VINDICIAE MINISTERII EVANGELICI REVINDICATAE OR THE PREACHER pretendedly Sent Sent back again TO Bring a better Account Who Sent Him and learn his ERRAND By way of REPLY To a late BOOK in the Defence of Gifted Brethrens Preaching Published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk So far as any thing in their Book pretends to Answer a Book published 1651. CALLED Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici WITH A Reply also to the Epistle prefixed to the said BOOK called The Preacher Sent. By John Collinges B.D. and Pastor of the Church in Stephens Parish in Norwich London Printed by S. G. for Richard Tomlins at the sign of the Sun and Bible neer Pye-Corner 1658. To my Reverend and much Honoured Brethren the Authors of the late Book called The Preacher Sent. Dearly beloved Brethren I Have seriously perused your Epistle directed to those professing the Order of Church Fellowship and Government called Presbyterian of which number I must own my Self to be one though the least of all the Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ who walk in that way together with your Book to which it is prefixed and must profess my self as to several particulars in either of them very much unsatisfied both as to the truth of the Notions you contend for and to the mediums by which you endeavour to establish them putting therefore away all wrath prejudice or bitterness as in the following sheets I have endeavoured to shew you your mistakes as to the matter of your Book so I shall in this Epistle do the like as to what is contained in your Epistle In the mean time professing my self to use your own expression bound for peace as far as the shoes of the Gospel will carry me and longing for that dispensation if it may be expected in this life when all the Lords People shall be blessed with One heart and guided into one way only desiring to divide my zeal equally betwixt truth and peace knowing that God is as much the God of the one as of the other I rejoyce to see my dear and Reverend Brethren sensible of the great abuse of that Liberty for which they plead I know our Brethren have not been such Strangers in Israel but they have seen and observed that most of those spurious notions which in â—hese times of Blasphemy have been found in every Street and with an impudent forehead have called the holy Spirit of God Father and the lovely Virgin Truth mother have been found lying at the door of this Liberty and have really been born in her house That most of those sad Earthquakes which have rent the bowels of the Church and overturned some Churches of God both in Holland and in Old and New England have been caused by the wind of this Liberty which they still endeavour to keep up I know they cannot but have heard the cryes of many poor people in this County who are fed with these husks instead of bread with the chaff of these exercises instead of the more substantial wheat of publick Ordinances And surely if an Argument from the blastings of Providence or the general disrelish of judicious Christians be worth any thing we have as good a plea as against any licentious practice in the worship of God It was said once by a Learned Person in this Nation that if a Book were composed of all the English Sermons preached by men of worth containing the choicest matter contained in them which had been Preached within some few years he believed no Book in the world would be to be compared with it I believe our Brethren judge that if all the Errors Crudities Nonsense impertinencies blasphemies self-contradictions which by vertue of the exercise of this Liberty they plead for have within these fifteen or sixteen years last past been vented in open Pulpits were summed in one Book the Turkish Alcoran would scarce afford such a rapsody of error nonsense blasphemy and impertinency To give our Brethren a taste I have a Letter still by me wrote by a gifted Brother who took upon him to tell me that he heard me such a day and I did not open my Text aright my Text that day was Eph. 2. Aliens to the commonwealth of Israel He told me if I had rightly opened it I must have told my people 1. What the wealth of Israel was 2. How it came to be common 3. How far forth it was common With much more such nonsensical stuff and very teachy he was with me that I had not fallen upon his notions if either this person had understood the Greek or our Translation had Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 polity all the jest had been spoiled which probably he would have made three Sermons upon I should have really thanked our Brethren for acknowledging an abuse of this Liberty if I could have seen 1. That any use of it other than I had granted them were not an abuse of the greatest Ordinance of the Gospel 2. Or if I could have seen that our Brethren could have fixed a rule of regulation it would have done something with me but when you tell us you plead for none but such as are really gifted and then tell us none have to do to judge whether they be so or no it is convenient the Church should but if they Preach without it is no sin To my apprehension yee do but complain of a Flood-gate that stands ope too deep when your selves put in a bar that it may not shut down more close It is true the abuse of a thing plainly necessary by a necessity of precept is no argument to take away the use but where no precept is plain the general miscarriage and accursed consequences of it are a strong topick to prove it is not according to the will of God And I hope our Brethren upon second thoughts will not judge any one Text quoted by them plainly concluding the Case All your Arguments run either from the use of gifts to the use of this gift when as yet you will not allow all gifts to be so exercised nor any judgment to be made of the gift or from examples where there is no parity as you will perceive by the following Discourse You rightly apprehend that the singular notion you have entertained of a Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this and many other unhappy Controversies you are therefore pleased in your Epistle to endeavour to make the light of your notion concerning a Church to reflect upon our faces You tell us That a Church is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual Fellowship in the means of worship appointed by Christ Ep. Dedic for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others This you say is the only Church that is capable of Officers to be immediately set in it and over it That this is a Church
we grant but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny I shall have liberty to enter my dissent in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description First You say it is a company that we grant Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church Secondly You say it is a particular Company and that there never was nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ any other than a particular company I must confess to my dear Brethren that I cannot fathom their notion of particular we use to say particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis An universal theme in Logick is that as our Brethren know which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many I think Church is such a Theme Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant that their Congregations at London Norwich Yarmouth may each of them be called a Church Now the Question is whether all these Churches may not be considered together and called a Church Or if you will Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth may not by an universal notion be called a Church or is not called a Church in Scripture You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company but not an universal Church that is as I suppose you mean a body capable of Officers otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons who are visible Saints should be called a Church Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad p. 40. and seven hundred should not If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches Acts 8.3 Gal. 1.13 Acts 26.11 Acts 9.31 compared together Acts 12.1 Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 All these Texts will prove that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called But you will say This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it Brethren have you read what Mr. Hudson saith to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholick Do they not when they Baptize admit into the Catholick Church Pag. 232 why else are not your Members baptized again when they are translated from the particular Church into which according to this principle alone they were Baptized Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church Or will our Brethren say that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion Were the Apostles think our Brethren Officers only to a particular Church If to the Vniversal then there was an universal Church once existing capable of Officers Nor is that irrefragable Text 1 Cor. 12.28 as our Brethren say prest to the service of the Catholick Church No it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth You say Brethren that what it is written ver 18. of that chapter God hath set the Members every one in the body doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body as God hath set some in the Church proves a Catholick Vniversal Church I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body together with ver 12. and all the members of that one body being many are one body will prove that the body is Totum integrale So also saith the Apostle is Christ i. e. the Church of Christ If our Brethren will but grant us this That the Church is a Totum integrale you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum If you say there is no other Totum called a Church but only the particular Church I have proved the contrary that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church If you say this Church hath no Officers that Text 1 Cor. 12.28 confutes you neither will your consequence follow that because an universal body is not proved from ver 18. therefore an Vniversal Church is not proved from ver 28. viz. from the whole verse If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body but would serve any other particular bodies as he doth of Church Officers ver 28. I hope it would have proved an Vniversal body You tell us Brethren you renounce the name and thing of an Vniversal or Catholick Church you must then renounce the Holy Scripture witness the Texts before mentioned and renounce right reason and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren who generally acknowledge both the name and thing only deny it to be Organical But you think you have five Arguments will prove that a particular Church cannot be a part but a Totum 1. You say first every part is in power incompleat But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church And may act in all Church work not as a part but as a whole I must deny your Minor Brethren I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod and to consult at least a piece of Church work to which Gods word gives a power Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod We say the like for Ordination except in cases of absolute necessity and for excommunication where the Church is very small there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited 2. You tell us next that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is you know not This is Brethren such a fallacy as scarce deserveth an answer the body of a man is a whole all his members are parts now when you have found out where that body is which is really distinct from all the members and wherefore it is you will have answered your selves The Nation of England is a whole every Parish is a part finde us where that Nation is which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together We use to make this a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis unitis That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united 3. In the next place you tell us there can be no visible universal Church because
there is no universal visible meeting and that the Greek word translated Church in all Civil and Sacred usage signifies a meeting in fieri or facto esse But you began to think that the invisible Church are never like to have such a meeting and therefore to salve it you heal this wound in your Argument in my opinion very slightly when you say it doth meet invisibly in Spirit If you will but grant us that Brethren that the name of Church in Scripture is given to those that never locally meet but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit you have by an unhappy heel kicked down all that good milk which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it it speaks of the Church of the first-born There is an universal meeting of the Catholick visible Church at the throne of Grace before their great Pastor and in Spirit as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first you have quitted your plea for the visibility to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick visible from any hurt by this Argument 4. You go on Brethren and tell us There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church Ergo there is no such Church If you had expressed the Major Proposition I should have denied it the assertion of a Church Catholick visible though we add Organical doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches which as parts constitute that whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole I am not willing but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren that this is no fair play to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholick Church and to mention only the Antichristian and Prelatical Notion of it Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication p. 129 130 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head and Arch-Bishops Bishops c. for his derivatives But this we say that the whole Church all the particular Churches in the world make but one body of Christ and as it is one una so it is unita united in a Common Profession of the Gospel as there is this union and communion of members so there is a communion of some Officers particularly Ministers who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors by vertue of Office any where and may any where Baptize and Administer the Lords Supper upon occasion and we say our Brethren in practice grant this for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those to whom he is not in Office as his particular Church and this is a Common practice with our Brethren how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches they do but blinde the Common People with a dark notion that signifies nothing What mean they by a Communion of Churches if they do not mean this that by the word of God one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another If they have so there must be a Communion of Offices as well as Gifts for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office If that it be not the will of God in his Word that the Officer of one Church should do an act of Office in another Church or to a Member of another Church it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches If this be his will it is as much as we ask for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church and the members of it but also to any particular Churches in the world or to any of their Members We ask no more This is the Catholick Organical Church we plead for Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol and pretend to abhor it in the notion they do not in practice bow down to it and commit Sacrilege 5. You tell us in the last place Brethren That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine and hear offences Mat. 18.17 But that is a particular Church Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae and you have taken as good care as you could to strengthen it by saying it cannot be meant of both and to exclude the Congregational Church is unscriptural irrational absurd But I must crave leave to tell you 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question for it is not whether be greater the Church Catholik or the Church particular but whether there be any Church Catholick or no greater or less Object But you will say if there be any it must be greater Answ Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality If in respect of quantity number c. the Major is apparently false If in respect of quality as you seem to hint by the term having power then your Argument is this There is no Church hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches But the particular Church hath that power Mat. 18.17 Ergo. I will give you Brethren such another Argument judge you whether it be good or no and if it be not you must prove your own better There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences Ergo that is as great a Court as the Court of Common Pleas. You must therefore put in finally determine and all offences in any part of the Church or else your Major is false when you have mended that we will deny your Minor and tell you that admit that Text Mat. 18.17 should be meant of a particular Church yet it proves no such power either finally to determine or all offences as well those betwixt Church and Church as those betwixt party and party or party and Church Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text according to the nature of the offence nor do I think your saying that to exclude the Congregational Church viz. some Congregational Churches is unscriptural irrational absurd amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case I think it is far more rational and far
less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren
that a Church must be an united company if you had told us in what sense you understand united we could better have told you our minds at least I could have better told you mine concerning it People may be united by cohabitation by common profession by mutual consent this you seem to understand this again may be either explicitly by Covenant or implicitly by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell this being premised Brethren I conceive 1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company either as to an union of judgement or practice the rout Acts 19. called by this name were not 2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ called by this name in Scripture were united but neither by cohabitation nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this 3. There is no need that every particular Church if not organized and under the exercise of Discipline should be united by consent as to practice in the same numerical Administrations every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent you often read of the Church in a particular house Col. 4.15 Rom. 16.5 Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved 4. Indeed it seems reasonable that a particular Church organized and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administred should be a company united by consent for my own part I can allow you this though I know some of my Brethren will not 5. That this Vnion must needs be by an explicite Covenant or consent is neither to be proved by one Text nor yet by one sound reason and to impose this as necessary is a meer humane invention and not to be indured because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it But lastly we heartily wish that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such as seeing no command of God for it shall not think fit to submit to it Thus far I can yield our Brethren that a particular Church is an united Company And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches not as some would ridiculously fasten upon us because they live within such local limits but because they are societies of baptized persons who by a tacit and implicit consent have united themselves waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship And this Vnion holding we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches although as the Church of Corinth corrupted in some of their members and therefore not to be separated from nor disowned as no Churches but to be purged and the old leaven put out that they may be a new lump 5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ and this for the glory of God c. I freely grant nay it may be I will grant more viz. that they must be a people who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren if I tell them I have almost made my head ake with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle save one and do what I can I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse or is brought in upon any easier terms then they say The Fellow brought in Hercules viz. by head and shoulders for undoubtedly if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason it would never have come there The passage is this But we shall say no more of this Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this The Scripture doth hold forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government May be they would have said must be had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it I must profess my self dear Brethren to be so ignorant that I can neither understand the sense of this passage either copulatively or disjunctively will you give me leave to sift it a little possibly though it all looks like chaff some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it But we shall say no more of this you say Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth Of this of what You had before been speaking of the Papists making their Decrees and humane inventions equal with the ten Commandments and told us you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased and that Christ hath ceased from his work c. Now you tell us you shall say no more of this your Brethren viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven what 's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with Gods word Do any of us make them so Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books Doth the same truth relate only to what follows that we are not all of a minde as to the Divine Right of Church-Government what needed our Brethren have added this in this place or what is the meaning of those words But we shall say no more of this and then adding the other as a reason But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven They are fouly to blame then for I should think Popery as to Government better than Presbyterie if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven But it is yet more wonderfull Brethren which you tell us that the Assembly did not so believe yea expressed as much for they only say Many particular Congregations may be united and you note they would have said must be if they had so judged Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be but they have also in the same place proved that it was so both in the Church of Jerusalem and also in the
