentioneth Ergo not at all thus might we urge his argument against himselfe 2. He hath given no proof for his extraordinary Office making mission in such cases of necessity and where nothing is proved nothing need be answered 3. If there were such extraordinary Officers by necessity then 1. They must be greater then ordained ones for extraordinary Officers are greater then ordinary 2. They are not to be ordained afterward though the Church cometh into an other state or else Ordination is not the constituting office-making act for saith he they were officers before 3. They must be either Apostles Evangelists or Prophets and these he concludeth to be ceased Or else they are Pastors and Teachers for the Gospel owneth no other preaching Officers but those aforementioned And that ordinary officers Pastors and Teachers should be made by an extraordinary call will hardly be proved Or that such ordinary offices can be convved without Ordination if that in ordinary cases be essential to such Offices we suppose can never be proved for it is as much as to say such offices have a being without that which giveth being to them A thing may have a being without some necessary accidents but that there can be any case so extraordinary as a thing should have a being without that which is essencial to it we find not Arg. 5. Our fifth Argument is taken from Gospel Rules about Prophecying All that are Prophets way ordinarily and publikely preach 1 Corin. 14. v. 23. 24. 29. 31. Dr. Collings saith Vind. Revind pag. 64. no such gifted men as now live are prophets To prove our minor that some men i. e. now living who are not ordained Officers are Prophets we lay downe three propositions 1. That Prophesie is a gift not an office 2. That Prophesying is a gift still continuing 3. That some men who are not ordained officers have that gift of Prophesie Preacher Sent. pag. 90. Dr. Collings pag. 65. repeateth three of our arguments and telleth the Reader that we bring them to prove that Prophesie is a gift not an office and cryeth out of a pittiful non sequitur c. whereas we use those arguments to prove the last position which is about the un-necessarinesse of Ordination for prophets Thus are we mis-presented as if we brought arguments to prove one Proposition which we use to prove an other and whether great wrong and injury be not offered to us and the Reader by such dealing let any wise man judge We neither argue in this place against their being extraordinary or ordinary officers nor against their being furnished with extraordinary gifts other mediums we use else-where that way and therefore his pittifull non sequitur is of his own making but the main question was about preaching without ordination and so we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 90. that ordination was not necessary for Prophets which here he graneth We knew not which part of our argument would be denyed and therefore left no part unproved Whereas he enquireth Vind. p. 65. who ever said these Prophets were ordinary Officers we answer Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt declareth it to be his judgement that this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets But neither of the Arguments which he is replying to speak one word about their being ordinary officers and therefore we wonder how that question should be started here Prop. 1. The prophesying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. is a gift not an Office 1. Because all who have the gift of prophesie are Prophets and they must have the gift before they can be made Prophets by Office 2. Because this prophesying ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth and so of any other Church whereas Office might not be so coveted by every man who was a member of a Church 1. It is not promised 2 Not possible to be obtained c. Preach Sent. p. 91. 92. Obj. Dr. Collings pag. 66. 67. c. saith 1. That God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary authority and furnished them with an extraordinary gift so he did Jeremy Amos c. 2. That the same argument will prove it was no gift except a promise can be shewn thereof 3. Things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will c. 4. They cannot be Officers to that Church but may be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea he saith they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides Vniversal holiness may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained c. 5. All doth not include every individual alwayes c. Ans 1. No ordinary Officer can be orderly made unless those gifts which furnish for the Office be first found in him Act. 6. 3. 1 Tim. 3. And that not extraordinary but ordinary Prophets are intended 1 Cor. 14. we have largely proved Preach Sent. pag. 100. 101. 102. and so our Argument is valid though extraordinary Officers as Jeremy and Amos should have the gift and Office together yet there the gift in order of nature at least doth precede
That probationers who are no Officers may Preach if it should be not ordinarily but occasionally or onely once seeing they will not allow them to Baptize so much as once this is enough to prove from their practice that if Baptizing be an act peculiar to Office yet it will not follow then Preaching is such and also that Preaching is not peculiar to Office and so his excepting them out of the question cannot hinder the overthrow of his argument pag. 92. thereby That proper acts quarto modo as he saith these are pag. 90. should admit of so much as one exception is strange Logick and as much as to say they are peculiar to Officers and yet not peculiar to them and therefore his exceptions pag. 93 cannot help him As to Mat. 28. ver 19 20. We do not yet find that it was an Office-making Commission but an enlargement of the Commission of Officers to other persons viz. to the Gentiles If a man hath two Commissions to the same work the latter may make him an Officer to more persons but doth not make him more an Officer then before and his instance pag. 94. about ejecting scandalous Ministers by one Commission in Norfolk by another in Norwich amounteth to no more nor his second reply pag. 94 we may grant that this Commission empowred them yet not to be Preachers and baptizers but to Preach to and baptize the Gentiles They did not of non-Preachers become Preachers by this Commission and such a Commission onely is to the present question about gifted mens Preaching His third reply consisteth partly of his