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
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
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
question it must have been Ergo Office is a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as its Correlate Arg. 2. The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is termniated Vin Revi But the office of the Ministry is terminated pag. 12. in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate Answ 1. An illogicall argument◠in the major the subject of the relation is remembred in the Minor it is forgotten and the relation it self put in the place thereof If it were in form it must run thus The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the subject of office relation is terminated in the worke Ergo work is the Correlate Answ 2. If his major be understood universally viz. That the correlate to any relation is any thing wherein the subject is any way terminated we may fairely deny this without denying all Logick If it be taken particularly it is not conclusive against us we grant that the Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is so terminated as the essence or being of the relation is introduced by its termination as a Father is so terminated in a Son or Child that he hath his being as a Father in having a Son or Child and therefore a Son or child is Correlate so in other such relations But the Correlate to any relation is not that wherein the subject is terminated as the end of the relation for the ends cannot be attained until the relation it self hath an actuall existence and exist it cannot without a Correlate As the relation of a Father is terminated in the worke of a Father as its end yet there must be a Son or child in being before the doing of that work and the same may be said of other relations as Master and servant Husband and wife c. and thus the work of the Ministry being the end of that relation there must be a Correlate in being before that worke can be performed and so work cannot be the Correlate If this will hold good in relations secundum esse that is enough in this matter to evidence his argument to be false for that runneth generally the Correlate to any relation c. and besides it doth not yet appear that officers are relations secundum dici 2. As to his Minor we say The office of the Ministry is not terminated in the work considered absolutely but respectively as the office of the Mayor of Norwich is not terminated in the work of a Mayor or Magistracy absolutely and so for Justices of the peace or other civil officers if they go out of the city Corporation or county whereunto they are limited they cannot act as officers and therefore their office is terminated in their work in such a place or amongst such a people And thus the office of the Ministry is terminated not in the work in general but with respect and reference unto such a people or such a Church Relata sunt aliorum Dr. Collings proceedeth in a reply to our four arguments which shews that worke cannot be the Correlate to the Office In answer to the two first he saith Ob. 1. Officers are Relata secundum dici not Relata secundum esse nominal relations not those that Logicians call real relations Vind. Revind pag. 14. 15. 16. Answ We suppose Dr. Collings is the first that hath ranked officers who are to be over others amongst those that are Relata secundum dici we have not met with any Logicians that have done in before him the Rules upon which our arguments are built are known by all that are acquainted with Logick to be true in such as are Relata secundum esse Answ 2. Against its being a Nominall Relation we shall offer an argument or two Arg. 1. If the office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation then it is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse or a real relation But the Office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation Ergo The office of the Ministry is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse The major none that is acquainted with Logick can deny The Minor appeareth because there is no other predicament that it is reducible to let him shew to which if it may be referred We yet adhere to Aristotle in this and Seton who giving an instance of predicamental relation giveth it in the office of Magistracy we suppose the office of the Ministry is in the same predicament with that Arg. 2. If officers qua officers have their whole being in respect and reference unto others then office is a Relation secundum esse but officers qua officers have their whole being in respect reference unto others Ergo office is a relation secundum esse The major he cannot deny The Minor he excepteth against Ob. But the Essence of office lyeth not in its relation but in that authority wherewith the person is cloathed by his ordination Vind. Revind pag. 14. Answ 1. Authority hath no Causal influence into office but floweth from it and followeth after it therefore the essence of Office doth not consist in it The London Ministers say Church Officers are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first recepticle or subject of Church authority Jus. Divin Regim pag. 163. If so then officers are before authority at least prioritate nature and then authority is but an adjunct which though a necessary concequent yet is no constituent consider Master and Scholers a Tutor pupils c. Ans 2 If this were true then it were possible for a relation to hold though every thing in the world should cease which it should stand referred to There might be a relation and yet nothing be related to or else ordination in such a case must be lost It is not proved that a person can stand cloathed with the authority of the Ministerial relation if there be no Church that he standeth related to Ob. 2. Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines Vind. Revind pag. 14. Ans Zabarel whom he mentionethis against him who saith Non est relatio nisi interea que sunt actu non est enim pater nisi qui actu filium habeat quo fit ut semper necessarium sit uno relativorum existente alterum quoque existere Zab. de fac an cap. 3. Consider Job to day he hath children he is a Father consider him to morrow he hath no children he is no Father when he hath none it is possible he may afterward shall we say therefore he is potentially or habitually a father His dividing an officer into actual and potential is as the dividing Ens into Ens non Ens. His instance about the Mayor of Norwich is
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.