Church of Ephesus If they only say it may be but prove it must be I hope it is enough our Reverend Brethren loved to use soft words and hard Arguments But indeed they could not well say it must be for there might be but one particular Church in a Nation and then it was not necessary but surely our Brethren would not have said it may be if they had thought there was no particular or general ground for it in Gods word and surely what hath such a foundation in Gods word is jure Divino not withstanding our Brethrens critical observation Our Brethren of the Assembly do not say it may be the sense of the Texts they quote to prove it yet you Brethren must remember you tell us so for some if not all of your Texts for Election where all you pretend to is our sense may be the sense yet I hope you will say that Election is jure Divino Our Brethren know that they have pretended a Jus Divinum too for gifted mens preaching and yet for fear of their asking maintenance and to avoid our Argument from thence tell us they may preach occasionally but will not say They must preach constantly In the last place Brethren you fear we may be provoked against you and therefore you favour us with your Reasons for engaging in this service and excuse for coming into it so late A pit you say hath been digged and a long time stood open and divers have fallen into it and you come out in charity to cover it Whether you have indeed covered or uncovered a Pit Let every judicious Christian judge yea let the experiences of all the Churches of Christ testifie I beseech my dear and reverend Brethren to lay their hands upon their hearts and consider whether they have not uncovered that pit into which some years since many supposed Brethren in New England falling sank and rose up no more to a visible repentance for their Errors and Blasphemies That pit into which many Members of our Brethrens Churches in Holland fell that sadly too That pit into which many Members of their late Churches in England yea in Norfolk fell and are come out Quakers pleaders for the Jewish Sabbath for the power of Miracles as not ceased conferring as they pretend the Holy Ghost c. That pit which the most learned judicious godly-wise Brethren Pastors of our Brethrens Churches in England will not indure to stand open where they have to do which the reverend Pastors of the Chuâ—ches in New England dare not let stand open without a Teaching Elder present to watch it This pit our Brethren have endeavoured again to uncover and I hope it will appear as vain an attempt as his who would needs rebuild Jericho as to the issue of the work though not as to the punishment of the persons whom I desire to love honor for their work sake though not for this works sake I could have heartily wished my Brethren had left this Idol to plead for it self and I dare say they might have done it without offending one humble serious judicious Christian at least who is known to me I most humbly beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to hear the cryes of many sober judicious persons lamenting the sad condition of the Parishes wherein they live which instead of able and godly Ministers are served with none but such as mend their trading on the week day by assuming this unbridled liberty on the Sabbath who are both obtruded upon them and unable to speak the word of God as they ought to speak so that they are forced in these days of Reformation too to go from Parish to Parish to seek one who can speak to them in the name of the Lord or to whose preaching they can go in faith and attend upon it as a publike Ordinance Doth not this Liberty dead the hearts of sober men as to acting in any Reformation by casting out scandalous ignorant and insufficient Ministers While they see little more good from it then casting out one ignorant insufficient man to make way for some others or the casting out one that would prophesie of wine and strong drink to make way for others who shall prophesie the vain imaginations of their own hearts or the errors of Millenaries Anti-Ministerial persons and high flown Anabaptists and who would not judge that if people must be under this sad destiny to have a snare for their souls stand in their Pulpits it had better be one that every one knows and would avoid than one that is covered over with the hypocrisie of a little hay or stubble and is no less dangerous and more hard to be discovered by vulgar eyes Dear Brethren I beg your pardon if in this case the zeal of my God his House People Truths glory hath eaten me up in this Cause in which I think all of them are so deeply concerned and sad experience hath proved it As to your excuse for coming so late into this Dis-service to the Church and Truth of God I have no reason to be troubled at it as thinking you have at last come too soon And I am apt to believe the Rebukes of your own Conscience might retard your expedition I have endeavoured to follow you with more speed observing it a piece of Wisdom of the GOD of Nature to plant the Antidote within view of the Poison I can truly say that while you have a just Answer of your Book so far as I am concerned in it I have the Answer of a good Conscience having spoken nothing on this Subject but what I believe to be the Truth of GOD. Nor have I willingly shewed any passion So praying that those honest Hearts of which I perswade my self you are all possessed may hereafter be found enditing a better matter I commend you to the LORD and to the blessing of his Grace Being BRETHREN Your Servant for the Lord Jesus Christs sake John Collinges Chaplyfield-House in Norwich Febr. 12. 1657. To every Christian Reader Reader THere are three or four great Truths of God the Tutelage of which from their enemies at least in these parts I have formerly undertaken 1. The Divine Ordinance of Gospel Preaching in the administration of which all who thought themselves gifted men pleaded a right of intercommonage with those who according to Gospel-Rules are separated to that work 2. The liberty of Christians from the observation of Holy Days 3. The pure administration of the holy Sacrament of the Supper and 4. The Divine Right of Church-Government in the hands of Christs proper Officers My discourse concerning the first I have already once vindicated what I said upon the second to my knowledge none hath yet answered as to the two last there hath been something published to the world under pretence of answer John Timson and Mr. Humfry have pretended something by way of answer to the third and Theoph. Brabourne to the fourth And now three Reverend Brethren have
undertaken me the second time in the defence of the Preaching of gifted mens Preaching I shall only give thee a true account why I have said nothing to the three other Answerers nor have any thoughts to do it As for John Timson had he fallen upon me but with his Cart-whip I think I should have turnd again but falling so fouly upon me with his plow-staff upon a maxime I have learned from some Gentlemen that a Rapier is no weapon fit to engage a Carter upon the Road I thought it prudence to runaway Besides that perceiving he had got the Art to answer himself by more then one manifest contradiction I thought it pity any one else should be put to the trouble especially considering that after I had drawn seven or eight sheets of an Answer my Stationer assured me he had not sold above one of his Books and it was pity by an Answer to commend his Book to the worlds Enquiry Mr. Humfry indeed discovers a reverend opinion of his Book I suppose for the Notion he in the main drives not for his way of handling of it which I think scarce deserves such a character As for Mr. Humfry I perceived him sailing in his last Book at a lower rate and I was loth by an answer to serve him with a wind which might have tempted him to have spread his sails to their former wideness I remember the ill influence learned Spanhemius his Answer to Amiraldus had upon him to this purpose Besides that I saw I must have differed with him in more momentous matter then that of the Sacrament if I had given him a strist answer and I was not willing to raise more dust of Controversie then is already raised in the world As for Theoph. Brabourne as I could finde nothing in his Book besides error and non-sense so I perceive the world had no better opinion of it the Stationer returning him his Printed Copies for New-years-gifts for his Friends because he could sell none of them or but exceeding few and though I have often met the Books at my Friends Houses where he had given them yet that I know of I never found any of them made fit to read or otherwise used than to kindle Tobacco Besides that immediatly after his publication of that Rapsody of impertinence I saw some Papers he had scattered up and down this City to prove there were three distinct Gods and to the will of which of them he had calculated his Book I could not tell The GOD whom I serve is but one he that can blaspheme the Living GOD may be excused for that crime towards his Truths and Servants and deserves not to be mentioned in a Christians mouth As for this last Book called The Preacher Sent I finde it written by grave and sober persons with a good shew of Argument indeed as much as their Cause would bear I think and dictated by a sober composed and gentle Spirit and the concernment of the Book to be of exceeding Moment especially in relation to this County which I believe hath more of that sort of Preachers then any three Counties in England have I have therefore thought it worth the while to examine their Book so far as I am concerned in it with what success Reader thou must be Judge and the Lord guide thee in Judgement both as to this and every truth So prays Thy Faithfull Servant in the Lord Jesus J. C. The Printer to the Reader READER I Would desire thee by reason of the Authors dwelling so far off that he could not Correct his Book himself that thou wouldst mend with thy Pen the Errors of the Press Farewell CHAP. I. Containing an answer to the three first Chapters of our Brethrens Book Concerning Preaching without Ordination In which the terms Minister Ministry and Office are considered and explaned and three Questions discussed 1. Whether gifted men not ordained can be called Ministers and in what sense 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the work or no. 3. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the Universal Church The Negative part of the first The Affirmative part of the two latter is defended And whatsoever our Brethren have offered on the contrary is fully answered and proved fallacies their description of Office proved faulty c. 1. THat two of the Books lately Published against the Preaching of persons meerly gifted and for Ordination as that which gives the call unto the work of the Ministry should as our Brethren say contain the substance of all the rest is no great wonder considering that I trust they were all wrote by the same Spirit and for the most part made use of the same Scripture for the Sedes of their Arguments But that our Brethren should take my Vindiciae ministerii Evangelioi to be one of them either speaks their too much respect for me or their policy to magnifie that Enemy whom they conceive they have conquered 2. For my Pamphlet it was written seven years since commanded almost to the Press by an holy and eminent servant of God now with God Mr. Jeremy Whitaker who was with me when I was writing and arguing the need or expedience of such a Pamphlet he told me he was of Augustine's mind who would have every body write against Pelagius It was occasioned at first by the troublesomness of a gifted man as himself judged in communion with me who had a great ambition to be expounding Scripture and in a teach because we would not allow it afterwards left us and joynd himself with a Congregational Church who had no better opinion of his gifts than we had before restrained his lust in that ambition too and in a like teach he left them and turned Quaker For the satisfaction of those Christians in communion with me upon the trouble given us by this person I first at private meetings of Christians in communion with me discoursed the things in my Book afterwards Printed them It pleased God so far to bless my indeavours that since that time none of those committed to my charge have presumed to attempt any such practice and it hath pleased God so far to give my Printed Book success that I think it hath been twice Printed and several persons some of quality have returned me thanks for my poor labours in it And our Brethren having singled me out for a combatant once more in this quarrel I shall indeavour to discharge the duty they have imposed upon me and to do it with the same moderation and spirit of meekness which they profess and for ought I observe yet have practised 3. Our Brethren in the first Chapter do two things 1. They Open the term Ministry 2. The term Office 3. They raise two Questions 1. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the work or to the Church If our Brethren would have been content that it should have been in its relation divided we should
not have opposed it But affirming it is no relate to the work but only to the Church I must profess my self dissatisfied 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the Church Vniversal or only to the particular Church Our Brethren say Only to the particular Church If our Brethren would have been content with a division again that the Minister should be related to both we should have granted it or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholick Church as had constant standing Catholick Officers we know no such Church and should not have disputed de or pro non ente But as they state it I must profess my self also in this of another mind viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church And therefore to triall we must go In the opening of the term Ministry Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly domination Mat. 20.25 26 27. that those who do acts of ministration are Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words used in Scripture to express Ministers and Ministry are applied in Scripture to others beside Ministers in Office that their constant performing acts of ministration entituleth them to the denomination of Ministers and their work should be called Preaching as we usually call them Bruers or Bakers who brew or bake constantly and therefore Christians should so call them This is the sum of what they have p. 2. 3. To all which I shall crave leave to answer For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distinction which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will bite him 1. That the terms Minister Ministry and Office are of various interpretations both in civil and sacred usage is unquestionable These terms therefore falling into the questions the explication and limitation of them to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary An accurate discourse of a question requires that no signification of the terms in it be omitted in the Explication In plenâ tractatione vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda say Logicians 2. For the first term therefore Minister that it is a Latine word none can doubt nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master so called either because he is to his Master a manibus an hand servant quasi manister as Perottus will have it or because he is less than his Master quia minor in statione which is Isiodore's notion and preferred by learned Martinius In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and prophane Authors Infimi homines ministros se praebent saith Tully l. 1. de Orat and again lib. de Amicitiâ Libidinis ministri so Ovid illo dicunt Mactata Ministro Corpora 3. The holy Penmen of Scripture either moved from the congruity of the native signification of the word or the notion of it accrewing by general usage have sometimes used it to signifie one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ in the great work of Preaching the Gospel at lest our translators interpreting what they wrote in another language have done so The original words which they have so interpreted are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are of as various signification and two of them at least as variously applied by those holy Penmen as the word Minister is by other Authours The first word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who roweth in a Boat or Ship under another and thence any one who is servant to another is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testament and I think but two of those Texts can be interpreted of Preachers they are Acts 26.16 1 Cor. 24.1 In the first Paul saith God raised him to be a Minister in the latter they are called Ministers of Christ for I cannot believe that the phrase Lu. 1.2 can be interpreted of Preaching Ministers for I think they had no Text before that time but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christs words and actions and so were Servants to the holy Penmen in communicating what they saw and heard to them There are indeed two other Texts which some may mistake into this sense Lu. 4.20 Acts 13.5 In the first it is said Christ clozed up the Book and gave it to the Minister in the latter John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas Those who write about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer belonging to the Temple something I think akin to our Parish Clerks who was wont to bring and carry away the Book of the Law to or from the Priest or Levite or other person that expounded In all other Texts of the New Testament where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Mat. 26.58 Mar. 14.54 it signifieth Civil Officers either domestick as Servants or Politick state Officers such as jailers pursevants or the like in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In its native force it signifies no more than a servant call'd so either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some would have it or which pleaseth Eustathius better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect It is in Scripture applied to Christ Ro. 15.8 and the Apostle using this word saith of him Is he the Minister of sin 2. To Magistrates Rom. 13.4 To ordinary Servants in a Family Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11 Mark 9.35.10.43 Jo. 2.5.9 To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ John 12.26 Phoebe is call'd thus Ro. 16.1 Deacons by Ossice in the Church have their name from this word and it is applied to express those Officers Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8.12 It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel To Paul and Apollo 1 Cor. 3.5 To Tychicus Eph. 6.21 Col. 4.7 To Timothy 1 Thes 3.2 These again are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3.6 Of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.15 Of Christ 2 Cor. 11.33 Of the Church 0.0.0.0 Our Brethren p. 2. tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often applied to Saints no Officers But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1 for that so they may consider that no Preaching Saint in Scripture who was no Officer was ever so called though if he had it had not signified much as to the present question for any one that served but his Masters Table was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our Brethren do only urge the common usage of the word then they do but play with an Equivocal term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies in Scripture The third word used is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most restrained word of the three both in civil and also in sacred writ yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate Rom. 13.6 To the Minister of the Gospel Rom. 15.16 to a publick Person but ministring in a private manner Phil. 2.25 To Angels Heb. 1.7.14 To Christ himself Heb. 8.2 Some note that it is alwayes a title of publick performance but Philip. 2.25 It is otherwise used Yet there are that think that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office and in that ministration to Paul so acted if any credit may be given to civil Authors for the proper usage of this word it signifieth both a publick office and a sacred Service So Suidas and Scapula assure me and the Etymology of the word as much It is true in civil Authors it is sometimes used otherwise but Suidas saith it is abusively I think we may say there is this difference betwixt this word and the other that whereas other words primarily signifie ordinary private civil Service this word ptimarily signifies sacred publick Service and in all holy writ is not applied to a private person Sure I am that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as publick persons in sacred Services 5. But though both Minister in the Latine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Minister in our English tongue are equivocal terms Yet we must cum vulgo loqui speak according to vulgar usage not according to equivocal notions of the word Gifted men cannot in propriety of Speech be called Ministers We will grant to our Brethren that the persons they plead for may be called Ministers if they do but wait at their Masters Table or be but under-Commissioners to the State or the like though they should never Preach according to the signification of the words but as the Church of God hath in all late ages used the term Minister we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be called a Minister we do not deny but that every General of an army may be called Imperator and was so but as the term hath lately been used and is used we deny he can be called an Emperour we do not deny but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer we do not say but our Brethren though not ordained may be such Ministers as you read of Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5 but not such as you read of 1 Cor. 4.1 Acts 26.16 And by vulgar usage such only for a long time have been so called to distinguish persons in office from such as only do acts of Service Civil or Sacted I must confess I must commend people for keeping that term still as distinctive if every one should be called Sir John or Sir Thomas such a one in time there would be no difference betwixt a Knight and a begger and names are given for distinction sake If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench should say there sit a dozen Ministers people would not understand what they said and according to vulgar speech it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment yet if our Brethrens Argument were good that gifted men should be called Ministers because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would justifie that new dialect in other things as well as this For Magistrates are called Ministers and Magistrates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am much against this removing of the Antient Land-Marks which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with and think it a very ill design which would produce nothing but confusion Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture where a gifted man not ordained is called a Minister of the Gospel a Minister of Christ c. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much Preaching without ordination p. 3. Nor will a general course of acting as they would hint entitle them to that name It is true constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker for neither of them are titles of office But suppose now a Rebell should overcome his Prince and for seven years together exercise the Acts of his place he would not yet by bare acting be entituled to the name of a Prince or King The Conclusion is that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense according to later ages restriction and constant usage of the word Minister be called Ministers they may be called Speakers if you please Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister and of the Greek words so translated Second Term Ministry let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry imports And this also we shall find Homonymous 1. Every one will conclude that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie their service or ministration and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to express that in Scripture which we translate Ministry I mean two of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first onely in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple the latter very often Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 c. And indeed I think this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture to signifie the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers Acts 1.17 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18 Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Gospel perform in Preaching administring Sacraments c. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church who more strictly are called Deacons Rom. 12.7 1 Cor. 16.15 though there be some question upon that Text So Christs execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry And the old service of the Priests and Levites is called a Ministry Heb. 9.21 But in this sense I take not Ministry in the Question yet if our Brethren contend for words I can state the question so viz. Whether that work of the Ministry which the Scripture mentioneth eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel be the work of persons meerly gifted 2. But there is another usage of the word which use at least hath procured it according to which we call the Ministry A certain order of persons set apart according to the will of God for the dispensing out of Publick Gospel Ordinances In Analogy to the description of the High Priest described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the description thus The Minister is one taken from amongst men and ordained for men in things pertaining to God for the dispensation of Publick
Ordinances and ministerium is but a collective term as we call the company of Magistates the Magistracy of a Nation So we call the company of Ministers the Ministry So Aretius Bucanus Vrsin c. So Martinius ministerium est ipse quoque minister So Ravanella Munus vel functio vocatur ministerium for which he quotes many Texts of Scripture and so interpreteth many of those I before cited the 2 Cor. 6.3 and that in 1 Tim. 12. seem very inclinable to this interpretation And here again our Brethren seem to play with an equivocall term when they tell us that the speaking of gifted Brethren may be called Ministry for there is ministration in their service so there is too in their Servants waiting upon them at their Tables yet I hope they will allow common people not to call the work of their Servants waiting at their Trenchers the Work of the Ministry which yet follows by the same argument If our Brethren say that the gifted persons minister unto the Church so doth he that sweeps the Church yet his work is not the work of the Ministry as we have learned to speak If they say they minister unto Christ Sub judice lis est That question is yet to dispute upon the Apostles maxim His Servants you are whom you obey and it is still to be argued betwixt them and us whether in their ministration they obey the commands of Jesus Christ yea or no. Third Term. The third and last term is that of Office A term as ambiguous as any other it comes from the Latine word Officium Hee that will look that word in Martinius his Lexicon Philologicum will find at least eight significations of it Our Brethren of London in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici p. 3. have given us a description of it so far as to limit it from homonymie and to give the sense of it in the present question which description our other dissenting Brethren have faithfully transcribed thus The Office of the Ministry is a spirtual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a person qualified founded upon a speciall and regular call Our Brethren p. 3. apprehend this to be faulty and they declare their dissent and the grounds of it because as they rightly apprehend much of the controversie hangs upon this hinge They grant that Office is a relation with respect to an employment as its end But that it is a relation to the employment of the Ministry as its Correlate they deny the Church they say is the Correlate and they say the London Ministers confess this p. 151. where they say the Minister hath a relation to the Catholick as well as to the particu-Church so that they seem to contradict themselves This is the substance of what they say p. 4. Whence they propound to speak to two questions 1. Whether Office be a relation to the work of the Ministry or to the Church 2. Whether Office hath relation to the Church universal or to the particular Church They are both of them very important questions To the first of them our Brethren speak Chap. 1. where they undertake to prove That the Office of the Ministry is not a Correlate to the work of the Ministry But to the Church and this they endeavour by four Arguments That the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the persons towards whom it is to be executed is most freely on our parts confessed But that it should be no correlate to the work is I confess such an absurdity in my ears as will offer too much injury I think to common sense Officium est relatio personae ad certi operis necessariam effectionem Martinii Lex Philol. ad verbum Officium Learned Martinius if this be an errour is in the same mistake with our Brethren in London he sayes in terminis that an Office is the relation of a person to the doing of a certain work If I remember my Logick right those things are Relations which either have their whole being in their respect to another or any other way referred to it this I learned out of Aristotle Burgefdecius c. now Cui convenit definitio ei convenit definitum if the definition of Relations will agree to the Office of the Ministry and the work they must be Relations or else we understand not our Brethrens meaning I then thus argue for our Brethren of London to maintain their skill in Logick Arg. 1 If the Office of the Ministry either hath its whole being in relation to the work or be any other way referred to the work Then the Office and employment according to Logick are relations But the Office and work of the Ministry have at least one of these references each to another Ergo. If our Brethren deny the Major they deny the Logical description of Relations and so can build no arguments from the Canons of Logicians about them If they say the Office neither hath its whole being in the work nor is any other way related to it I think they deny common sense Arg. 2 Again The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the Office of the Ministry is terminated in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate If our Brethren deny the Major they again deny all Logick If they deny the minor it is that which every one apprehends and it is all one as to deny the Sun shineth at noon day But our Brethren having brought us four Arguments it is fit we should examine them For the first they say the work cannot be a Correlate to the Office Because Relations cannot be separated they are simul naturâ take away one and you must take away the other but the work of the Ministry by the sickness death imprisonment or rejection of the Minister may cease and yet according to our principles the office doth not cease a man is a Minister in office though he cannot do the work Hence they observe that whereas our Brethren of London thought that by fixing the relation between the work and the office because a Minister may be separated from his Church they had secured the permanency of the office These Brethren think that they have deeply fallen into the same pit because the work may cease This is the substance of p. 5. which in form is thus Relations and Correlations exist and perish together But according to your principle so do not the office and work of the Ministry Therefore they are no relations The major they say is the Certain rule of Relations in Logick The minor they prove because we will not say the office of the Ministry in a man ceaseth when he is kept from doing his work by sickness imprisonment banishment rejection c. I answer 1. They call the major the Certain rule of Relations But neither tell us of what Relations nor in what sense Logicians understand that rule and reason will enforce for the
understanding I will therefore tell them we know our Brethren are not to learn that Relations are of two sorts The first Logicians call Relata secundum esse real relations Such whose whole being as relations lye in their relation such are the Relations of Father and Son Husband and Wife Master and Servant The Father as a Father hath no other being but in his relation to a Son and so of the rest this is called Relatio praedicamentalis of these Relations their rule rightly understood is true 2. But secondly there are other Relations too called in Logick Relata secundum dici nominal relations yet such as have a reality of Relation but not such a one that all the being of the Relations as such is wrapt up in their relation this relation they call Relatio transcendentalis As now Scibile Scientia A thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing are relations and instanced in as such by most Logicians Yet neither the one nor the other of these relations have all their being in their relations Of these Relations we say and all say the Rule is false and reason will enforce it For example This 20th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclypse but the Eclypse which is the thing to be known is not existent The knowledge of the nature of thunder is existent But it doth not thunder So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a supposition that we say the office and the work are Relata secundum esse Relations of the first sort but we are not of that mind for we think the whole essence of office lyeth not in its Relation But in that authority wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it 2. In eodem entitalis gradu vel ut Ens in actu vel ut Ens in potestate Zabarel Secondly saith Zabarel the Rule is true that 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 in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it The Mayor of Norwich is my Lord Protectors Officer for the Government of the City and none in their sober mind but will say he is Mayor and the government of the City are related each to other Suppose the Mayor now sick or in prison is he not an officer because at present he cannot execute his Office According to the first answer we deny the major and by vertue of the second we deny the minor And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion Hence Christian Reader thou mayest see our Brethren deal not kindly with thee when they tell thee As well may you affirm a man to be a Father who hath no Son nor child or a man to be an husband who hath no wife as you may affirm a man to be a Minister who hath no employment For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work A Father as he is a Father is a thing hath no being without a child and so cannot be but an officer if at present he hath no work yet hath as an officer an authority and power to do such a work when he hath opportunity I would fain know of our Brethren whether a man may not be in the office of a Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the government of them It is his Commission makes him an Officer and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment and execute his authority as soon as he hath opportunity Neither do we say a man can be no officer who hath no employment but we say a man may be an officer who at present may want opportunity to do what is his employment and he is by his office authorized unto And now I suppose every Reader will understand the weakness of our Brethrens first Argument which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Their second Argument is in sum this Relations and Correlations exist together but the office Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work because it is a means in order to the end Therefore the office of the Ministry and the work cannot be Correlates The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argument is the same Canon in Logick which was the foundation of the other Argument We grant that the office is a means in order to the work as its end and we say that the office must be before the work But we say these are no such relations as must necessarily be Simul Naturâ and exist together except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu and so sunt simul they are together though they do not exist together consider them as Entia in potestate they are Simul Natura and so it is not necessary that the means should be before the End In short the very same answer serveth as before Arg. 3 Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office that is the Correlate But the Gospel owns the Church not the work as Correlate to the office Ergo. The major we confess but say there wants a word in it That which alone the Gospel owns is the only Correlate The minor we deny we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry Acts 20.27 But we say it owns the work too Eph. 4.11 12. he gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers For the work of the Ministry and I hope Eph. 4. is as much Gospel as Acts 20.17 Our Brethren say here again That Officers are not related to the Employment of the Ministry Christian Reader it must surely offend thy Eares surely we would not much desire such Officers The truth is they do Dividere componenda which is a fallacy in Logick Officers are related to Church and work too and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logicians they would have acknowledged it with half this stir Arg. 4 Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form lyes thus If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture be such as proclume them relates to the Church not to the work then they are so related But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church are relates not officer and imployment Ergo. To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pastors Teachers c. 1. To all which we answer 1. That it is a feeble argumentation which is drawn from names and titles definitio nominis doth onely terminate the question quid nominis not the question quid rei the definition of a name is not alwayes adequate to the definition of a
thing Notatio saepe est inadaequata modo latior modo angustiâ—r saith the Logician But 2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally viz. All the titles and all the names we conceive their Argument very faulty for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City it doth not follow but that his title of Justice of the Peace hath the keeping of the Peace and the Statutes concerning Justices for the Correlate or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate 3. If our Brethren do say that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate we shall desire by the next to know whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers in the following Texts have the Church only for their Correlate 1 Tim. 2.7 2 Tim. 1.11 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14 Philip. 1.15 Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn to say that if the Question be asked To whom are they Officers the answer must be to the Church * 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked what is their office for what work is the office ordained The answer must be for the Preaching of the Gospel for the work of the Ministry The truth is The work is objectum quod the Church is objectum cui Both the Church and the imployment are the Correlates to this Relation the Church are the Correlated persons the work of the Ministry is the Correlated thing So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London for both the Church and the Employment are Correlates Nay under favour not the Church alone but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry as to Preaching The office of the Ministry was instituted as well for the gathering of the Saints as for the edifying of them as well for the perfecting of their number as for the perfecting of their graces Till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. Eph. 4.11 12 13. We can never believe that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother but as an officer of the Gospel Nay more God himself is the Correlate to this office and therefore they are called the Ministers of God the Ministers of Christ not Elders of the Church only or Ministers of the Church they are Gods Ministers in the Church and the Ministers of the Gospel in and for the Church and world too Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of the Church We can shew them many where they are called the Ministers of Christ of righteousness of the Gospel of Christ Now it is a rule Relata reciprocantur a Father is called the Father of such a Son and the Son is called the Son of such a Father But I say our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase when they call Ministers i. e. Preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church they are the Ministers of God and his Gospel in such a Church and they have some relation to the Church but not a more relation than they have to the work they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel is called their Gospel My Gospel saith Paul twice here is a plain reciprocation let them shew us the like if they can for their assertion otherwise we hope our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern And I earnestly beseech our Brethren that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies which have not as you see the least foundation either in Scripture reason or usage of any approved Authors In the mean time we will grant them that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office But if we would grant our Brethren that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate not to the work but to the Church I perceive this would not give them satisfaction unless we would also yield them that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church In opposition not only to the Church Catholick invisible viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad But to the Church Catholick visible in any notion The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion but we can by no meanes bow down unto it And therefore that 's the next thing we must bring to trial Only before we do it Give me leave to inform our Brethren in our notion of a Church though I shall better do it when I shall return to answer their Epistle The word which we translate Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetus evocatus voce praeconis of which our Brethren can make no advantage either from the Etymologie or from the usage of it in Scripture according to the first it signifies no more than a company called out it is both used by the Seventy interpreters to express the congregation of evil doers Psal 26.5 And by the Evangelist Luke to express a rout neither lawfully assembled nor yet united Acts 19.32 This word in it self as unhallowed as any other the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers company or Companies of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel Eph. 4.11 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvelous light Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into Invisible Visible The invisible Church is either Triumphant in heaven or Militant here upon the Earth The Visible Church is either Universal or Particular By the Church universal quatenus visible we mean The whole number of people over the face of the Earth called out of the Paganish world to the owning of the gospel of Christ which being an integral Body cons sting of homogeneous members or parts each part beareth the denomination of the whole hence that part of this body which is in a Nation Province parish c. is properly called the Church of God in such a Region Nation Province parish c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1.13 that is all that ownned the gospel whether in Jerusalem or in Damascus or the strange Cities Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11 all that called on Christs name whom