meer conjecture and partly of what is truth but not against us The promise proveth that some in all Nations to the worlds end may warrantably be Preached unto and baptized but it being a promise of Christs presence with some in the work of Preaching hence it presupposeth them to be empowred to Preach before the promise can be theirs and therefore cannot constitute them Preachers As to pag. 95 96. we were speaking onely of acts of Religious worship which men were warranted to perform And is a high-way-mans pronouncing the same sentence the Judge doth allowed by the Laws of men for the same end that the Judges act is as exhorting and admonishing are allowed to men out of Office by the Lawes of God for the same end that Officers perform them or can the sprinkling and powering water on the face of Children or the breaking of bread and giving it to them be deemed any acts of Religious worship or are men allowed by the Lord to perform these acts for the same ends that an Officer doth in administering baptisme and the Lords Supper if not how doth this take off our answer about exhorting and admonishing In what way and manner men out of Office may perform these acts we have proved elsewhere Argu. 3. As to his third Argument from the uselesness of the Ministerial Vind. Revind Pag. 96. Office as to its chief act if this practice be allowed We utterly deny it The Ministerial Office is not set up as to that act in vain though many out of Office may Preach neither doth his instances pag. 99. in Justices Colonels Captains c. prove it For the main end of establishing Justices of the Peace is the conservation of the peace which others may endeavour who are no Justices The main act of Colonels and Captains and the main end for which they are established is fighting with an enemy and every common souldier is bound to fight even in open field as well as they yet their Office is not set up in vain as to that act If he shall say others do not act as Justices in keeping the peace or that common Souldiers do not Command a Regiment or company in fighting we answer no more do gifted men Preach to a Church as Officers as Pastors to it And Reader know that he offereth thee and us much wrong in telling thee pag. 99. that we say the Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office If this be not sence the fault is his whose words they are Our words may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 203. If we say Preaching in it self is no act of Office surely therein we deny some Preaching to be the main or chief act of Office and so do speak directly to his argument Yet we may grant that there is Preaching which is a main and chief act of Office Whereas he desireth to know the difference between these wayes of Preaching in the fore-cited place of our former book he may see it That which is a main act of Office is a preaching as under a special relation to them that are preached to as being over them in the Lord and having them committed to ones charge for feeding with the word Act 20. v. 28. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. The other preaching is not after this manner And this is not an empty motion as he calleth it pag. 102 103 but a real difference for if an officer of our Church preacheth to many other Churches often yet he is not over nor hath the charge of many Churches committed to him onely Episcopal men will assert that So whosoever preacheth to unconverted heathens and Indians cannot with any Scripture evidence be said to be over those Infidels in the Lord or to have them committed to his chaege onely a Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood is capable of such a commitment Acts 20. 28. and therefore it is one thing to preach and another thing to preach as over those in the Lord that are Preached to and this may answer what he saith pag. 102 103. We say gifted men by Christs appointment do the same acts materially that Officers performe in their preaching and that for those ends he mentioneth of Conviction Convertion and Edification yet there is a vast difference between their actings And that Christs appointing both the one and the other should make their authority the same which he asserteth Vind. Revind pag. 102. is strange Colonels Captaines c. may have commissions from one man yet have different authorities Another may be appointed by a master of a house to do some work yet not have the same authority that the steward hath Our Examples do plainly shew that different relations do empower for and lay under obligations to the same acts materially and thence it followes that the belonging of such acts to one relation can be no Proof that the other relation is vain uselesse or unnecessary as to those acts The parental relation is not vain and uselesse as to instruction if other relations or friends be under some obligations to give instructions to the same children Nor will it speak the bayliffs office in a Corporation to be uselesse and un-necessary if the free-men may put forth some of the same Acts which they do No more will the Lords establishing standing officers for the work of preaching or Governement
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
Preachers or were not the Apostles constant Preachers Mat. 10. 10. and will he say those Elders 1 Tim. 5. 18. were not constant preachers Or in this and the former argument doth he intend only thus much that the Scriptures do not speak expressely of a constant preaching or that 2 Tim. 2. 2. do not speak expressely de modo If this be all he aymeth at let him shew an expresse Scripture to prove that all preachers must be ordained or that none may preach without ordination or else give over such arguings His minor indeed was neither true in the matter or for me he faith pag. 109. It is true by a slip of his pen instead of the Church to which they preach he put in the Church in which they are but it is the same thing for admit that they may Prophecy he proved before he faith from 1 Cor. 14. 