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
15. and 2 Tim. 4. 2. And because a necessity is laid upon officers and woe is unto them if they preach not the Gospel in season and out of season because officers are to give themselves wholly to these things and not to leave the word of God to serve tables for any to say Ergo All preachers are under such obligations who seeth not the weakenesse of this argument If Paul or other Church-officers were not free from a necessity of preaching by being where they were not desired to preach or if they ought to do it were there but any that would hear them as he intimateth pag. 48 49. yet there may be other preachers not to obliged they having no flock or Church committed to their charge as officers have who may command their Church to hear but if a man hath no particular Church from whom can he command audience 3. There are cases wherein officers may allowably not preach and yet not sin though preaching be their duty and in such and we suppose in other cases also gifted men sin not in not preaching as for instance a Pastor going a long journy upon lawfull occasions may on diverse Lords dayes cease from preaching if he be in such places where Churches are supplyed with officers of their own denying their consent to his exercising among them without whose consent he cannot lawfully preach there Mr. Pool himselfe being judge pag. 6. Here no sin ariseth upon his not preaching or their not hearing This manifesteth that they who are by divine precept to preach may and must preach all due circumstances concurring not otherwise and therefore his Major pag. 47. is not universally true Nor his major pag. 49. for preaching is a duty which such a Pastor may lawfully do yet in such cases he is not bound to do it The like we may say for gifted men the Prophets 1 Corin. 14. were under an obligation by divine precept to Prophesie yet not onely upon the peoples refusing to heal but upon divers other accounts are commanded silence as 1. First in the want of an interpreter 1 Corin. 14. ver 28. 2. For giving away to others Prophesying 1. Cor. 14. ve 29. let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judge so ve 30. 31. There being many prophets in this Church and but two or three of them being permitted to speak at one time or in one day of meeting hence those Prophets and so gifted men in our dayes may without sin frequently or commonly forbear preaching Prophesying was their duty yet they were not constantly or in every meeting bound to do it and so Mr Pools argument pag. 47. 49. cannot be true And gifted men not preaching constantly may in many cases be warranted as well upon other accounts as the giving way to or not hindring of others exercising the same gifts His second and third difficulties pa. 49. that then women must preach and he that hath a gift to be a general Magistrate c. may undertake those places have been so fully answered that we wonder he is not ashamed to mention them any more Ob. 4. Every one is to exercise his gift but in his own Sphear publike persons publikely private persons privately and so did Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. c. Mr. Pool pag. 50. Ans 1. The act of Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. doth not in the least prove that such as have publick gifts go out of their Sphear if they without undertaking office exercise them publickly Church-Officers may give private advertisements and yet it doth not follow that they may not act publikely If Mr. Pool by hearing one eminently gifted should perceive him to be un-instructed in the way of the Lord and should instruct him in private would this be any proof that Mr. Pool should act out of his sphear if he preached in publick He saith pag. 50 it is not in the least intimated that they were not gifted to speak in publick Ans Nor is it intimated that they had publick gifts the excellency of them doth not prove it The weaknesse of this objection we have fully evidenced Preach Sent. pag. 41 42 43. 2. That Text 1 Peter 4. 