he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
combinations of vicinities or Parishes for actual constant enjoyment of Ordinances as particular Corporations in a Kingdom are yet still those Ordinances administrations admissions ejections have influence upon and into the whole body as it is a polity and the members of any part indefinitely may of right communicate one with another yea any company of Christians may though every person so meeting and that but occasionally may be of a several particular Church and the Minister dispensing a particular Pastor to none of them all yea though none of them all be fixed members to any particular Congregation nor the Minister dispensing fixed in any particular congregation And this by vertue of their general membership and of the habitual indefiniteness of the Ministers office And the common donation of the ordinances to Christs whole visible Kingdom Ibid. Now the truâ—h is there is no Civil Society or Kingdom that in every thing correspondeth with this but there use in the Kingdoms of the world to be some general officers and offices And some officers inferiour and subordinate receiving from them power and authority by derivation and subordination And the inferiour are of less extent as to place and power than the superior As the Lord Chief Justice of England is above other inferiour Justices And this is it as Mr. Hudson hath noted which hath made so many stumble at the notion of a Church Catholick Organical and upon this stone our Brethren have stumbled in their Epistle First making a man of Clouts and then writing over his head This is the Presbyterians Catholick Church and then crucifying him with Arguments which we are not concerned in But as Mr. Hudson proceedeth as in other things Christs Kingdom is not of this world nor like unto worldly polities so neither in this But every Minister of the Church in his particular place serveth the Church Catholick admitting of members into a general freedom in it ejecting from general communion with it he prayeth publickly for the whole body and manageth his particular charge in reference to so as may stand with the good of the whole body of which his Congregation is but a member The Ordinances there administred are the Ordinances given to the whole not as a genus which is but a notion and can have no Ordinances given to it but as unto a spiritual kind of an habitual body and Organical polity As to a sort of men so and so qualified bound up in an union and unity of the same head laws seals worship communion Thus had we discovered our minds before our Brethren published this Boook and it had been fair for them to have disputed against this not to deceive their Readers with fallacies Ex ignoratione Elenchi as Logicians speak disputing against what their adversaries do not say In this sense we say the office of the Ministry correlateth to the Vniversal Church And what ever our Brethren say in practice they will own this for 1. I would fain know of our Brethren whether one Church may according to Gospel rules receive into her bosome one whiom another Church hath cast out if not the officers that cast out do not only eject from the communion of that particular Church but of all particular Churches and so consequently from the universal Church which is but a whole made up of those parts 2. While our Bretheren baptize into their particular Church I wonder whether they do not also Baptize into any other particular Church if not when any person so baptized is translated into another Church why is he not again Baptized his relation to the former Church ceasing 3. I would fain know with what consistency of principles our Brethren say a minister or pastor is in office only to a particular Church and yet say he that is in office to this Church may administer the Sacrament of the Supper to the members of another Church Oh but they do this they tell us by a communion of Churches by a communion of membership only or of offices and officers only the first alone may give the member a right to take but not the officer a right to give except there be also a mutual communication or communion of offices and officers and Acts of office 4. Although these 2 or 3 Brethren some-where indeed say that when the pastors of our Brethrens churches preach out of their particular Church they preach but as gifted men yet I am sure others of our Brethren and those to speak modestly no way inferior to our Brethren will own no such thing for who should be then obliged to hear them or who could go to hear them as to an ordinance a publike ordinance of Christ I am yet to learn So that in practice our brethren do every day own what in words they deny But to come close to the question stated by our Brethren thus p. 8. What Church office hath relation to Preacher sent eap 2. p. 8. whether officers stand in relation to a particular Church only or whether they be officers of an universal Church I observe our Brethren in the same page altering their phrase instead of saying We deny office to be a correlate to the Vniversal Church they say We deny Pastors and Teachers to be officers of an Vniversal Church We hope our brethren have no design to play at so small a game with us as that must be which is only won by the homonomy of a term however we will indeavour to prevent it For those new terms Pastors and Teachers in ecclesiastical use they have obtained a double signification 1. In Scripture the terms are taken more largely for any such as have authority to feed people with spiritual food whether it be occasionally or constantly so pastors is to be understood Eph. 4.11 the only place where it is used in all the New Testament so also Jer. 3.15 so Paul is called a Teacher of the Gentiles and 1 Tim. 2.7 so Teachers is used Isa 30.20 and Acts 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 29. yea that term is used sometimes to express the Private duties of private persons Heb. 5.12 2. By a modern usage these terms are used to express persons chosen or accepted by particular churches for the work of the ministry amongst them and restrained to that sense by what warrant I cannot tell If our Brethren state the question in the latter sense concerning Pastors and Teachers qua tales as such they have no adversaries for he that is pastor or teacher of a particular Church as he is such a pastor or teacher undoutedly hath not the Church universal for his correlate But our Brethren of the Province of London say truely that a Regular Pastor or Teacher of a particular Church hath besides a particular relation to them as their pastor and teacher which their election or submission to him or both have made them a relation also to the Church Universal as he is the minister of Jesus Christ set apart and ordained for the
preaching of the gospel c. which he may do as an officer of Christ in any place of the world We do not say he is bound to do it in all places that is impossible nor to travel up and down as the Apostles were for that work is ceased at least as to those places where people have received the gospel But we say he may do it as opportunity is offered And we believe that in case it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England The Church might by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands set apart some particular persons to the office of the ministry without a particular designation of them to this or that place but only designing them as the officers of Christ to preach the Gospel amongst the Indians and to baptize such as should receive the Gospel and though not by their single Act as the Apostles yet by the advice of the Church and with their assistance these might ordain Elders in their Cities and form them up into complete Gospel order yet the office of such would differ from that of the Apostles both in regard of their mission being more ordinary and also in regatd of their power being more limitted These things being premised let us consider our Brethrens Arguments their first reduced into form is this What the Gospel knoweth not no Gospel officers can be correlates unto Of Preaching without ordination cap. 2 p. 8. But the Gospel knows no Universal visible Political Church Ergo 1. At the first dash our Brethren here take away the subject or at least the suppositum of the question The suppositum of the question is That there is a Church Particular and Vniversal The question is to which of these the office of the Ministry is related They say to the Church Particular we say to the Church Vniversal to prove their assertion they tell us there is no Church Vniversal This is foul disputing 2. But secondly The whole may be granted and yet nothing proved by it for whether the Gospel knowes a Church universal under a political form or no is not the question it is enough if it knowes a Church Vniversal under any notion 3. Thirdly the minor is false as Mr. Hudson abundantly proves the Church universal is in scripture set out under the notions of a political body it is called a Kingdom a City Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens it is called an Army terrible with Banners Cant. 6.10 see Mr. Hudson more p. 133 134 135 c. for it nothing concerns me as to the present question as I said before Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto these officers viz. Pastors teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Overseers Acts. 20.28 1 Tim 3.2 Titus 1.7 Themselves form their argument thus or at least should have formed it thus Arg. 2 That Church alone which is committed to ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But the universal Church is not that Church which is committed to a Minister to feed teach and oversee Ergo I am sure that the Argument must run thus if it concludes the question which at present is not whether a particular minister but whether the office of the ministry residing in all ministers be a correlate to the particular or to the Universal Church And therefore our Brethren may see a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the question stated by themselves Now to the argument thus formed I answer By denying both the propositions I deny that That Church alone which is committed to a ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate For I suppose that our Brethren mean which is more especially committed to his charge as pastor thereof in a restrained sense if they do so I say that Church alone is not correlate to his office or to the office of the ministry because another Church viz. the catholike Church is also in some sense committed to his charge viz. so far as pro re natâ as occasion serveth he may and ought to feed others besides that Church yea such as are of no Church but may for ought he knowes be members of the invisible Church of Gods elect and so his office doth relate to them But secondly the Minor is apparently false viz. That the particular Church is that alone which is committed to a ministers eharge to feed teach and oversee Go preach the gospel to every creature is a commission which hath put all the reasonable world under the charge of the ministeral office And although as our Brethren of London say right that no minister is an Actual Minister to the Vniversal Church viz. in these two senses 1 None can be here and there and every where thus the Spirit of God is only an Universal actual teacher Nor secondly is any Minister set in a particular Church bound as the Apostles to an itinerant Execution of his office yet our Brethren of London do not say but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens the Church may by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands confer the office of the Ministry uppon some persons with a special designation of them as Christs officers to carry the Gospel to people all over the Nation or over the world Neither do our Brethren of London say but that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church wherever he preacheth preacheth as an officer of Christ in the worke of the Gospel whom people are bound to hear nor do they say that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church may not by vertue of his ministerial office so far as his opportunity strength and finite nature gives him leave feed and teach by the word and as a minister oversee any others that are not members of his particular Church Though indeed that be in a more special manner committed to his trust care and oversight But I observe that our Brethrens argument though put into the best form I could and cured of one fault yet is sick of another and indeed the Argument should have run thus That Church or those Churches alone which are committed to all ministers respectively to feed teach and oversee respectively are the Churches to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But those Churches are only particular Churches Ergo. As they put it thereâ—s a great fallacy in it for suppose this or that particular Minister had no work appointed him by Jesus Christ to do but onely in his particular Church and so the office of the Ministry as it resided in that single man were only a Correlate to his particular Church Yet it would not follow That the office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister in the world had no other Correlate
for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only 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 Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only 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. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him
who preacheth is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty This is so rational that none can deny it for sin is the transgression of a law and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural divine positive or humane now this is certain that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse or reads a chapter he must be specially authorized to preach or I shall not be specially obliged to hear 2. The second principle is this That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer I think that none in their right wits will deny this hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow from this principle 1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed let who will preach none are bound to come to hear but they may all stay at home and read a good book if they please for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach and so none under an obligation to hear 2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait upon any publike Ordinance which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls than reading a chapter at home doth The reason is because no particular Churches are formed and there can be none in office It is not the place or company but the person administring who makes the ordinance publike 3. Where there is a particular Church formed it is true the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer but for all others if they do stay at home and read a chapter or a good book they sin not for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them than they have to preach at home one to another 4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach if he be not a member of his particular Church he cannot come in faith believing upon the account of any precept or promise that the word heard shall profit him any more than if he had staid at home and heard his servant read a chapter for he that preacheth stands in no office is clothed with no more authority toward him No he is only in office to the members of his own Church 5. If any pastor of any particular Church at any time uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person who is not an actual member of his Church he sinneth against God doing an act of office to a person to whom he is in no office and hath no authority And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to consider to what Atheiâ—m and confusion this one principle improved would in a short time bring us And I am verily perswaded that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion are of another mind from these three in this point for so wise and learned men can never surely think that when at any time they preach in any place or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches they preach but as gifted brethren so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom is under as much appointment of Gods for the salvation of souls as theirs is yet this is a true conclusion from this principle up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be performed by an officer which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world As for their third chapter I might spare my pains in answering of it for it is but a conclusion from their premises in the first and second chapter and it is too much to deny the premises and conclusion too In this third chapter they give us the description of office then indeavour to prove it and lastly draw two conclusions from it their description is this Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified Preaching without Ordination p. 14. founded upon a special and regular call 1 This definition offends two logick rules say we which are these Aristot l. 6. top cap. 5. That all definitions should be adequate That is nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel as I proved before yet that is put into the definition secondly Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified or in the notion of a regular call which I suppose our brethren will not grant Arist top l. 6. a p 1. 2. A second rule is this That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species The ministerial office is a Genus here defined but there are diverss ministers say we that have no such particular Church for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo without a title to a place was no divine order but prudential to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministery and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense doth relate to a particular Church but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense and as it is used in Scripture both in Jeremy 3.15 Eph. 4.13 Our Brethren expound their description For the Genus we allow what they say Office is a Relation Their terms of relation we deny we say the particular Church is not the only correlate but the Vniversal Church is also a correlate to the office yea and the work yea God himself and all Nations of which before Here 's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered besides that term Angel of the Church used Rev. 2.1.8 c. To which I answer that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est it is very disputable whether a single person or the Presbytery be meant by that term 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church But not the flock as our Brethren say The Apostles ordained the Deacons not the flock It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy Acts. 6. and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete As to the formal cause
we cannot agree with our brethren that a special regular call is it in the sense they understand all we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External and the Apostle proveth it How shall they preach except they be sent that is they cannot Rom 10.10 Now Forma dat esse Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5 where they argue thus If the Church should chuse a Deacon much more their pastor Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis from the lesser to the greater and they argue affirmatively See more as to these texts in â—â—y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer then they ought to chuse the greater But this is false Logick our brethren will easily see it in other things will these things follow If a man can carry an hundred pound weight then much more a thousand If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant then much more a Colonel Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching Besides did the peoples choice there make them officers surely the text sayes no such thing the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves ver 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained not chose as our Brethren do The word signifies to stretch out the hand and by that sign to chuse 2 Cor. 8.19 but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here Not alwayes witness Acts 10.41 Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining and so it signifies saith Stephen when it governs an accusative case But allow it to signify chuse they were Paul and Barnabas that chose not the Church in our brethrens sense Let any one one compare v. 20 21 22 23 and ell me of whom that word is predicated So that both â—ur Brethrens texts fail with all that is built upon them in their book As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general That the work of the Ministry is the End and so far allow their proof Eph. 4.11 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant I am sure the text sayes no such thing nor any thing like it except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries or inferences First That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church The second is this That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono by office and by gift is founded on Scripture 2 Conc. As to the first I have already proved the contrary for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the worke but to the Church Nor to the Vniversal Church but to the particular Church which foundations I think I have shaken so that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure As to the second we allow it in two cases first for Trial sake for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons 1 Tim 3.10 and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I mean ordinary officers for Apostles c. were not the same species of officers 2. In cases of Necessity In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had which was the case Acts 9. Necessity we say hath no law In such a case as I said before the Levites killed the sacrifice at Hezekiahs passeover which else they ought not to have done We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono by vertue of gifts only Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say by way of Limitation or Explication of the question is summed up their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed and stated IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject and the Predicate For the Subject they tell us it is not every Christian but every one that hath gifts 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts but who really hath and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no according to Acts 6.3 but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach especially in some cases without such approbation As to the Predicate By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to be it in publike or in private to a Christian or to an idolatrous assembly thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify Lu. 16.16 1 Cor. 9.16 Acts 13.32 Rom. 20.15 Acts. 5.42 Acts. 8.35 Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching Jus divinum p. 77. much they say to them who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively they say authority is taken for a right and lawfull power Lu. 20.2 Secondly for majesty and gravity Mar. 1.22 Tit. 2 15. Thirdly for office-power In the last sense they grant it in the two first they say gifted men may preach authoritatively this is the substance of what they say in many words To all which I answer 1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question if I mistake not it amounts to no more than this Every private Christian may not preach but every one that can or will may for what should hinder him who shall be judges of his aptness to teach shall the Church but by what rule Secondly suppose he will not submit shall the gifted man sin no say our Brethren It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents but for ought we know it is lawfull So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak Our Brethren tell us the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was