23. that they had no warrant to goe out of their Church to do it To which we answer 1. He that is so subject to false Logick himself might be more cautious of accusing others especially without ground 2. This which he calleth but a slip of his pen was the very thing which his argument had dependance upon and falleth with let any peruse his former book Vind. pag. 40. and they will find it so for he asketh whether any will say that a Church is tyed up to that duty which no Church is able to perform He supposeth there may be twenty poor men well gifted and ten rich men meanly gifted in a Church and enquireth whether any will say that it is Gods ordinance that these ten rich men should allow a competent maintenance to the twenty others So that his argument taketh its force from their inability to maintain them in the Church where they are Whereas the Churches to which they preach may be able though not the Church wherein they are We would not have mentioned this again if he had not minced the matter and concluded it the same thing still 3. His assertion which he groundeth that conclusion upon viz. their not being warranted to goe out of the Church to Prophecy 1 Cor. 14. 23 we disproved before but how he is consistent with himself in asserting these Prophets to be extraordinary officers pag. 65 and yet to be confined in their exercise to a particular Church pag. 73. 85. 109. we know not Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is taken from Rom. 10 15. concerning mission Vind. Revind pag. 109. Because many build so much upon that place we insisted largely upon it he replyeth very little to what we say but bringeth an Argument to prove that gifted men as gifted are not sent and it riseth to this They are neither immediately nor mediately sent Ergo not at all He concludeth that we must say they are sent immediately for if it be mediately it must be by his Church commanding Electing or Ordaining If it be immediately then by Christs own voyce or by a sign from heaven but he faith we have found out two others wayes 1. By his revealed will in his word 2. By his providence c vind Revind pag. 112. Ans 1. We say that God sendeth by the meâ—ns of his word and providence but we no where call these an immediate mission We use these words it is not an immediate mission but mediate by the word Preacher Sent. pag. 130. 2. Gods commanding men to Preach is his sending Jer. 14. ver 14. 15. I sent them not what is that neither have I commanded them His not commanding is his not sending therefore his commanding is his sending so Mat. 10. 5. Mat. 28. 19. Christs commanding them go Preach is his sending We have proved that gifted menare commanded to preach and that proves that God sends them by his word Let him prove that Ordaining or any act of a Presbytery is Gods sending unlesse in the sence we mentioned Preach Sent. pag. 137. which will not at all serve his purpose because no Authority to Preach is conferred by the mission we there speak of We do not say that Gods commanding men in his written word to believe repent c. is called sending yet such commands in the word are mediate Calls to such works though no men should urge such duties upon those that are to perform them So his commanding gifted men to Preach by his word is a mediate Call and his saying by that word go is a mediate mission though no Presbytery by Ordination or otherwise faith go 3. That sending makes them Officers we deny That no man can send another but he is in Office as to that whereabout he is sent in a large sence we grant but that sending setteth men over those to whom they are sent or maketh them Officers in a strict sence we utterly deny neither doth any thing he faith pag. 113. prove it The Kings Ambassadour is his officer in the former but not in the latter sence for every Officer properly so is superiour to those that are the object or terminus of his Office so are not Ambassadours unto them to whom they are sent and however unlesse the mission Rom. 10 15. could be proved to be Ordination the Argument thence cometh to nothing And many more words are spent about the travelling of Paul and others from place to place and many other matters also which were no greater Gospel mysteries then this though it be understood of a mission of those who before were made Preachers and not of an office-making mission especially seeing their sending was to the Gentiles which was a thing in those dayes so much questioned by the Jews His other exceptions pag. 114. against a providential sending viz. 1. That none can run before they be sent 2. That then the creep houses 1 Tim 3. 6. were sent must needs be vain seeing in the same page he confesseth that we do not own a bare providential sending without a command by the word 4. What he saith Vind. Revind p. 115. giveth no evidence that Ordination is the mission intended 1. That the command of God in his word is sending we have proved And that Act. 13. 3. cannot in the least prove Ordination to be mission he might have seen proved Preacher Sent. pag. 253 254. 2. That Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending proveth that Ordination is not mission If as in the case of Deacons Act 6. there may be Ordination without mission then these are separable each from other and so are not the same Pag. 115. He saith the mission mentioned Mat. 10. ver 5. 6. 7. and Mat. 28. was extraordinary mission It is true they had it immediately from the mouth of Christ men in these dayes mediately and so the way is different but the mission may be the same still Christ by his own voyce commanded his Disciples to watch Mat. 24. ver 42. and 25. 13 and 26. ver 41. and the same which were immediate commands to them
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
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
so leave it to the Reader to judge between us The Provincial Assemblies definition of Office is this The Office of the Ministry is a spiritual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a Person qualified founded upon a special and regular Call Jus Div. Min. pag. 3. This we excepted against because either it altogether omiteth or else determineth employment to be the correlate unto this relation and either way it is very faulty For it is grossely to swarve from the right Rules of a definition to omit the correlate in defining a particular relation which is Essential to the thing defined even themselves say that Relatives cannot be understood the one without the other Jus Divin Min. p. 2. we infer Ergo they cannot be defined aright the one without the other And there is nothing in their definition to be the correlate unless it be employment and that this cannot be it our four Arguments do evidence Preacher Sent. pag. 5. 6. 