10 11. commandeth everyman that hath the publick gift of Scripture-interpretation to exercise it and so determinethâ— it to belong to their place and calling to preach and proveth that they act not out of their Sphear in preaching and that publickly This we cleared in our former book by six particulars Mr. Pool granteth that they may do the work of preaching open and apply Scriptures exhort rebuke but not publickly pag. 51. So that the Reader may observe that a gifted man may lawfully preach many Sermons privately it is his publick preaching onely which Mr. Pool opposeth we prove that they mâ—y preach publickly first because a publick gift cannot be fully improved if it be not used publickly this we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 47 48. Mr. Pool replyeth not to the proofs of it but saith pag. 51. let them not inter-lope betwixt two callings and enquireth whether we will say that the Rule is true in general if so he would infer that women giâ—ted to teach and men gifted to Rule judge lead an Army c. ought publickly to exercise such gifts c. Answ The Rule is true in this particular case for this gift is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. and a general command annexed to exercise it But we say the Rule is true in all other cases unlesse where some particular exceptions do limit that geneneral Rule or where a gift cannot be exercised without assuming an office women are excepted ruling and judging gifts cannot authoritatively be exercised without assuming office but a preaching gift may as is clear in the case of Probationers Whether they may inter-lope betwixt two callings is an other question nothing to the present purpose Secondly because publicknesse doth not make an act to be an act of Office nor privatenesse hinder it from being so it neither maketh it preaching nor authoritative preaching c. Ob. Though bare publicknesse of speaking maketh it not preaching yet that is a property of authoritative preahing c. 1 Corin. 14. 34. and 1 Tim. 2. 11. 12. conclude beyond contradiction that to preach pubickly is an act of authority and inconsistent with a state of subjection c. Mr. Pool pag. 52 53. Ans 1. His disallowing gifted mens preaching publickly when yet he granteth pag. 53. that private men may speak publickly in divers cases as at Synods c. argueth him to be at he causlesly saith pag. 51 meerly in the defence of a pre-conceived opinion For he granteth publicknesse doth not make authoritative acts in other cases and yet in this particular case asserteth it to be a property of authoritative preaching But we proved before that it may be authoritative preaching though in private and as well it may be in publick and yet not be preaching office-wise 2. Those Texts do not
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-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
three verses after 1 Tim. 2. 15. doth not concern all women but onely those that have husbands 4. That Church authority is intended he asserteth but hath not proved 5. Women may usurp authority though it be not over husbands or in teaching publickly and therefore their argument hence is without proof though the man be not onely her husband but any man As to what he addeth pag. 109. it concerneth not us and is so far from an improvement of our argument to the highest that at the lowest it will be more conclusive but seeing he hath mentioned it we shall say thus much to it It precepts expresse be prohibitions by consequence as Mr. Pool saith they are pag. 98 99. then a pari exceptions expresse are concessions by consequence and so the excepting women in the case of teaching or prophesying 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. will be an allowance to men that have the gift we think one is as strong as the other Ob. 4. A paralel place is 1 Corin. 14. 34. to speak i. e. in the Church is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection and un-officed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women Mr. Pool pa. 110. Answ This we answered twice before He is so confident of the validity of this argument that he often mentioneth it and concludeth it undeniable and dispaireth of ever seeing him convinced by man that resisteth such evidence whereas indeed it is a meer empty sound 1. Because men may be in subjection and yet be in power ordinary Ministers were in subjection to the Apostles yet were in power yea in power to preach Men not in office were in power to judge 1 Corin. 5. 12. to pardon 2 Corin. 2 8. much more to declare the Law in which to proceed to judge and pardon Women are in subjection not in power Women might not preach if they should be ordained by an abuse of power 2. Because it is not every state of subjection that forbiddeth preaching 1 Corin. 14. 