a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 â—te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone◠〈◊〉 â—is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the
reasonableness that good experience should precede Election for they must be perswaded that he is gifted and qualified or they cannot in faith Elect now this perswasion cannot be wrought in them without a mans frequent preaching to give them this experience This is the sum of p. 30. To which I answer 1. Surposing that Election is necessary to precede Ordination we deny that ordinary preaching is necessary in order to Election I know no need of any preaching at all but only to try his utterance his soundness in the faith and other qualifications are better tried by ordinary converse than by many Sermons Those who chose the Deacons had not 6 monthes experience of them as is plain from the Chronology of the Scripture twice or thrice preaching is enough to try that single gift of utterance surely 2. Secondly we deny the Minor such Election viz. the Election of a particular Church is not necessary to precede Ordination nor have our Brethren a title of plain Scripture for it they only quote Acts 6. v. 5 6. See more Ch. 6. of this treatise To which I said enough before but let me add Do our Brethren think that the election there was by the whole multitude let any one in reason judge whether 8000 people odd for so many was the number at that time and those of different languages too Acts 2.41 Acts 4.4 Acts 2.6 can reasonably be supposed being also divided amongst themselves Acts 6.1 to have agreed in that choice the Apostles indeed spake to some probably the most judicious of them to commend persons to them whereas our Brethren say I grant Ordination is but Actus ultimus he that looks the place Vindiciae ministerii p. 18. will see my sense I say 1. In case he be pastor of a Church 2. I say examination c. must precede Our Brethren here desire one text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election On the contrary we want one Scripture to prove Election necessary we grant it indeed upon parity of reason for the Pastor of this or that Church and judge it highly convenient but I must profess I see not one clear Scripture for it Doth Paul give any such instructions to Timothy or Titus to be observed before their Ordinations If there was any Acts 14.23 Paul and Barnabas made them what election do we read of upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas Acts 13. Weigh these things Christian Reader and judge how much this first argument is worth Our Brethrens second argument is this All that by Gospel commands are required to preach they may ought to preach But some men meerly gifted are so required Ergo. The Major we grant the Minor we deny They proceed All that have preaching gifts and graces or are apt to teach are required by Gospel-commands to preach But some men meerly gifted not ordained are apt to teach c. Ergo. The Minor we grant the Major we deny Our Brethren instance in two texts to prove it the first upon which they most enlarge is 1 Pet. 4.10 11. I will crave leave to transcribe the 9. too v. 9. Vse hospitality one to another without grudging v. 10. As every man hath received the gift even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God v. 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ to whom be praise and dominion for ever Amen Here our Brethren observe several things 1. That the text is to be meant of any spiritual gift 2. That v. 11. There is a particularizing of that special gift of speaking to others for Edification in the things of Christ They say p. 33. That the nature of the direction how to speak and the reference the 11. v. hath to the 10. argue it is not common speaking here meant but some special gift of Scripture-interpretation and so it is usually carried by interpreters And it followeth the 10. v. so immediately that it must needs be an explication of it 3. There is a divine command to exercise such gift This commvnd is universal Every man This is the Sum of what they say To all which I answer 1. If it be not plainly proved that the gift here is preaching parts a spirituul gift and that spiritual gift and 2. That the term every man must be understood in the latitude I say in case any of these fail every one seeth that our Brethrens argument falls to the ground As to the first question then Quest 1. What is meant by gift there The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the New Testament 16 times of which this is one the learned observe it is a word that is not to be found in any heathen Author so that from the Scripture alone we must understand the import of it where as by comparing all the texts will most evidently appear it signifies Any good thing which is freely given us of God whether in a way of special providence or common or special grace 1. It is used to express gifts of special grace Justification Rom. 5.15 16. Election Rom. 11.28 Eternal life Any experiences which may be imparted for Edification Rom. 1.11 2. It is used to express extraordinary gifts 1 Cor. 12.9 1 Cor. 12.28 30. 3. To express any gifts common or special 1 Cor. 1.7 1 Cor. 12.4 4. To express common gifts The gift of continency 1 Cor. 7.7 Pauls deliverance from danger is called a gift and expressed by this word 1 Cor. 1.11 5. To express office Rom. 12.6 7 8. as appears by the distribution v. 7 8. So 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 for the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery did not conferr other gifts ordinary or extraordinary The question is now in which of these senses this word is to be taken 1 Pet. 4.10 It is plain that it cannot be meant of those gifts of God which we cannot Minister to others so that it cannot be understood of Election as Rom. 11.28 nor of Iustification as Rom. 5.15 16. nor eternal Life as Rom. 6 23. These are indeed Free-gifts bestowed on the Elect but not to be by them ministred to others but of any of the rest except that 1 Cor. 7.7 it may be understood that is 1 Either of extraordinary gifts such as those of healing called by this name 1 Cor. 12.9 29 30. 2. Or of Experiences of Gods goodness to us in a way of common providence or special grace or of outward good things or inward which by our hand or tongue we may administer as Rom. 1.11 1 Cor. 1.11 3. Or of Acts of office as Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 4. Or of the gifts of knowledge and utterance or any other 1 Cor. 1.7 1 Cor. 12.4 If it be to be understood here in any
of three former senses it will not serve our brethrens turn for extraordinary gifts are ceased For telling one another what God hath done for us or distributing to those in want we allow it to private persons If by gift Office is meant then none but those in office have received the gift As to the last we grant that he who hath received the gift of utterance and knowlege may impart it and ought to do it in his place and station but this may be done by private conference admonitions exhortations c. But this lies upon our Brethren to prove 1. That the gift here meant must needs be the gift of preaching in the publike Assemblies of people and that they may do this without Ordination We have told them it may be understood 1 Of Office As any one hath received any office so let him minister in it as Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 Or of common gifts of providence The good things relating to this life 2 Cor 1 11. then it is a command for alms according to the connexion v. 10 11. Our Brethren must shew us good reason why it must be understood of spiritual gifts and this gift of preaching 3 Or if he be understood of the gift of opening Scripture it may be understood of the extraordinary gifts of prophecy or at least must be limited to a due time place manner Or lastly it may be understood by the gifts called by this name 1 Cor. 12.9 28 30. We do not say it can be understood of all these as our Brethren seem to hint out of a fondness to find a contradiction in mee not of Alms and office too this is but a childish reply of theirs in their first answer to my first objection p. 35. of their book it is enough for us if it be understood of one of these For if I understand any thing of sense or reason those who affirm this text to be a precept for the exercise of preaching gifts as our Brethren do must prove either 1. That that gift is specially meant here or Secondly 2. That the precept is general and not to be limited to this or that gift but understood in the latitude of any gift to be improved for the good of others Now which of these our Brethren will stand to by their answer I cannot learn for one while they tell us the next words are Exegetical of the former another while they tell us Preaching is one of those gifts But let them take which they please Is this then our Brethrens sense That the import of that text is That it is the duty of any one who hath received any gift that is any ability to do good to his brother should do it 1. Why then p. 32 33. do our Brethren come in with their i. e. Spirituul gift by the same rule they restrain the text to spiritual gifts we restrain it to Office as Rom. 12.7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 Or to outward good things the word is so used in Scripture the Context is as much for us as for our Brethren ver 10. Vse hospitality one to another that is out of question meant ver 11. If any man minister let him do it of the ability God giveth Object But this say our Brethren is not the manifold grace of God Charity is but one Grace Answ Though Charity be but one grace yet there be manifold Free gifts of God by the distribution of which we may exercise Charity The gift of Miracles was but one gift yet Heb. 2.4 you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 various or manifold miracles The body of lust is but one body of death yet there are many lusts 2 Tim. 3.6 A man may minister from the grace of charity by giving money meat cloaths c. and every one of these is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift of God to him 2. If any one who hath ability may dispense the gift then gifted Brethren may administer Baptism and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text for there is no doubt but many of them have an ability to do all that which is to be done materially in those acts but this our Brethren will not allow And why Because these are Acts of Office say our Brethren so say we is the Preaching we contend about Our Brethren may see by this a necessity of restraining this Text Either as we contend 1. To such Gifts as other Scriptures authorize them to administer Or 2. To an Administration of this Gift according to due Gospel Order which we say cannot be without preceding Ordination Will our Brethren take the Second and say That an ability to Preach is the Gift here only meant and this Text will warrant a Ministring of that gift without any more ado 1. Then we ask them by what authority they impose this upon us why may it not as well be expounded by the words immediatly going before as those immediatly following after then the Gift is the good things of this world The sense of the coherence will not constrain this interpretation it makes as much for us as it doth for them nay more 2. For the next words limit him that speaks to a speaking as the Oracles of God but he who never had the Oracles of God committed to him is not like to speak the word as the Oracles of God he may speak the Oracles of God but he cannot speak them as the Oracles of God because not sent by God 3. Suppose we should allow this that the Gift of opening and applying Scripture is here meant How doth this Text prove either a Liberty for or a duty to d◠this in publike Assemblies otherwise our Brethren know we allow it 4. Lastly to whom doth Peter speak this read ch 1. v. 1. To the strangers scattered through Asia Pontus Galatia Capadocia Bythinia Our dispute is not what may be Lawfully done in the scattred state of the Church where no Ministers are at hand but what may be done in ordinary Cases to which this Scripture speaks nothing If it be so to be understood we do not doubt but in such a persecuted state of the Church a private person Gifted may Preach and people ought to hear as well as the Levites might kill the Paschal Lamb at Hezekiahs passeover but blessed be God that 's not our Case Thus the Reader may see how inconclusive our Brethrens Argument is from this Text upon more accounts than one Our Brethren have entred exceptions against two material things which we insist upon for the interpretation of this Text. 1. Against what we say that if this Text may be understood of the Gift of Preaching or Speaking yet it may be done privately 2. Against what we say That by Gift very probably is meant Office Let us consider what our Brethren say to either of these They say first that private exercising cannot satisfie this precept nor can this exercise be justly so limited 1.
Because as a Church member he may admonish and exhort severally and then why not when they are met together 2. Because a publike Gift cannot be fully improved in a private way A man in such a case hideth his talent 3. Publike actings are not peculiar to Office they say 4. Charity binds men sâ—metimes to go out of their callings to help others Therefore our Brethren may sometimes step out of their Calling to Preach 5. A man may lawfully choose it for his calling to preach And then he goeth not out of his Calling 6. They have a Divine allowance Heb. 10.25 therefore they go not out of their Callings This is the summ of what they say to the first à p. 46. ad p. 56. To all which I answer 1. We will not contend with our Brethren that it is unlawfull for a private gifted person to speak in the publike Assemblies of the Church provided it be not on the Lords day which ought to be spent in peoples attendance upon publike Ordinances of which nature their Preaching cannot be but we deny that any are bound to hear them or that any can come to hear them as unto that Ordinance of Preaching which lyes under the great appointment of God to save peoples souls And we say the Church of God hath had no such custom As to the Second We do not understand our Brethrens notion of a publick Gift it may be taken in a double sense 1. For a Gift which God hath given to men willing them to use it publikely 2. For a Gift which if used publikely might be of publike service If our Brethren understand it in the first sense we deny any not ordained have any such publike Gift if as they must they understand it in the latter sense we say it may be so far improved as to free men from sin in not improving it without publike exercise How many hundred men in England have gifts for the Magistracy that might be of publike use were they so employed yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text to prove that they ought to administer Judgement publikely Why Because God hath required another Order and a special regular Call for the exercise of those publike Gifts and we say the like for the Ministry To the Third We grant that all publike aâ—â—ings are not peculiar to Office but we say the administration of publike Ordinances is peculiar to publike Officers and t is scarce sense to say a private person may administer â— publike Ordinance To the Fourth we say That we grant that Charity may binde men to go out of their Callings to help another and so Charity may binde a gifted man to Preach in case of necessity but this is not Ordinary preaching of which the question is stated To the Fifth We grant a private person may choose preaching for his Calling but his choosing of it doth not make that his Calling the Church say our Brethren must choose him too he must be ordained say we To the Sixth Our Brethren say they have a divine allowance Heb. 10.25 But to do what Is it said to Preach publikely and ordinarily But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to meer Gifted men they indeed must not forsake assembling together but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort however our brethren make that Text a warrant for private meetings and then it is nothing to the question But to the Second whereas we have told our Brethren that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probably is meant Office as in Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 2 Tim. 1. They think it cannot be so taken here for these Reasons 1. Because the Context cannot be so restrained the Apostle exhorteth to sobriety watchfulness unto prayer ver 7. to charity ver 8. to hospitality ver 9. These exhortations concern private Christians and the persons spoken to verse 10. are the same 2. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely a gift now indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals they say 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not restrain it unto Office because it is oft used otherwise nor doth the term Stewards limit it nor the terms exhorting and ministring 4. The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter ver 2 3. To all which I again answer 1. We do not peremptorily determine that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Office there it is enough for us to say it may be so for our Brethren must prove it cannot or else they can prove no precept to their purpose from hence 2. That by the term Office cannot be understood here is not proved by any thing our Brethren have said The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations think Office is meant ver 11. Why may not the Apostle after he had dispatched his exhortations to some common duties subjoyn this to Officers he doth so Rom. 12. and 2 Tim. 5. and what if he gives exhortations to Elders in the next chapter Can it therefore be concluded that none of the exhortations in this chapter belong to them How do our Brethren prove that the persons spoken to ver 9. and spoken to ver 11. â—elthe same individuals and why may not the gift then be the same too and so neither office nor gifts of this nature meant 3. Our brethren must not tell us that indefinite propositions are most usually equipollent to universals because it is no Logick Their Logical Rule is this Indefinitae proposititiones interdum aequipollent universalibus interdum particularibus Keckerman Syst Log. c. 5. illis quide in materiâ necessariâ his vero in contingenti nay with that restriction saith Keckerman it will not always hold true A living creature is not a man turn this into an universal negative No living creature is a man and it is false Because therefore the Apostle speaks indefinitely as every one hath received a gift so let him minister it doth not follow he must understand every gift for what will our Brethren say to gifts of wisdom for Government of Nations Armies c. or to abilities to Baptize and administer the Lords Supper But to come to an issue I am very inclinable to understand the Text in the latitude and to think this the sense As any man hath received any communicable gift so let him minister it unto others in that due way and order and upon that regular Call which God in his word hath required for those to exercise gifts that have them If it be a gift of Government when God hath called him to Magistracy let him use his gift if it be a gift for opening and applying Scripture for administring Baptism or the Lords Supper let him first be duly ordained and set apart for the work of the Ministry and so let him use his Gift When our Brethren have said their utmost this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utterance may forthwith Preach than it