7. So that Mr. Poole may see that our Arguments were not onely brought to batter down one expression brought in onely obiter and occasionally as he supposeth pag. 3. but to discover a very considerable defect or imperfection in their definition which was made more obvious by that expression He saith pag. 3. it was not the design of the Assembly to deny the Ministry to be a relation to a Church nor was it their business accurately to insist upon the notions of relate and correlate they never called the work of the Ministry the correlate but onely obiter they asserted the Office of the Ministry to be better defined by relation to the work then to a particular Church which he saith we have not disproved Answ We speak nothing of an accurate insisting on the notions of relate and correlate but we say it is a false definition of a particular relation if nothing be asserted as the correlate and therefore their not denying a Church nor asserting work to be the correlate will not help unless they had affirmed and proved something else to be it Our proving in the second question a particular Church onely to be the correlate is enough to disprove that expression for Office must needs be better defined by its reference to its correlate then by its end His instance about a King pag. 3. cannot salve the business For it were very improper to say the Office of a King is a relation to Ruling and to give this as the definition of that and as absurd were it to say that the Office of a King is better defined by Ruling then by relation to his Subjects or Kingdom and it is not paralel unlesse it runneth us And so it is absurd to say that the abstract Ministry is better defined by relation to the work then to a particular Church for we have proved that such a Church is the correlate work not so but onely the end That office is a predicamental and not a Transcendendal or nominal relation and that a potential being is not sufficient in such a relation he may see in our reply to Dr. Collings But to clear the matter more fully and make way for the next question as a clew leading the right way out of this controversie we shall give this distinction The terms Office and Officer may be taken largely or strickly in a general or a special sence 1. In an general sence there is an Officer to man and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or work it self is the Office wherein one man doth serve another thus a mâ—n may be an Officer from an inferiour to a superiour or from one equal to another and have no relation proper or Predicamental growing thereupon In this large sense gifted men preaching yea any Church-members exercising any gift or doing any work for the profit of the body or Church may be called officers and the work an Office as Rom. 12. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Office But this is an Officer without Rule or Government of whom in this controversy we speak not In this sense though Apostles or others be considered as Officers to heathens it doth not at all contradict us 2. In a special sense there is an officer over man as a Prince over his subjects a master over his servants so a pastor over his flock this is an officer with power of Rule and Government Whensoever the Scripture speaketh of Office or Officer notified by the Titles of Pastor Teacher Elder or Bishop they are taken thus Acts 20. 28. Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1 Thes 5. 12. And thus we constantly considered it in our former book called The Preacher Sent. In this sense Apostles were not officers nor did preach as Officers to the heathens they had no power of Rule or Governement over them 1 Corin. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge those that are without Quest Whether officers stand in relation as officers to a particular Church onely We hold the affirmative part Mr Poole would have them officers to the whole Church pag. 6. 7. c. by which we suppose he intendeth a Church Catholike visible To his premises and preamble we say The Judgement of Churches is not our Rule but the Scripture we can find no such Synods as he speaketh of there Acts 15. holdeth forth that one Church may send messengers in difficult cases to an other Church as Antioch did there to Jerusalem for help and council but it cannot be proved that any acts of Government were there put forth towards any absent Churches and therefore this is no warrant for provincial or Occumenical Synods We wish that all differences in judgement amongst the Saints were at an end but we are not to silence a truth of Christ because some deare friends are dissenters neither is the difference between congregational brethren so great in this point as he supposeth We do not obtrude our Notions upon the world but have published our perswasions with our grounds desiring that they may be weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary and that either others may receive light from us or we from them Premise 1. He premiseth pag. 6. a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church 1. Actu Secundo actually immediately absolutely and independentlie 2. Actu primo habitually aptitudinally mediately conditionally dependingly so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where but may not exercise that jus or power every where but by the consent of the Church or Rulers c. Answ To assert an habituall Minister or Officer seemeth to us no better then to assert an habitual King Justice Constable or an habitual husband Father c. To be habitually and conditionally a Minister to a Church and to be no minister to it is all one 1. That Ministers have a jus or power to teach every where Office-wise is not proved the place alleadged go preach the Gospel to every creature injoyneth the exercise of the power and so must prove that