34. for then none who are subject to Magistrates and what Ministers are not so or parents may preach and so it is altogether without proof that all un-officed men are in that state of subjection which is there intended 3. Because it is not an Ecclesiastical state of subjection that is is intended 1 Corin. 14. 34. For then all women are not there forbidden preaching but only such as are Church-members because then none else were in the state of subjection that is the reason against womens preaching And because womens subjection in one kind viz. in a civil or natural respect forbiddeth their preaching for Mr. Pool to say by the same reason all unofficed men are forbidden to preach by their being in Subjection in another kind viz. to Church-officers who will not see the vanity of such an argument 4. Because the state of Subjection which the Apostle proveth womens preaching to be unlawfull by 1 Corin. 14. 34. is such as is peculiar to women and no un-officed men ever were in it and therefore it is no reason against any mens preaching no men being in the state of subjection spoken of if he will assert they are let him prove it He that readeth 1 Corin. 11. will find that Sex is compared with Sex man with woman and the woman said to be in subjection in way of distinction from or opposition to the man Because a woman who is one to whom man is a head 1. Corin. 11. 3. who was formed after the man 1 Tim. 2. 13. created for the man 1 Corin. 11. 9. subjected to the man Gen. 3. 16. because a woman the weaker vessel 1 Pet. 3 7. who was deceived and was in transgression 1 Tim. 2 14. because such a one is to keep silence in the Church must not prophesie there to say therefore the man who is the head of the woman may not prophesie or preach this is a lamentable non sequitur Arg. 6. Their sixt Argument is from the Scriptures reproving un-called men for preaching Jerem. 23. 21 22. I sent them not c. To part of our answer unto this he replyeth thus Ob. 1. This is a little too grosse to say they are by God called to be Prophets of whom God professeth they run but he sent them not The prophets had no other call then this or at least this was Gods usual way of calling them be immediately inspired them with an extraordinary message 1 Sam. 3. 20. Mr. Pool p. 111. Answ 1. Sending did not make prophets Samuel had a revelation yet was not sent to Eli to declare it he was forced to draw it out 1 Sam. 3. 17. yet Samuel was a prophet as appeareth v. 20. Jeremiah was sent Jerem. 26. 12. The Lord sent me to prophesie against this house and against this City all the words that ye have heard yet Jeremiah was a Prophet before this sending and not made a Prophet by it So those 2 Cron. 24. 19. were sent after they were Prophets So that the Prophets had a new mission as often as God commanded them to go with any new message to any people and were so often made Prophets if sending were as he supposeth their call Therefore Gods professing that they ran and he sent them not doth not deny them to be Prophets because sending is not the call 2. There is a sending which doth not authorize or give a call to Office as himselfe confesseth p. 83. 87. and let him prove that their not being sent was their not being authorized to be Prophets else the argument is vain 3. Those that were authorized and called by God to be Prophets sometimes went with false dreames or lyes and so ran without being sent yet when they carried a true message they were sent Act. 21. v. 4. So 1 Kings 13â— 11. There was an old Prophet and he Prophesied a lye pretending it to be the word of the Lord ver 18. I am a Prophet also as thou art and an Angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord saying bring him back c. and this was a lye as appeareth v. 17. 22. 23. Yet this old man was a Prophet truly called of God Mr Pool himselfe being judge for he saith Gods inspiring with an extraordinary message was his call to be a Prophet and this the good old man had ver 20 21. as they sat at table And the word of the Lord came unto the Prophet that brought him back c. Now he had a word from God to declare and so was called to be a Prophet yet ver 18. he ran without being sent So that as a false Prophet may carry a truth so a true Prophet may carry a lye We granted Preacher Sent pag. 128. that those Jerem. 23. were false Prophets in respect of their doctrine which they then preached but we still apprehend that they were standing Prophets of Israel and true Prophets in respect of their call and we proved it from v.