will prove that by the authority of this Text he who hath a gift of wisdom may use it in the Magistratical service or that he who hath a gift of knowledge or zeal may administer the two Sacraments meerly by authority of his gifts without any more ado And this is enough for their Fifth Chapter CHAP. IV. Containing a short Answer to the three latter Arguments brought by our Brethren for Gifted mens Preaching in their Sixth Chapter from a pretended promise annexed to it The preaching of Apollo and the scattered Saints and the prophecying and Prophets mentioned in 1 Cor. ch 12. ch 14. OUR Brethren in their Sixth Chapter produce three Arguments to prove the Lawfulness of persons Preaching if Gifted though not Ordained Their first is this The Preacher sent chap. 6. That practice which hath a Gospel Promise annexed is warrantable But the Preaching of some such hath a Gospel Promise annexed Ergo. The Major we grant the Minor we deny They prove it from Mat. 25.29 For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance Let us put it into Form What the Gospel promiseth unto him that hath a talent i. e. that improves it That it promiseth to Gifted mens Preaching without Ordination Here 's enough Let me have the same Liberty and our Brethren will quickly see the vanity of this Argument What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talent i. e. that improves his talent that it promiseth to every one that will having a gift of wisdom and justice execute justice though not any other way called to it than by his gifts But the Gospel promiseth c. Or thus What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talent or ability i. e. that by practice improves it that it promiseth to gifted persons that have ability to baptize and administer the Supper and will do it without any other authority than what their gifts give them Therefore gifted men not Commissionated for the Magistracy nor ordained to the Ministry may execute justice and administer Sacraments I believe my Lord Protector will hardly allow the first and I think our brethren will not allow the latter and when our Brethren have found out a distinction to help themselves we hope it will help us Our Brethren pag. 63. say plainly they restrain not the Text to preaching Gifts But they must do it or else our Arguments from it are as good as theirs and if they do restrain it we shall hardly rest in their sense without good reason to justifie their restriction And this is enough for their third Argument to which the same answer may be applied which was given before to that drawn from 1 Pet. 4.10 Let us see if they be more happy at a fourth Their fourth Argument is drawn from Gospel Presidents thus formed The Preacher sent or preaching without Ordination p. 66. What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents with Divine allowance may be practised But the ordinary exercise of preaching Gifts in publick Assemblies c. Is so holden forth Ergo. I can neither allow the Major nor the Minor I cannot allow the Major in the terms our Brethren have put it for they might as well assume But Apostleship or an universal inspection and government of all Churches is holden forth by Gospel Presidents Paul and Peter Therefore we may have Popes Archbishops and Bishops Or thus But the Holy kiss and anointing with oyl are held forth by Gospel Presidents with divine allowance Ergo Mr. Tilham and Mr. Pooly are in the right If our Brethren understand the Major thus I shal◠allow it What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents to be in ordinary Cases a standing practice may be lawfully practised Then we deny the Assumption viz. That the preaching of Gifted persons in the sense before expressed is by any Gospel Presidents held forth as a standing practice to be continued in the Church of Christ Our Brethren prove it 1. By the instance of Apollo upon which they descant à p. 66. ad p. 73. 2. By the instance of the scattered Saints Acts 8. 11. upon which they descant ad p. 88. It must be granted that the Scriptures say that Apollo spake and taught diligently Acts 11.24 25. and that some of the scattered brethren preached But to answer all in short Every understanding Reader will grant the Argument being ab exemplo pari If these examples prove not paria matches the Argument falls to the ground If either there were not a parity of species in their gifts or in their acts or not a parity in the state of the Church at that time with that which is the present state of it now we say that in some if not in all these their argument from hence halteth First I say there must be a parity in the species of their gifts for I hope our brethren have no design to put this fallacy upon their Readers if those who were furnished with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost suited to the first plantation of the Church might preach then those who have but very ordinary gifts according to the size of these times and the opportunities of that little leisure they could get from their Trades may do the like this were just such an Argument as if one should conclude that because one who had the gifts of healing might go to a sick person and anoint him with oyl and lay hands on him and pray and by a faith of miracles believe he should upon this recover therefore one may do so now So that if it appear that Apollo or those Acts 8. or 11. had gifts of another species either Office or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which all grant to be now ceased our brethrens Argument sinks Now let us examine the instances by this rule According to which our brethren have been told concerning Apollo 1. That he is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1.12 called a Minister 1 Cor. 3.5 2. That it is very probable his gifts were of another species from that which our gifted men now adays have it is said he was mighty in the Scriptures Our brethren say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it but as I take it they assert and should prove however we have proved that he is called a Minister and ranked with Paul and Peter But say our brethren this was afterward A very little time it seems for the Text saith he went soon into Achaia and in the first verse of the next chapter he is reported in Corinth So that it is plain that he preached only in order to Office that he might be proved in which case our brethren know we allow preaching ex dono But Secondly for the scattered Christians they have been told 1. That it is the opinion of some these were some of the 70. whose Office-gift was of another species being an extraordinary Mission 2. That the Sctipture saith expresly of one of these Philip
he was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 and he is the only Preacher named 3. That those were members of the Church of Jerusalem some of the 8000. who were filled with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost and might speak the word with boldness Acts 4.31 If our brethren have any indued with gifts of that species God forbid we should deny them liberty but we conceive them ceased and with them the strength of this Argument too Now what say our brethren to take off these Answers I shall not meddle with what they say to the first it being an answer not to be rested upon and supernumerary As to the second they tell us p. 81. The consequence is feeble because one was an Officer Ergo all were It is an easie thing our brethren know to break a mans legs and then say he is lame This Argument was not brought as demonstrative Pag. 81. but as a good topick but the strength lay here Every one of them whom the Scripture names was an Officer and therefore it is not probable any preached but Officers and what ever Office Philip was ordained to Acts 6. certain it is he was an Officer and so our brethren grant As to the last Answer which alone is sufficient they have said nothing So then upon this enquiry our brethrens Argument lyes thus If Apollo who was soon after to be made an Officer of the Church at Corinth preached in order to Ordination and some scattered Members of the Church of Jerusalem who had received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost preached amongst whom we think there were some no Officers then private persons who have but very ordinary gifts and intend no such Ordination may preach too To which we must crave leave to answer Non sequitur But our Brethrens Argument is sick of more Non sequiturs than one To proceed therefore Secondly In case there were no parity in their acts then our Brethrens Argument is naught for I hope our brethren have no design to serve us with such a fallacy as this If the scattered Christians wherever they became in private houses commended the Gospel to people then gifted men may in the publick Assemblies of the Church or any people perform that Ordinance of Christ called preaching That were just such an Argument as this If John a Nokes may turn a servant out of communion with his Family then he may excommunicate him out of the Church Our Brethren in that Text Acts 8. have found the word preach but nothing to evidence it was in publick Assemblies nor will Gods blessing their labours prove it God may and oft doth bless private means when publick cannot be had The case was otherwise indeed concerning Apollo it is said he preached in the Synagogues but so might any one according to the corrupt state of the Jewish Church at that time and besides as I said before he was to be proved in order to office which our Brethren grant he afterward had But thirdly There must be a parity in the State of the Church too or else their Argument will not hold but this there is not 1. It was an infant state and is is a true observation of Didoclavius that many things may be lawfull in the infancy of a Church which are not to be imitated nor induced in a setled Church 2. It was a persecuted State This is indeed the best answer and therefore our Brethren spend most pains in trying to answer it pag. 85 86 87 88. Let us consider what they say 1. They grant that necessity may legitimate an action otherwise not lawfull 2. They say though they were necessitated to traevel yet they were not necessitated to preach What do our brethren think we mean by necessity or how comes necessity into the question which is whether it be not lawfull for private persons to do something in a persecuted State of the Church which is not lawfull in a setled state of it But to take our Brethren at their own rebound Necesse est quod nec esse aliter potest there is a natural necessity and there is a moral necessity We never thought this necessity was natural and yet against that our brethren argue There is an absolute necessity and an hypothetical necessity In short we say they might be under a manifold necessity 1. A necessity of the precept they were filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost and those extraordinary gifts might be attended with an extraordinary praeceptive impression Acts 4.31 2. There was necessit as medii there was no other ordinary means of salvation for those people where they came than that extraordinary course of theirs the Apostles being yet left at Jerusalem 3. Upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people it was necessary for there were no others in office to do it Thirdly Our Brethren question whether necessity can legitimate an action in it self unlawfull but grant it may legitimate an action unlawfull at this or that time Not to dispute the first which yet we might by our Saviours instance of the Shew-bread taken by David c. The later part granted is enough for us if our Brethren mean ingenuously We do not say it is against the light of nature to preach without Ordination But it is unlawfull at such a time when the Church hath plenty of Ministers and there is no need of their extraordinary actings being calm and setled Now that which is unlawfull at such and such a time our Brethren grant necessity may make lawfull we ask no more at their hands at this time 3. Our Brethren enquire when is there such a case of necessity and conclude when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way And they can finde no lawfull Ordination without a preceding election to a particular Church And therefore all Gifted men lye under such a necessity Let us put this loose discourse into form It must be thus If Gifted men may Preach in a case of necessity and it be a case of necessity when they cannot have Ordination in Gods way and this cannot be till they be chosen Officers to a particular Church then till that time their Preaching is justified by necessity But c. Ergo. But our brethren know that although they say they cannot yet we can see regular Ordination without a Call to a particular Church we are at a loss to know what election to a particular Church preceded the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas of Timothy of any one preaching Elder in Scripture Our Brethren go on They that preach in such cases of necessity are either officers or no officers If no officers then preaching is not a peculiar act of office then there is a difference betwixt Preaching by Office and by Gift If they be Officers then Ordination is not essential to office Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination then Baptism is valid without Ordination c.
To answer to all this Those who preach in such Cases of necessity where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear may be said to Preach by an extraordinary authority which the word of the Lord hath in such cases 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 that is to one who according to the Rule of Christ in ordinary cases ought to preach All this arguing is nothing to the purpose for our brethren are to prove that Gifted men may ordinarily preach in a tranquil and setled state of the Church where are Ministers Ordained enough to supply the place or at least to ordain and authorize them Their Argument à pari here is no Argument because of the disparity of the Churches State If our brethren can bring us any Texts out of the Epistles wrote to setled Churches requiring commanding or allowing such a practice for persons not in office nor furnished with extraordinary gifts to preach publickly and ordinarily they say something all this is no better than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or go round about the bush but never strike one blow at it I come therefore to their fifth Argument p. 88. All that are Prophets may publickly they should have put in ordinarily too preach But some men they should have said some such Gifted men as we have now who are not ordained Officers are Prophets Ergo. If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propositions I will deny the Conclusion because the question is not in it If they will allow my corrections I deny their Assumption and say No such Gifted men as now live for whom our Brethren must plead are Prophets They prove it p. 89. All that have the gifts of prophecie are Prophets But some such Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecie Ergo. The Major I grant The Minor I deny Three things our Brethren undertake to prove p. 90. 1. That prophecie is a Gift not an Office 2. That some have the gift of prophecie and that gift still continueth 3. That some persons not ordained have it I shall only premise this that I hope our Brethren understand by prophecie such prophecie as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians otherwise they deceive their Reader with an equivocal word and then I deny all three of their Positions and shall proceed to examine their proof of them 1. That prophecie is a gift not an office they prove 1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain prophets 2. Because they cannot be ordained till they be discerned to have the gift of prophecie 3. Because some have this gift who are no officers This last I deny they pretend to prove it hereafter As to the two first our Brethren dispute ex ignoratione Elenchi against what none deny who ever said those Prophets were ordinary Officers We say they were extraordinary Officers who were furnished with an extraordinary Gift either to foretell things to come or else to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit without the use of such means as we now must use and being thus furnished were made Officers at that time by an immediate Mission to which Ordination was not necessary So then two things we insist upon 1. That Prophets were extraordinary Officers 2. That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost The first is enough for this place That they were officers appears from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. Acts 13.1 2. And that they were extraordinary appears in that they are set before Evangelists Eph. 4.11 12. and from their extraordinary gifts Acts 11.27 28. 1 Cor. 12.9 10 11. and from 1 Cor. 14.26 from which text it is plain that they spake from revelation this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of London Jus Divinum pag. 97 98. Vindiciae ministeâ—ii p. 50 51 c. by my self Now for our Brethren to argue against this because they were not ordained is a pitifull Non sequitur for none ever said Ordination was necessary to the constitution of an Apostle or any extraordinary Officer But our Brethren judge that they can prove that prophecying was not an office but a gift p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments p. 91. c. Their first Argument in form is this If all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets then prophecie is a gift not an office But all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets Ergo. We deny the Consequence and say our Brethren have not proved it for this it all they say They must first have the gift before they can be made Prophets We deny that God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary Authority furnished them with an extraordinary gift So he did Jeremy Amos and all the Prophets of old I wonder which of them could be said to have the Gift of prophecie one moment before they were Prophets by Office too this is still a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi to extraordinary Officers no such thing was needfull Our brethrens second Argument is this That which ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in Corinth was a gift only not an office But Prophecying might so be coveted Ergo. Before I give a direct answer to the Argument I conceive prophecying to speak properly to be neither a gift nor office but an act by which either is exercised which act we say none could exercise but he who had the gift for it and also the extraordinary authority which impowred him to it and that prophecying is in no sense to be called a gift but as an office is a gift being constituted for the good of the Church and an honour to them that have it But to speak to their Argument In the first place I deny the Major That which ought in those times to be coveted and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth might be an extraordinary office But say our Brethren The Lord had no where promised to make every member of the Church of Corinth a Church officer therefore it could not be an office 1. Our Brethren did not consider that the same Argument will prove it was no gift except they can shew us where the Lord had promised to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecie 1 Cor. 12.29 Are all Prophets The Lord no where promised to give all Christians a power to work miracles or to speak with tongues yet surely they might covet it as it is plain from the next words where though prophecying be preferred before tongues yet that is left upon record as one of those gifts might be coveted 2. God hath no where promised that John a Stiles should recover of his sickness doth it
therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith We use to teach our People that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will and the prayer is in Faith while he that prays believes God will do that which is most good for him so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift that he might be able to prophesie but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will and wisdom of God and doing so he might pray in faith though there were no such particular promise Object But say our Brethren this was impossible to be obtained 1 Cor. 12.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be If I should tell our Brethren here To God nothing is impossible they would think I equivocated with them yet it is the coyn they have much used in payment to me but where lyes the impossibility in respect of Gods revealed will they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be That Text indeed proves that all the Members of a particular Church cannot be officers to that Church and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word ears to hear and heads to govern whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage But surely it will not follow but that all those who are members in this particular Church may yet be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea and they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides universal holiness our Brethren know may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained We allow also that Text to prove that all the Members of the universal Church should not be ordinary Officers But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers Much less doth any thing they have said prove that all Christians in that Church might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office when God should set them in such relations Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound which our Brethren hint pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts as if God pleased so to imploy him he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an unerring Spirit and speak with tongues or be able to heal the sick provided his End were right in desiring For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by Joel and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for them they might pray for but 1 Cor. 14.5 I would that you all spake with tongues They proceed to the proof of the Minor viz. That the prophecying spoken of ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth this they prove from the terms ye and all v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer 1. Having denyed the Major and made good our denial of it I need not trouble my self with denying this 2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not include every individual always Are all Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29 Let us hear what they say to our Arguments to prove that these prophets were Officers 1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. Where they stand distinguished from the people and enumerated amongst officers placed before Evangelists and next to the Apostles To this they answer p. 93 94 95. 1. That priority of order is no infallible Argument 2. That some not Officers are enumerated 1 Cor. 12.28 and prophecie is called a gift Rom. 12.6 3. Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Prophets such as Acts 11.27 28. To all which I shall give a short answer 1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argumen where there is any other Scripture or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men to express the Order but we say our brethren have no such Text nor reason neither and that the Apostle in that Text Eph. 4.11 12. seems to rank Preaching Officers according to their dignity beginning with Apostles then reckoning Evangelists Thirdly Prophets Fourthly Pastors Fifthly Teachers And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints and the common Members of the Body of Christ 2. We say there are none but Officers mentioned Eph. 4.11 12. Nor any 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But such as were either officers or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost from whence we conclude That Prophets were either extraordinary officers or ordinary officers or gifted with extraordinary gifts peculiar to that state of the Church Now it is indifferent to us as to the present controversie of which it be understood So our Brethren will grant that one of them must be meant and so much that Text will evince If Gifted men be meant I wonder who are the Church in which they are set ver 29. Our Brethren say prophecie is called a Gift Rom. 12.6 but there is nothing plainer than that by gift is meant office to him that readeth ver 7.8 3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets Pag. 96. we take them at their word and say it is all we have been contending for only then it lies upon our brethren to prove that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church 1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it So say the Prelates for Arch-bishops and Bishops where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches and committing government to them was enough and the cessation of their extraordinary Mission was enough So we say for these Prophets the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experience is a demonstration to us that prophecie is ceased where is there any now that can without study and meditation infallibly give the sense of Scriptures from revelation or can foretell things to come we have pitifull experience every day that those pleaded for cannot do the first and the year 1657. being come and gone and the Jews not converted proves that John Tillinghast though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for prove they cannot do the later As we say to the Prelatical party so we say to our Brethren St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased Secondly Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift and therefore it continues the gift of tongues and healing in those days were ordinary yet