they ought to exercise their power every where if it were to his purpose but the Scriptures frequently witnesse and himselfe confesseth that they may not exercise that power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers 2. That any unblameable Officers of Christ should be iustly hindred from the exercise of all Office-power or have none that they can in Christs order exercise it upon whilst the Office-power continueth upon them in a strange paradox For all that have Office-power are actually and immediately under a command of Christ to do office-work as those Scriptures which speak of the duty of Officers do abundantly testifie and so Christ should command the same persons at the same time to do and yet not to do Office-work and then Christs commands should clash one with an other Now suppose such an Officer hath no particular flock and all Churches and Rulers deny their consent either from their being full of Officers or upon other lawful accounts in this case he will be justly hindred from the exercise of all office-power and hath none that he can exercise it upon for Mr. Poole confesseth p. 6. he may not exercise the power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers We might shew many other inconveniencies that the asserting officrs to have a habitual power over a universal Church draw along with it but we forbear saying onely this It doth not looke like the order of Christ that a Ministers power should extend to the Catholike Church when it is impossible that he should ever exercise that power it may be to the thousand part of that Church nay when he is by divine right fixed in a particular Church the residing in which forbiddeth his traveling to do acts of Office to the universal Premis 2. He premiseth pag. 7. that a general respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church This he illustrateth by an instance of a vast number of sheep which twenty shepherds are chosen to look unto and by the German Empire c. Ans 1. We deny that there is such a whole Church as he supposeth for which denyal we have given reasons else where And let the Reader take notice once for all that when ever we speak as if there were such a whole Church or Catholike Church we onely suppose it but do not grant it in his sense 2. Suppose there were such a Church we denie that any institution of Christ hath determined ordinary officers to have a general respect as Officers to the whole Church and so his infrances of a vast number of sheep and the Empire come to nothing 3 A peculiar respect to some one Church is inconsistent with the same relation to an other for nothing is peculiar but that which is appropriated Israel was Gods peculiar people that is his onely As to his instance about sheep we say If the Master of the sheep chooseth the twenty shepherds and committeth the whole number of sheep to them then the actual care of every sheep is upon every one and if but one sheep be lost every shepherd will fall under blame neither will the distributing the sheep into twenty parcels though some be careful of their parcels excuse any from blame the distribution or division being the act of the Shepherds according to his infrance not the Act of the Master If the catholike Church were thus committed to officers then every Officer would be blameable for the wandrings of any one member of that Church though their habitations were thousands of miles distant each from other But Christ hath committed onely a particular Church or flock of his sheep to the charge of any one of his officers and if others not of a mans own flock do miscarry his not seeking their reducement to the utmost of his ability and opportunity is a sin against charity but not against his office according to any Gosple rule that yet we can find The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is not rebaked for the miscarriages of the Church of Smyrna nor is the Angel of the Church of Smyrna reproved for the sins of Pergamus or Thyatira or Sardis Revel 2 and 3. but every Angel is reproved for the sins of that particular Church which he was set over As to his instance of the German Empire page 8. we say it hath a vast disparity in it to the case in hand For there are no acts to be performed in the Church to make a double relation necessary answerable to those in the Empire If no Emperours were to be chosen or acts of general concernement to the whole Empire as such to be exerted those Princes or Electors would not sustain any such general relation to the whole Empire and there being no universal Church-officer to be chosen or any acts of instituted worship to be performed which are peculiar to a universal Church as such hence the cases are vastly different and also it is very improbable that such an order should be of Christs appointment They have not one by Systeme of Lawes neither are these Electors or Princes intrusted with a joint-power for the ordinary government of the whole but every free Prince hath power to make what Lawes he will and if he will allow every congregational Church as entire a power within it selfe as every of those Princes hath within his own Territories we suppose no power beyond that will belong to any but Christ himselfe Ob. The Apostles were Pastors of the whole Church yet the work was divided among them and they undertook aspeciall relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jewes and Paul to the Gentiles James to Jerusalem c. Mr. Poole pag 8. Ans 1. The Apostles were extraordinary officers our question is onely about ordinary officers 2. The Apostles had immediate directions from the Lord where to labour in the work of their office Act. 13. 4. Act. 16. 9. Act. 10. ver 19. 20. yea that committing of the Jewes to Peter and of the Gentiles to Paul seemeth to be by immediate ducture from the spirit Gal 2. ver 7. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles The Lords making such a division if it were one was sufficient to give them a dispensation for acting in Office-work elsewhere until fresh instructions came But ordinary Officers have no such directions from the Lord or any thing equivalent to them and so are obliged to perform acts of Office to all Churches in the world and sin if they do not according to him for they have no dispensation from the Lord for acting in any and without that they must act to the utmost bounds of their relation 3. Apostles were not so limited and confined in their Office unto those which especially were committed to them as ordinary Officers are to their particular Churches the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul and the Gospel
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
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
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