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
that Gal. 1. ver 16 17. 2. The Holy Ghost saying seperate me Barnabas and Saul c. was a command to men to ordain and so though the call were immediate yet men were as properly ordainers as they are in these daies Acts 8. ver 29. The spirit said unto Philip go near and joyne thy selfe to this Charet He may as well say that properly it was not Philip but God that did go near and Joyned to the Charet because the spirit said go c. or as Acts 10. 19. he might say it was God that was to arise go down not Peter properly because the spirit said arise c. as he may say That properly God was theordainer of Paul because the holy Ghost said seperate me c. Arg. 3. Our third argument is taken from the nature of Ordination it consists in prayer c. Ob. 1. If the essence of the call did consist in Election and prayer be used before Election how can they pray in faith c. pag 135. Answ Prayer before Election is for the Churches direction into a right choice and so may be in faith though it be uncertain whether the person shall be chosen or not but prayer in ordination is for a blessing upon a man in a work Acts 13. 2 3. and so a knowledge that a man is called to it which presupposeth his having the Essence of a call is necessary unto praying in faith there Ob. 2. In such cases our prayers have ae facit condition that God would blesse him in the work if he shall be set apart for it pag. 135. Answ Prayer in ordination is the very act by which a person is set apart and therefore there can be no such facit condition admitted of here If he shall be set apart implyeth uncertainety whether he shall or no whereas in due Ordination it is alwaies certaine for the setting apart is by prayer Ob. 3. Ordination consists not in fasting nor prayer nor laying on of hands but in the designation of fit persons by officers unto the work signified by imposition of hands and introduced with fasting and prayer p. 135. Ans 1. That there is a separation of an officer to his work in ordination we granted preacher Sent. p. 258. but the Essential act by which that separation is made is prayer himselfe saith pag. 135. imposition of hands is such as ordination is not null without it and he will say as much for fasting and then prayer is the essentiall act or nothing 2. No Scripture doth evidence that the essence of Ordination consisteth in any designation to work which is a constitutive office-making act neither hath prayer or any other thing which belongs to ordination a tendency to produce such an effect as our argument proved He useth one argument to prove that the essence of the call doth not lye in the Election of the people Ob. The people neither are nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry for 1. They have no authority 2. They have not ability to judge of a mans fitness c. Mr. Pool pag. 136. to 141. Answ The people are in a capacity to give the essence of the call 1. The people have as much authority as is necessary to their giving the essence of the call for nothing is required thereunto but a putting themselves into subjection to a person duely qualified it being a voluntary not a natural relation and this is done by election with acception for we proved before that these do set a man over a Church He saith they have no authority because in a state of subjection pag. 139. but he answereth himselfe by his instance pag. 138. For in Democratical governement the people are in subjection civilly unto those very officers to whom they give a call yet have authority to call them are lesser and yet greater then their Officers though women were present Acts 1. yet it followeth not that they did give their suffrage they will allow women to be present at an Ordination when they act not 2. The people have ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry it cannot be denyed that Iohn did write to the people 1 Ioh. 2. ver 12. I writ unto you little children so they are called little children v. 13. 18 28. and 1 Ioh. 3. ver 7. and yet these little children are commanded to try the spirits 1 Ioh. 4. ver 1. Beloved believe not every spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the world This necessarily supposeth them in a capacity to judge whether they were false Prophets or not for it had been in vain to bid them try if they could not draw up a judgement upon the tryal If they be not fit to judge unto a choice they are not fit to judge of the doctrine of him that is chosen and so must take all upon implicit faith and still the same persons are written to ver 4. and both that appellation and also the matter of the Epistle is such as concerneth all believers and so cannot be restrained to Officers Also the people have sometimes judged right when the Rulers have condemned them for it and taken a contrary part undervaluing and contemning their judgement Iohn 7. ver 48. 49. They grant that the peoples election maketh a man their Minister we ask whether they see with their own eyes therein It is evident that many insufficient ones are ordained It is not a careless people we plead for but Bereans and all that are godly that are believers fit to be admitted Church members are fit with the rest of the Church to judge of a Ministers abilities which answereth what he saith p. 141. about its being a necessary qualification in every Church-member If one Church-member could not judge of it yet all together have ability Some arguments against election as giving the essence of the call he seeketh to vindicate Ob. 1. As to Acts 6. the Apostles are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chusing and appointing are distinguished from and opposed to one another and the act of appointing is ascribed to the superiours c. Mr. Pool pag. 142. Answ 1. Chusing and appointing are not there opposed Chusing is unto office appointing is unto work Acts 6. ver 3. whom we may appoint but to what it is not said unto this office but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this businesse And himselfe supposeth pag. 132. that there may be ordination to a work and yet the essence of a call not consist therein its evident that ordination to a work is subsequent to and sodoth not give the essence of a call to office Acts 13. 2. so neither of these places can prove in the least their position 2. It is not clear that we hath reference to the Apostles seorsim as if it were their work only but conjunctim with the