none of them is continuing I hope What else our Brethren mean by ordinary I cannot tell for if they mean it was given by God for a standing Ordinance it is yet to be proved for this they refer us to Mr. Rutherford a man whom I honour but am not of his minde in this thing It was indeed his opinion that the Apostle by prophecying 1 Cor. 14.1 means no other than the ordinary acts of Pastors and Teachers though from an extraordinary principle and faculty so that still he thought the gift was extraordinary which they by their prophecying did exercise For those eight particulars instanced in by Mr. Rutherford recited by our brethren p. 99 100. we say they were no other than rules of order which extraordinary officers as well as ordinary were to be limited by But I wonder our brethren should quote Mr. Rutherford and set down his words too which plainly say he thought the gift extraordinary though their acts were but the acts of ordinary Officers These are his words as quoted by our Brethren Only the internal principle to wit the infused gift of prophecying made them extraordinary prophets in fieri as our prophets become prophets in fieri by ordinary studies and industry but in facto esse and according to the substance of the acts of prophecying these extraordinary Prophets and our ordinary Pastors differ not in specie c. Let any Reader who understands English judge whether Mr. Rutherford thought the Gift of prophecie was ordinary he indeed thought the Act was viz. That God in those days by Revelation immediatly gifted the Ministers of his Gospel in the Church of Corinth but our brethren are to prove the Gift is ordinary if they remember what they undertook pag. 96. to prove which Mr. Rutherford will do them no kindness The faculty of seeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the blind man and the conversion of the water into wine at Cana John 2. which are the two instances Master Rutherford insists upon were both extraordinary though when the blind man had his visive faculty by a Miracle conferred his seeing was but ordinary as other men and when the Wine was made it tasted like other Wine Our Brethren proceed still with their fallacy of arguing from the Act to the Gift or rather of putting in Act where they should have put in Gift pag. 100. 1. And they again tell us the Rules to regulate the work are ordinary what is this to prove the gift is so the Act may be ordinary and yet the Gift not so as in the case of the blind man before mentioned The work of extraordinary officers and gifts were to come under general Rules of order I hope 2. But they tell us the description of the work is ordinary What if it be The question is what the description of the Gift would be the description of the Gift of seeing and the Act of seeing are two things I hope so in this case but where is that description They tell us 1 Cor. 14.3 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort Hete they tell us is the Act Exhortation 2. The Ends of it exhortation and comfort Surely our Brethren presumed that none should ever examine what they say the Text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men edification and exhortation and comfort 1. So far as it is a description It is a description of the Act not of the gift Secondly Our Brethren if they had pleased might as well have said edification or comfort was the Act as they say exhortation is for the Text proves the one as well as the other The truth is the Apostle by these words only expresseth the end of prophecying and such ends as were common to that with other ordinances duties too If I should say Paul working miracles confirmed the Gospel f r the conversion of unbelievers would it follow that the Act of working miracles was confirming the Gospel In the third place they tell us That one great end of extraordinary prophecying and their main and proper act viz. foretelling future events is denyed to this prophecying This they say but they have not told us where that denial is to be found and I cannot find it All that I can find them saying is this 1 Cor. 14.22 It is said Tongues were for a sign to them that believed not but Prophecy serveth not for them who believe not but for those that believe Hence they observe That the antithesis betwixt Tongues and Prophets that tongues were for a sign but not prophecie proves that prophecy could not be for a sign But this is wofully fallacious 1. The Antithesis lyes not there that Tongues were for a sign but prophecie not so but here That tongues were for a sign to heathens that belâ—eved not but prophecying was a sign only for such as believed viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church this text only proves that prophecie was no sign to them that believed not 2. Though the foretelling of things to come might bear the nature of a sign yet this was not the only end of it but the faith and holiness of the persons to whom the prophecie was directed neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come confirm any thing to any till they saw them accomplished 3. I conceive the chief act of those Prophetesses 1 Cor. 14. was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift which indeed to them that believed not the Scriptures would be of no use but was to such as did believe them Fourthly Our Brethren say Women Prophetesses are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 But women Prophetesses might prophesie things to come Luke 2.38 1. I answer that our Brethren do not find women prophetesses mentioned 1 Cor. 14.34 only women 2. Secondly our Brethren do not finde that Anna Luke 2.36 spake things to come the Text only saith She gave thanks unto the Lord and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel She spake of a Christ already born She was called a Prophetess in all probability because of an extraordinary faculty she had from Divine revelation to interpret Seripture So that our Brethren see this kinde of publike prophecying by their own instance belonged to women and therefore by their own Argument was extraordinary But the truth is this Liberty was restrained by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.37 But this is enough to shew the weakness of our Brethrens Argument Our Brethren having spent their shot upon us come at last to receive a volly from us to prove prophecie an extraordinary gift we had told our Brethren 1. That ver 26. it was evident When therefore you come together every one of you hath a Psalm a doctrine a revelation an interpretation I have put in the word doctrine now though I think it will not much serve our Brethrens turn 2. That
prophâ—â—s are mentioned with a note of singularity denying it to be a gift common to all 1 Cor. 12. 29 30. Are all prophets 3. That prophets in all the Old Testament and new too signified extraordinary officers who acted from immediate revelation 4. That prophecie is reckoned up as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had 1 Cor. 13.2 1 Cor. 14.16 preferred before Tongues 1 Cor. 14.1 2. Paul compared himself with them 1 Cor. 14.37 5. That it is distinguished from the word of wisdom and knowledge 6. That it is said prophecyes shall fail 1 Cor. 13.8 7. That prophecying is said not to serve for those that believe not 1 Cor. 14.22 To the first our Brethren answer that we left out the word doctrine 1 Cor. 14.26 The charge falls not on me but now it is put in let us see what our brethren get by it The sense of the text must be Either that every individual member of the Church of Corinth had all these and then they all had extraordinary gifts for surely the gift of composing Psalms and the gift of Revelation c. must be no ordinary gifts If this be the sense the prophecying in the Church of Corinth was by persons extraordinarily gifted infallibly inspired and so the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails because they argue à pari where is no parity in the species of Gifts Or else the sense must be one of you hath a doctrine another a Psalm another a Revelation c. If this be the sense how do our Brethren prove that the Doctrine belonged to the prophets Other Scriptures quoted by our Brethren 1 Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.9 make labouring in Doctrine the work of Pastors and Teachers if the Doctrine were the Pastors Teachers part either the Psalm or the Revelation must be the Prophets work for the interpretation clearly belonged â—o tongues or at least related to it 1 Cor. 14.13 1 Cron. â—hren take which they will the Gift was extraordinary Our Brethren say that Revelation is distinguished from Prophecy ver 6. but they did not consider that in the same words it is distinguished from Doctrine too What shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or by prophecying or by doctrine From whence we easily conclude that the prophecying meant 1 Cor. 14. was not speaking to people by doctrine and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren Object But say our brethren It may be meant of ordinary revelation Eph. 1.16 17 18. Answ Let what revelation will be meant It is not doctrine these Prophets spake not by Doctrine that was another thing ver 6. Now I think preaching is a speaking by Doctrine And that is it to justifie which we say no proof can be produced from this Text. Secondly We grant an ordinary revelation sano sensu that is That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people in the use of due means such a knowledge of his written word as is necessary for their salvation yea as may be for their consolation that they may as to their own souls know the hope of his Calling as in that text Eph. 1.16 17 18. quoted by our brethren and know their own grace and right unto glory 1 Cor. 2.9 10 11 12. Phil. 3.15 That they may be resolved in their doubts and come up to perfection in knowledge and holiness But all this as to their own private use Let our Brethren bring us any shadow of Scripture to prove that God hath promised ordinarily to reveal unto his people such a knowledge of the Scriptures as they may publikely and ordinarily communicate it in Church Assemblies Whereas we told them Prophets are mentioned with a note of singularity 1 Cor. 12.29 30. they tell us so was the gift of Teaching yet it is an ordinary office Every Reader will consider that it was enough for us to prove either that these Prophets were Officers or that they had an extraordinary gift It is true the note of singularity affixed or indeed the term of restriction affixed rather will not prove the gift was extraordinary but it will prove that either the Prophets were Officers or the gift was extraordinary for no others are there enumerated but extraordinary or ordinary officers or such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost To our third Allegation That the title Prophets and the term prophecying in all the Old Testament is peculiar to persons that were extraordinary Officers and extraordinarily gifted and generally so in the New Testament Our Brethren answer 1. That they have given many Arguments to prove that in 1 Cor. 14. neither Officers nor persons extraordinarily gifted are meant and that chapter speaking chiefly of Prophecie as the subject is most fit to interpret it But their several Reasons being answered no more need be added 2. It is questionable they say whether in some of the places mentioned the word prophecying be taken either for an act of Office or for an exercise of an extraordinary gift and to this purpose they mention Acts 13.1 Rev. 10.11 Mat. 7.22 Mat. 13.57 Luke 4.24 Mat. 10.41 Acts 15.32 To which I answer Indeed our Brethren of London p. 94. and my self from others p. 50. did say that we conceive where ever Prophets or Prophecie are mentioned in Scripture some extraordinary Gift or Office is understood It had been enough for us to have said that generally it is so But being the word is out let it go and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary 1. For that Text Matth. 7.22 Many shall say to me in that day Lord Lord we have prophesied in thy name and in thy name have we cast out devils and done many miracles We grant that it cannot be from hence demonstratively proved that the prophecying here mentioned was an extraordinary Gift because the other two things mentioned were but we appeal to all the world whether this be not a strong presumption on our side and such as our Brethren can never disprove For that text Acts 13.1 There were certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch These were such Prophets as were joyned with Teachers 2. Preferred before them according to the order also used 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. 3. Such as the Spirit called to ordain Paul and Barnabas Let any reasonably judge whether these can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church for Rev. 10.11 John in a vision took a little Book from the Angel and did eat it And then the Angel said to him Thou mayest prophesie again c. Was this by vertue of ordinary gift think we Their next is Matth. 13.57 A prophet is not without honour but in his own Country this Rule they say is true of all faithfull Teachers Saint Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 commands Timothy to watch in all things to endure afflictions to do the work
gifts though every one had not more than one yet some might as Paul had the word of knowledge and wisdom and tongues and miracles and interpretation of tongues So I see nothing to hinder but he that had the special gift of prophecie might besides have the word of wisdom and knowledge 3. Supposing prophecie to have been a gift of foretelling things to come or explication of Scripture by an infallible Spirit without use of means yet they might speak edification exhortation and comfort which is all mentioned 1 Cor. 14.3 the Prophets of old Isaiah Jeremiah c. did all but the nature of their gift and the specifical difference of it did not lye in the thing spoken or the End but in the principle enabling them so to speak 4. Our Brethren therefore shall never prove that exhortation c. was the distinctive act of the Prophet as they would insinuate for they themselves must grant that common to Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers with them and this is an answer to their third thing For what they say before that prophecie Rom. 12.6 7 8. is distinguished from exhortation it signifies nothing because exhortation was not the act of Prophets as Prophets It was told our Brethren that 1 Cor. 13.8 the Apostle saith Whether there be prophecies they shall fail whether there be tongues they shall cease whether there be knowledge that shall vanish away Our Brethren answer ver 9 10. it shall be Page 114. when that which is in part is done away 2. Not till the ceasing of knowledge in part 1. We may as well maintain tongues not to be ceased for they also are mentioned ver 8. as things which should fail and we know they are failed and so we judge are prophecies too nor will it help our Brethren which they say that ver 9. it is not said tongues are in part for the reason is because they were perfect in their kinde and so need not be done away when that which is perfect should come but if we take perfect in a true sense for a perfection of the Saints in glory then indeed they were imperfect things serving only as means in order to that end Neither doth the Apostle speak of the coming of that which is perfect as the moving cause or reason of that ceasing of things that were in part he doth not say that which is in part shall be done away by the coming of that which is perfect but he speaks of it as a consequent The true sense is this Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church shall cease when we come in heaven we conceive by tongues and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary By knowledge ordinary gifts and offices these shall all fail at that day but some of these shall fail before others We lay no great stress upon this Text I have only said thus much to prevent our Brethrens using of it as they here do though without any just ground for the truth is it will serve neither party It was told our Brethren that prophecying 1 Cor. 14. is said not to serve for those that believed not and therefore our Brethren must keep their Gifted men to their Churches If any thing can be clear in Scripture surely this is from that Text 1 Cor. 14.22 To this our Brethren Answer 1. That it will warrant their preaching in Church Assemblies 2. That the Apostles intent seemeth to be but to deny prophecy to be a sign to unbelievers and to serve onely for Believers to edifie them but they say the Apostle acknowledgeth it to be usefull to unbelievers to convert them To which I answer 1. If there were any Prophets indeed this would warrant the exercise of their gifts to Church Assemblies but our Brethren cannot prove any such Prophets now existent But Secondly It is well our Brethren say no more than this seemeth to be the Apostles intent for the Letter of Scripture is express against them in these words Wherefore tongues are for a sign 1 Cor. 14.22 not to them that believe but to them that believe not but prophecying not for them that believe not but for them that believe Our Brethren would make us believe that the sense is only that prophecie was not for a sign to them that believed not but for their conversion it might be Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little and judge betwixt us 1. It is plain that if prophecying were for any sign it must be for unbelievers for believers needed no sign they had already received the Gospel but the Apostle plainly says it was not for unbelievers 2. Let any Reader judge whether those words But prophecying not for those who believe not do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to unbelievers if it were a sign at all it must be for them who believed not but say our Brethren it is denied to be a sign for them and the words are plain enough it is not for them Object Oh! But though it be not a sign for them yet it might be to convert them Answ Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convetsion now that prophecy should be for their conversion and not a sign for it seems very harsh considering that the world had no greater sign of the truth of the Gospel than Prophecies For what our Brethren say that ver 25 26. prove that prophecy is usefull for the conversion of unbelievers We grant it but it is When the unbeliever comes in to the Church Assembly not when the Prophet goes out to them ver 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place and ver 24. There come in one that believeth not or is unlearned he is convinced or reproved of all i. e. those that prophesie he is judged of all c. Mark the Prophet is tied up to the Assembly of the Church in one place If our Brethrens Brethren be of this sort of Prophets what do they travelling up and down Countreys whom they think unbelievers or intruding upon Congregations that are vacant where there is no Assembly our Brethren will own as a Church these Prophets were not by vertue of this Text to be sent out of the Church only to be heard in it This is all our Brethren say about these Prophets and although I really think their Argument from this Text the most probable of any they have yet I hope an equitable Reader will from what I have said judge it not conclusive in the case I wonder at the reverend opinion our Brethren express of their other Arguments in comparison of this But let the Reader judge Only led me add one text more to prove this prophecying an extraordinary gift not ordinary it is that Acts 19.6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text and conâ—ider whether that the Gospel-prophesying were not one