their Arguments against gifted mens preaching without Ordination He rehearseth our Arguments leaving out a great part of their strength and putting in his own exceptions against them and then mentioneth the heads of their Arguments without our exceptions against them and yet pretendeth pag. 116. not to take at advantage but to set the best glosse upon our cause in which surely no Reader will believe him CHAP. XII Concerning Election as belonging to a particular Church THere are three Scriptures chiefly urged to prove the power of Election to belong to a Church viz. Act. 1. Act 6. and Act. 14. Many of our answers to objections against these proofes we have no reply to and so we shall but touch upon things here and refer the Reader unto our former Book and to our reply to Dr. Collings for a fuller answer 1. The first Scripture is Act. 1. 23. Object It was not an exhortation to chuse nor a direction in chusing here is not a word of the piety c. of the person but onely a declaration that one must be chosen c. however it was fit the people should consent pag. 120. Answ 1. Here he plainly contradicteth the provincial Assembly for he saith it was not a direction in chusing they say Jus Divin Min. pag. 127. they were guided and directed in their choice by the eleven Apostles and seek to prove it from ver 21 22. how should we answer both 2. Qualifications are set down ver 21. and the men and brethren in the meeting being spoken to ver 16. it is clear that they were the persons chusing ver 23. 2. The second place is Act. 6. Object 1. Regulation by dead Lawes and rules is no prejudice to the peoples sole power in Election but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it If the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds would they have been Deacons if not then the Essence of the Call consists not in Election Mr. Pool pag. 121. Answ 1. Paul was as much a living Judge when he did write â—o Timothy and Titus as the Apostles were Acts 6. yet he giveth Rules for â—egulation 1 Tim. 3. ver 2. 3. Tit. 〈◊〉 ver 6â— and if Ordination be aymed at here either these Rules of Regulation destroyed the power of Timothy and Titus in Ordination or else those Rules Act 6. did not destroy the peoples power of Election And we may turn his question upon him If Paul had upon just grounds refused any of those Ordained by Timothy and Titus would they have been Officers if not then according to his arguing the Essence of the call consists not in Ordination 2. If they chose persons duely qualified the Apostles could not refuse them 3. If the Apostles had a negative voyce in case persons were not rightly qualified yet that would not deny the whole power of Election to be in the Church for their affirmitive voyce might be onely causa sine qua non not causa formalis of the Election as himself telleth us pag. 13â— we may urge his instances there against what he saith here and they will be as strong for us as for him And this answereth what followeth If the Apostles refusing any chosen would have hindred their being Deacons as p. 121. or the want of Ordination would have made Election null as he saith pag. 122. yet the Essence of the Call might consist in Election for their approbation or Ordination might be onely Causa sine qua non they might not be Essential though they could not be without them But it is he that forgets not we for the present question is about the peoples power of chusing not about Election as Essential to a Call nor of Apostles power in Election As to what he addeth pag. 123. about arguing a minori ad majus affirmative we answer It is Mr. Pool that runneth upon the grosse mistake for our Argument is fetched from the same Canon that there 's is as any one may plainly see Preacher Sent. pag. 224. And whether the Argument from the greater to the less affirmatively be not urged in the Scriptures we mentioned pag. 226. let the Reader judge Object 2. There is another Canon and that is this Quod competit minori competit eâ—iam majori If Ordination was required to the meaner and less considerable office which is that of the Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office and this was the Argument used by the Assembly Mr. Pool pag. 123. Answ Our Argument will stand upon this foot he can get nothing by this for the Canon will serve us what he saith of Ordination we may say of Election If the peoples Election was required to the meaner and lesse considerable office which is that of Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and mighter office 3. The third Text is Act. 14. ver 23. To his exceptions we answer 1. That the usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to chuse by suffrages and without special reason we must not recede from that and many reasons we gave against its denoting a chusing or ordaining onely by Paul and Barnabas 2. The word being applyed to God Act. 10. 44. it must needs be taken figuratively and as there it doth not denote chusing by suffrages so neither can it be taken for Imposition of hands for God hath no hands to lay on 3. The word is but once more used that we know of in Scripture and then it s applied to the Church so that according to the Scripture use of it the advantage is on our part 2 Cor. 8. 19. He thinketh the people did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Object 1. They are said to ordain them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to themselves Mr. Pool pag. 125. Ans He confesseth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore this cannot deny it to be the peoples or Churches Act. Object 2. The same persons are said to ordain in several Cities and Churches and so had an authority over several Churches pag. 25. Answ 1. If the persons were the same yet 1. They did not as the manner of some is ordain in one Church â—or another at Lystra for Antioch but in every Church respectively it was not all upon one day 2. They are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who go before others and are chief in chusing 2. It is not evident that the persons were the same Iâ— a Parliament were to be chosen and the Supream Magistrate should send men into the several Counties to observe the peoples Elections it might be said as it is here and when they had chosen them Parliament men by suffrages in every County c. though those men so sent had no hand in the Elections So if Paul and Barnabas had been onely Spectators and eye-witnesses of the several Churches Elections yet all might have been said
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
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
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
men be under any promise in their preaching Affirm Pr. S. 189. 30. Whether preaching be an act peculiar to Officâ— Neg. Preach Sent. 196. to 199. Vindicat 53. 31. Whether gifted men may require and receive maintenance when they preach Pr. Sent. 214 215. Vind. 61. 183 184. 32. Whether Election of a Minister belongeth to the major part of a Church Aff. Pr. S. 216. to 240. Vindicat. 71 72 185 186 c. 33. Whether an argument from the lesse to the greater affirmatively be valid and in what cases Pr. S. 224. to 228. Vindicat 75. 187. 34. Whether the whole essence of a call to office doth consist in Election Affirm preac S. 241. to 321. Vind. 190. 35. Whether Ordination doth give the essentials of the Ministerial Office Neg. pr. S. 244. c. 36. What is ordination preach Sent. 257. to 266. 37. Whether imposition of hands be so necessary unto ordination that it cannot without sin be omitted preach S. 259. to 262. 38. Whether an Officer may administer the Sacrament to some that are not of his particular Church pre S. 278 279 Vindicat. 101 102 39. Whether baptism admits into or maketh to stand in relation to any Church Neg. pre S. 284 25. Vindicat. 109 110. c. 40. Whether an Excomunicate person be Ejected out of all Churches pr. S. 284. Vind. 104. ib. Whether baptism ceaseth when Church membership ceaseth pag. 292. Vind. of Epist Vindicat. 105 107. 41. Whether blessing be an act peculiar to Office pr. S. 289. 42. Whether a Churches sinful rejection of a Minister doth nullifie his Office pr. S. 296. Vin 115 116. 43. Whether if an officer removeth and becometh an officer to another Church may there be an iteration of ordination pr. S. 297 298. 44. Whether in a Church which hath no Officers in it some believes may ordain without Officers pr. S. 323. c. 45. VVhether the difference between apostolical and pastoral power lyeth in the extent of the relation Aff. Vind. 120 121. 46. Whether Apostles were Apostles before Mat 28 19 20 Aff. Vind 169 170. 47. Whether officers be before Churches pr. 303 304. 48. Whether it were an ordinary or an extraordiry Presbytery that is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. v. 14 pr. S. 327 3 28. Vind. 49. Whether womens state of subjection doth forbid all un-officied men preaching Neg. Vin 177 178. 50 Whether it be the duty of gifted men to preacâ— Aff. pr. S. 36. Whether in some cases they may not warantably or without sin omit preaching or whether gifted men be obliged unto constant preaching if they have other callings pr. S. 159 Vindicat p. 129 130 131. 167. 184. THE TABLE Some Texts of Scripture opened in the preceding treatise noted by Vind. or in the Preacher Sent noted by Pr. S. those places which are largely handleâ— have an Asterick note against them Book Cap. ver Pr S. pag vin p Levit. â—9 17 4â—â— 4â— Â * Numb 8 10 34â— to 346  * Deutr. 1 13 272. 273.  * 1 Sam. 13 9 10. 155.  * 1 Chron. 13 9 10. 155 165 * Jerem. 14 14. 15. 127. 130.   23 13. 21. 128 179   22. 178 180. Malach. 3 16 17. 189  Math. 10 1. 5 6 7. 122. 124.     126   13 54. 57. 13   18 17. 18. 176   25 18 25. 26. 47. 60.  * 25 29 62. to     66. 29.  28 1â— 20. 121. 123.     125. 127.  * Mat. 28 19 20. 166. 167. 169.    188. 200. 170    289. 293.     311  Mark 3 14 124   4 24 25. 64 65.  Luk. 10 1 122  * Iohn 10 4 5. 225 82    237  * Acts. 1 17. 21. 22 23 217 to 220 71 72 c.    267 185  2 41. 288   5 42. 21. 79.   6  15 16 20     30 81.     152 162.     236 268.     270 318.     326 74 c. * 6. v. 2. 3. 5. 221 to 228. 185 186 * 8. 1. 3 4. 72 to 88. 32 137.  10. 41 228.   10. 46 47. 95   11 19 20. 74    21.     22      77 82.     83 84  * 13 1 2 3. 83 195.     251 to 257 192    267 268     299 326  * 14 23 228 to 235 78 187    16 242     243. 274.     275 303.   15 12. 22. 352.    23 50    32 335     109. 179  * 18 24 25 26 28. 56. 66. to 73 30 137  1â— 3 4 5. 69. 70. c. * 20 17 7. 15    28 8 9 11 118 * Roman 10 15 16. 249. 119    21 80 62  12 6 7. 117 to 138 154   8 33  1 Corin 1 17 50 89     202 203   7 20. 24 253  * 12 7 53    13 48 65    21 22. 286    28 47     294   13  93 94.    8 9 10. 113  * 14 many verses 88 to 116 36 144. 2 Corin. 8 18 19.     23 336  Galat. 1 11 12. 181  Ephes 1 16 17 18 105   4 11. 6 9. 17.    12 93. 295.  Philip 3 15 105.  Colloss 3 16 44. 45.   4 17 205  1 Thess 5 12 46. 205  * 1 Tim. 2      12 175 174.  3 1 2. 9 15 16.    4 5. 20 32.     222 311  * 4 14 234 275     3â—3 to 3â—5   5 18 114    22 194  2 Tim. 2 2 209 to 213 59. 2 Tim. 1 6 3â—3 314.     327  * Titus 1 5. 194 309     329 353     355  Hebr. 3 13 44  * Hebr. 5 4 5. 138. to 141 161  7 12 52 135  10  174 173  13 25. 54 136   7. 17. 17 205     247. 249.  * 1 Pet. 4 10 11. 32 to 62 23 c. 126 c.  5 1 3. 61  2 Pet. 1 19 20 110    21. 30. 111  1 Iohn 3 16. 51.  ERRATA In printing the book called the Preacher Sent beside those which were printed with it In the Epistle Page 2 Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 13. line 19. for not Read now In the Book Pag. line  4 18. 19. Read they say 14 4 dele of their 18 24 r. Acts 13 v. 16. 21 1 r. 〈◊〉 24 1 r. Preaching 46 33 r. 2 59 5 add and 66 8 r. Argument 4. 79 13 dele Jus Divin 83 6 r. christians though no officers 83 7 dele though no officers 101 9 r. foretelling future-events 101 33 r. Impostors or Seducers 103 15 r. Object 1. 129 20 r. undenyably 135 4 r. no mention 136 11 r. but that 137 33 dele Acts 8. 14. pag. line  142 5 add Jus Divin 72 73. 143 17 r. break their trusty 145 35 r. make 152 30 r. his own 155 19 r. before designation 155 29 r. did performe 160 22 r. an Officer 166 33 dele that 173 9 r. was preached to 203 1 r. himselfe asserteth 203 17 r. ingenuously  24 r. or the distinctive 217 15 r. limit it unto  29 r. needless 220 9 r. it was 230 36 dele that 239 32 r. was a stone 247 15 r. such a power 249 11 r. to prove 251 22 r. was not of the Essence of but 273 21 r. Church officers  29 r. It is 284 11 r. not nullifie 299 24 r. oblige 300 22 r. object 301 14 r. Answer 310 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 315 5 r. Presbyter  31 r. fift Page line  316 24 r. relatives 317 10 r. Solemnities 323 31 dele upon 325 36 r. Text in which 334 14 dele are 338 3 dele that 343 16 r. immediately 345 32 r. fully evidence 346 13 r. in the Tent 353 16 r. visit the 354 32 dele or else and r. and it must Add Jus Divin Minist and its page in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent. Jus Div. min. pa. Preach S. page line  111 78 2 Add Vind. Min. Evang. by Dr. Collings its pag. in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent. 111 79 18 111 80 33 69 131 35 77 133 4 70 133 26 73 74 144 24 74 75 147 6 Jus Div. Min. pa. preach S. pag. lin Dr. Coll. Vin. pa. preach S. pag. line 81 154 26 49 64 2. 28. 82 156 23 60 71 28    60 73 7 83 157 31 60 81 3 85 159 21 50 107 12. 30. 85 160 6 51 110 27 86 162 29 51 11â— 12. 22. 88 173 29 44 135 15 89 174 8    89 175 7      36    FINIS
answer offered to them whereby it would come to passe that the cause would appear more weak when it wanteth no strength to support it And as there is liberty of spirit or vanity bewrayed even in the Drs. Title page so we meet with insulting language here and there in both their books all which considered we desire thou wouldst not think their books unanswerable if they reply to us and we do not answer agaâ—n 5. If thâ—â— requirest after that man of God Mr. Iohn Martin whose name is in the title page of our former book but not in this know beâ—â— gone to God and by a passage through the gâ—tâ—s of death hath obtained rest from all his labours who owned this cause in which he was ingaged with us to the last and witnessed his approbation and to use his owne expression when in his last sicknesse free concurrence with us in so much of his book as was prepared and came under his eve 6. That whereas Mr Charke of Waldron in Sussex in the latter end of his book hath pretended to answer six arguments which are found in the latter end of our book the reason why we gave him no reply is partly because of his book we apprehend him to be of such a spirit that an answer would only exasperate his corruption partly because his replyes are very weak and need no answer nor are worth the answering This is all at present onely That the Lord who gives the light without may annoint their eyes with eye-salve and make thee see is the prayer of Thine to serve thee in the work of the Gospel Frederick Woodal Sam. Petto Mon. 1. day 27. 1659. A vindication of the Epistle THe vindication of our Epistle to the former book intituled the Preacher Sent Wherein the nature of a Church capable of Officers and of being preached unto by such Office-wise is cleared from the exceptions of Dr. Collings in his reply and of Mr. Hudson in his addition or postscrip to his vindication of the Church Catholick visible As we saw it needful to assert in our other book our perswasion of the nature of a Gospel Church for the better clearing the nature of office and of power of preaching Office-wise therein So the Dr. saw it incumbant unto him to overturne if possible that foundation which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this controversie an account whereof was given by us in these words A-Church formed unto fellowship in new Testament Ordinances and is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the meanes of worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God and edification of their own souls and the good of others 1. This description he examineth in the six particulars thereof That it is a company he grants and that one cannot properly be called a Church we accept of this but if he thinketh by a figure one may be called so as his assertion qualified with a strictly and properly seemeth to imitate we doubt his figurative will be found not a Scriptural but anti-scriptural sense no better then that wherein a Prelate a Pope claimeth the denomination not as properly but vertuaâ—â— so against whose usurpations himselfe stands justly engaged as well may one man be called a City as one man a Church which cannot be in any sense 2 A particular company Dr. C. I cannot fathom your notion of particular c. Answ That notion is not singular a man cannot travel far in this controversie scarce in any author but he meets it and comes acquainted with it It is indeed opposed to universal 1. If a universal company of Saints holding forth the word of Life in a conversation becomming the Gospel may be called a universal visible Church 2. If all the members of particular Churches are or ought to be members of this universal yet the particular Churches themselves as such are not members That forme which giveth them their being as such implyeth another union and is attended with other Lambs and orders then the vniversall is ingaged in or obliged unto as shall more fully appear in its due place 3. As therefore a flock of sheep a swarme of bees being part of that company of sheep of Bees which is in the World may be called a particular company of sheep bees c. though as a flock Swarme they be no parts but otherwise distinguished and so a Church of Saints part of that company of Saints which is in the World may be called a particular company and stand related to the universal but as Saints not as Churches of Saints as we expressed our selves before under this head But the controversie is not onely about a word he now disputes for the term universal to have been put in the place of particular Dr. C. an universal theam in Logick is that which is apt to be predicated of many Church is such a Theam Answ We wonder that a man of learning should run into such a contradiction to Mr. H. unto whom we are sent for further light iâ— this controversie and also to himselfe within the verge of the same Paragraph 1. He contradicts Mr. H. who expresly denies that the Church Catholick is a Genus or universal notion and Theame apt to be predicated concerning many in the 4th Chapter of a vindication of the essence and unity of the Church Catholick visible 2. He contradicts himselfe when in the next leaf he affirms that the Church Catholick is Totum integrale which we are sure is not apt to be predicated of many naturally if the whole were predicated of the part The part might be said Vind. Sheibl Topic. Cap. 28. Sthal Axion Tit. 9. Reg. 9. to be the whole The head the body the branch the tree because Animal is predicated of Homo Homo is aptly said to be Animal But because he sends us to Mr. Hudson to Mr. H. we will go and willingly as to a man that understands himselfe whose moderation conjoyned with learning and diligence in this controversie though professedly against us we highly respect and value 1. He urgeth Scriptures where the word Church is used not applicable to a particular Church Acts 8. 3. c. 2. He useth arguments to prove that every Officer is an Officer to a universal because by baptism he admits into it and by Excomunication casts out of it not into or out of a particular onely Answ The term Church in the singular number is frequently used in Scripture to signifie not a universall Church nor a singular onely as in some of his Scriptures but this and that and the other particular as amongst many other in the Scriptures hereafter mentioned Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church i. e. this or that Church in which the offence was committed Surely none will say that after taking one or two the offended brother must in the next place tell it to the universal Church where doth any such Church meet for