are no Officers to take upon them to do Acts of office is sinfull But for persons meerly gifted to preach ordinarily in publike Assemblies in the setled state of the Church is for persons who are no officers to take upon them to do Acts of office Not to multiply words needlesly by Acts of Office I meant Acts peculiar to office then say our Brethren they deny my assumption Preaching they say is not an act peculiar to office I foresaw this and therefore laid in some proof for it The proper acts of Pastors and Teachers c. are acts peculiar to office But ordinary preaching in publike Church-Assemblies in a setled state of the Church is the proper act of Pastors and Teachers c. By proper Acts our Brethren might have concluded that I meant proper quarto modo such as are peculiar to them Then they tell me they deny the Minor and Reader this is it that they affirm That preaching is not the peculiar work of a preaching Elder teaching the truth is not the peculiar work of a Teacher but although Pastors and Teachers be standing Officers in the Church of Christ who must and ought to Preach yet others may preach as well as they Our Brethren do allow that Pastors and Teachers are needfull to feed the flock of Christ but yet that this flock may feed it self that Christ hath appointed some whose ordinary work should be to teach and whose office it should be to the performance of which they must be set apart but yet there are others who may do the same thing without being set apart this is clearly our Brethrens sense but how consistent with reason let the Reader judge As to the making of my Argument good 2. My former discourse will make it appear that iâ— will lye upon our Brethren to give an instance of any one in Scripture except extraordinary persons in respect of extraordinary gifts and offices who not in order to Ordination in a setled state of the Church did ordinarily preach or any precept to warrant such for the future We have proof enough in Scripture that the Elders and Officers of the Church did it I can yield it our Brethren that the name Teacher is to distinguish from him that exhorteth but the name of Teacher and Pastor too must have teaching and exhorting as their proper acts by the force of the same Text Rom. 12.7 8. That work upon which the Officer of the Church is to wait that is his peculiar work but preaching is that work upon which Pastors and Teachers are to wait Rom. 12.7 8. That by Gods appointment it should be the work and charge of some to wait upon the performance of an action which any others may do as well and as ordinarily as they is a strange piece of sense Pag. 199. Our Brethren p. 199. argue fallaciously when they say Distribution is an act of the Deacons office and yet every one may distribute Distribution of the Churches stock is indeed an act of the Deacons Office and this none but they may distribute They might as well have said speaking is the act of a man Ergo Preaching the word is not peculiar to office He that breaks Bread and gives it to another doth materially in our Brethrens sense the Acts of him that administreth the Lords Supper Yet our Brethren will grant that the Sacramental breaking of Bread is an act of Office Distribution to the poor is not materially an act of the Deacons Office but distribution of the Churches stock is and that none may do if the Church have Deacons but they I proceeded to prove Preaching an Act of Office thus If Baptizing be an act peculiar to office then is preaching such But baptizing is Ergo. I proved the consequence 1. Because they are both in the same Commission 2. The Apostle makes preaching the greater Act 2 Cor. 1.17 Our Brethren of London had used the same Argument and brought the same Text in justification of it to which these Brethren endeavoured an answer ch 9. pag. 165 166 c. To which here they refer me yet withall pag. 200. they give me a repetition I will fairly sum up what they say in both places First Our Brethren say 1. That the Argument falleth as heavy upon us for we will allow Probationers to preach yet not to Baptize Secondly Some they say think the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is given to the Apostles as Officers and that there is another Commission for gifted men But Thirdly they tell us it is a mistake for the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is not that which impowereth men to preach It was only an enlarging of a former Commission and a making the Gentiles capable of being preached unto For the Apostles preached and baptized before Mark 10. ver 5 6 7. The Apostles they say received as much power by this Commission as any others their Successors could but they received no Office-power by it It can they say only be concluded from hence that those who were in office before might go and preach to the Gentiles Hence they deny that the joyning those two acts together in that Commission doth conclude that all who may do the one may do the other Fourthly they say some deny that preaching is a greater work than baptizing Here they quote a great Friend of theirs Dr. Homes Fifthly page 170. they suppose preaching the greater work else where our Brethren ingenuously grant they think it is pag. 233. yet it doth not follow that those who do the greater may do the less because the less may be more limited Sixtly and lastly They finde that men out of Office are allowed to perform the same acts which have the denomination of preaching and for the same end Preaching without Ordination p. 165 c. Matth. 18.15 Heb. 3.13 Heb. 10.25 Now they cannot finde the Gospel allowing men out of Office to perform that act called Baptizing and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of Baptism is instituted for This is the sum of all said in many more words page 165 166 167 168 169 170 199 200. Now let us examine what there is in all this to prove That those who may preach may not baptize when as Christ with the same breath said Go preach and baptize and Saint Paul saith he was not sent to baptize i. e. that was not his main act but to preach I shall shortly answer to all our Brethren say 1. Under favour our Brethren are mistaken in the fall of the Argument from this Text upon us who allow Probationers to preach For 1. They were excepted out of the question as being by a special rule in Gods word dispensed with Our Brethren can shew no such Rule for their gifted men 2. Neither do we allow them to preach ordinarily 2. As to the second thing they say to make their assertion good they must bring forth that same other Commission for gifted men before we shall believe it if it
the Ministerial office and that Text 1 Cor. 1.17 doth evidently prove it So doth that Rom. 12.7 8. Take from those two Texts these two Arguments Arg. 1. That piece of the Ministerial work for the discharge of which God especially designs his Ministers when he sends them that is their chief work But Preaching is such 1 Cor. 1.17 Ergo. Arg. 2. That piece of the Ministerial working upon which the Minister is most especially to wait and rather to neglect other parts than that that is their chief work But Preaching is that piece of the Ministerial work upon which Ministers of the Gospel are especially to wait Rom. 12.7 8. to which they are especially ordained 1 Tim. 2.7 1 Tim. 1.11 to which they are in special manner to give attendance both to be prepared for it and to do it 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. and to do it well 2 Tim. 2.15 2 Tim. 4.2 they are rather to neglect others than that as Paul did Baptizing 1 Cor. 1.14 15 16 17. And the Apostles judged it not meet they should leave the word of God to serve Tables Acts 6.2 Ergo. Therefore I think our Brethren have but done themselves right in judging Preaching the chief and main work of the Ministerial Office p. 203. But say they Pag. 203. Yet we do not finde any Scripture Rule to evidence that Preaching in it self is either an act of Office or peculiar to the distinctive act of Office to make it so there is required a being over them in the Lord who are preached to 1 Thes 5.12 and this they conceive doth make Preaehing an act of Office c. What this serveth for more than to blinde the Reader that he may not see the strength of our Argument I cannot tell Our Argument was this That which is the main Act of the Ministerial Office for the performance of which God especially designed it that is not lawfully to be performed by such as are in no Office for it is the peculiar act of Office But Preaching is the main and chief act for the performance of which God hath set up an Office of the Ministry and designed it c. Ergo. The Minor our Brethren have granted so that they must deny the Major or nothing we prove it God doth nothing in vain But in case he had set up an Office in his Church chiefly for the performance of an act which many out of Office might do he had as to that act set it up in vain Ergo It is false that any other may do it The Minor is evident to common sense or reason were it not a vain thing for a Prince to establish an Order of Officers suppose Justices of the Peace Colonels and Captains of Armies Constables in Parishes if by the Law every man though in no such office might do the main work that belonged to such an Office Hence we say that the Lords establishing a standing office of Pastors and Teachers and declaring in his Word that the main end of his establishing them is for the Preaching of the Gospel doth clearly reveal his will that this should not be the work of any but such Officers Now what say our Brethren The Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office This is the sum of what they say If it be sense I am sure it is nothing to the question which is plainly begged in the answer For what is the Question but this Whether any but such as are in Office may ordinarily Preach We say no because Preaching is an act peculiar to Office this we prove because it is the main and chief act and end for which God set up the Office Our Brethren grant it to be the main and chief act for the exercise of which God set up the Office and yet tell us by and by that Preaching is not so But the Preaching of one in Office is so Reader if thou canst pick out the sense of this I cannot Our Brethten should have done well to have given us the difference between simple Preaching as it is an Ordinance of Christ and Office-Preaching as they call it If they mean by Preaching An act of a person clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ by which in obedience to his Command the Agent openeth and applyeth Scriptures in order to the conversion and edification of souls and that in the publick Assemblies and to which people ought to attend We say this must be an act of Office and all such Preaching is Office-Preaching his authority puts him in Office If they mean by Preaching Any persons discoursing of the Scripture either privately or publickly in such a way as that none is by Gods command obliged to hear him nor can hear him looking upon what he does as the publick appointment of Christ for the salvation of his soul we allow gifted men may Preach in this sense But we say that strictly this is no Preaching it is no more than a private persons reading a good Book to whom people are not bound to resort to hear nor ought they so to do upon the Lords days which should be spent in the duties of publick worship Our Brethren p. 203. justly think that in the hearts of some serious Christians there may be some such workings as these If this Doctrine be true that all gifted men may by the command of Christ Preach ordinarily as well as Pastors and Teachers and all the Brethren have as much to do in ruling tne Church as ruling Elders surely both Preaching and Ruling Elders are useless for to what purpose are they set a part for a work which they might do without such a setting apart or any others do as well as they when made Officers And therefore surely these principles have too much absurdity in them and bear too much contradiction to the revealed will of God to be true But say our Brethren If all acts which Officers might put forth Pag. 204. might be performed by members not in Office yet there would be enough to speak Officers necessary and of great use 1. Though they put forth the same Acts yet it is not under the same relation A man provideth for his children as a Father for the poor under another notion A Christian friend occasionally gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance so doth the Parent of these children yet the manner is different the one is under a standing Obligation the other not The Bayliffs are needfull in Corporations where the major part carry it without the Bayliffs sometimes pag. 205. Church-Officers have a special oversight over the flock pag. 206. they are under a special designation If a Church hath Officers they by their place are to go before the Church in directing and executing determinations But the Church may censure without Officers p. 207. 2. They say that we allow such an Office as hath no act peculiar to it viz. Ruling Elders 3. They do not say all may
preach but such as are really gifted 4. If there be Scripture-Warrant for gifted mens Preaching it is needfull whether we can see it or no. 5. The Preaching of Apostles and Evangelists did not make the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless nor è contra because every Church-member may distribute to the poor it will not follow the Office of Deacon was needless This is the sum of what our Brethren say pag. 203 204 205 206 207 208 209. in many more words To all which I shall give a short answer 1. As to the present debate I have nothing to do with arguing the needlesness of Officers as to the Government of the Church of Officers if others besides such Officers may act with them Acts of Jurisdiction in the Church were never by Christ committed to the single hand of any person nor yet to any single Office I think neither the Minister alone nor the Ruling Elders alone nor the multitude alone are the Church to which offences should be told or who can singly act in any formal censure except in a very high Case of Necessity The work of Preaching is of another nature it is by Christs Order to be performed by this or that single hand It will not therefore follow that because there is a need of a Pastor though ruling Elders as we say and the multitude as our Brethren say ought to concur with them in acts of Censure and Discipline â—herefore there is a need of Teaching Elders though others may teach as well as they for the work of teaching may be as I said before performed by single hands without a concurrence to the act of any others whether Officers or Members so may not acts of Government 2. As to what our Brethren say That Pastors and Teachers act under another relation as set over people in the Lord this amounts to no more than a notion and makes no real difference Let us examine what this signifies Will our Brethren say these Preach as appointed by Christ others not so pag. 209. No say our Brethren the gifted men are also by Divine appointment to preach so their authority is the same Christ appointeth both the one and the other they say What then do they not do the same material acts That they do our Brethren told us p. 200. they had found that in Scripture What then Is not the end the same to convince convert exhort edifie Our Brethren told us pag. 112. They knew not wherefore they should prophesie if there were no hope of such effects So then our Brethren say that gifted men have the same authority to preach that teaching Elders and teach the same things to the same end Now I wonder what this different relation which they here tell us of signifies more then an empty notion let us see if their similitudes will help us A man they say provideth for his children as a father for the poor under another notion But the quest is quite another thing viz. Whether it would be necessary that there should be a special order of persons called fathers to provide for the poor if every one were bound to provide for them and to do the same acts in the same order and to the same end that they should do A Christian Friend they say occasionaelly gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance so doth the parents of those children yet the manner is different the one is under a standing Obligation the other not If this similitude runs on four feet our Brethrens sense is this That there is a need of Pastors and Teachers though gifted men may Preach because gifted men are not under a standing Obligation to preach only may do it occasionally So then the sense is this gifted men may Preach shall not need except they list they may preach they may let it alone but Pastors and Teachers they must do it That they may let it aelone I most freely grant But that they may either do it or let it alone I can never grant All the precepts our Brethren pretended to for this Preaching of gifted men do not only if they were to their purpose assert their Liberty but enjoyn it as their duty See 1 Pet. 4.10 He that hath received the gift is commanded to Minister he that hath the gift of Prophecy must Prophecy Our Brethren say they preach by Divine appointment pag. 209. Now those that are appointed to Preach are not at their liberty whether they will Preach or no. This pretence is therefore exceeding vain besides it gives the gifted man a superiority over the Officer for Greater is he that sitteth at the Table and may choose whether he will serve or no than he who serveth and must serve For our Brethrens other instance viz. that Bayliffs in a Corporation may be usefull though the Common Councell may act with them it concerns not the present case it may have something in it to prove that although the Members of the Church have a joynt power with the Officers of the Church as to the executing some act of censure yet there is a need of them as to other acts and that is all it will do too in that Case but here it signifies nothing because Preaching is an act which may be done by a single person and we argue that there is no need of a special order of single persons to be in Commission for a work for which all were commissioned and in which others may act 3. It is true that our Brethren say we do allow such an Office as we say hath no act peculiar to it viz. that of Ruling Elders their work is rule and in that work they are joynt Commissioners with the Teaching Elders But the question is whether we allow such as are not Officers to act in it We say the office of ruling is a partible Office divided betwixt the Teaching and Ruleing Elder who as to that work make but one office to the execution of which a double Species of Officers is ordinarily necessary These two as heretofore the King Lords and Commons of England made up the three Estates all necessary to enact a Law do make up the two States as it were in the Church without whom an act of Rule cannot be put forth in ordinary cases But the case is quite another as to the work of Preaching which may be performed by a single person If indeed we had said that the Ruling Elder might alone without the Teaching Elder have in ordinary cases exercised acts of Rule Our Brethren had said something and we should have thought the Pastors Commission as to ruling needless and so è contra we should have thought the ruling Elder needless and should so judge it if we could see that the Pastor in ordinary case without them might rule which is the thing our Brethren plead for the Preaching of Gifted men Fourthly Our Brethren say they do not say all may preach only those who are gifted
vindication of this Argument My fifth Argument was this Whosoever may lawfully Preach may lawfully require a maintenance of the Church to which they preach 1 Tim. 5.18 Mat. 10.10 Gal. 6.6 But all the Gifted Members of a Church cannot require a Maintenance of the Church wherein they are Ergo. Our Brethren deny the Major and say The Scriptures alledged speak of a constant preaching they say it but they do not prove it neither doth Matth. 10.10 nor Gal. 6.6 hint the least of such a thing the Scripture saith he that laboureth he that teacheth our Brethren add constantly by what authority I cannot tell But our Brethren have much fault to finde with my Minor it is neither true in matter nor form A little matter will make it true in both It is true by a slip of my Pen instead of the Church to which they Preach I put in the Church in which they are but it is the same thing for admit that they may prophesie I proved before from 1 Cor. 14.23 that they had no warrant to go out of their Church to do it If unbelieves come in thither well and good but they have no rule to go out to them Our Brethren here spend many words not to prove but to speak the same thing over again viz. That for occasional Preaching wages or maintenance cannot be required But where nothing is proved nothing need be answered and all that our Brethren preach upon this subject is both beside the Texts quoted by me and without a Text produced by them My sixth Argument was from Rom. 10.15 This they say they answered before indeed their whole Seventh chapter was spent in an endeavour to that purpose It is too large to describe for it reacheth from pag. 116. to pag. 138. of their Book I will therefore only lay before my Reader the Sum of my Argument and then give a summary of what they answer I argued thus Vindiciae Ministerii Pag. 43 44. What none may ordinarily do but those that are sent that persons meerly gifted may not do But none may ordinarily Preach but those who are sent Rom. 10.15 Ergo. I proved the Major thus What none may do but those who are sent that none may do who are not sent But persons meerly gifted are not sent Ergo. The proof of the Minor brought me to examine what it was to be sent Reason told me Sending was the Act of another or others none can send himself Those who send are either God Angels or Men to the second none pretends of the first the Text must be understood Gods sends either immediatly or mediately immediately by a voice from heaven of this the Text cannot be meant for then farewell preaching yea and believing too according to the force of that Text. God sends mediatly by his Church either by his Church electing or ordaining Let it be which way it will meer gifts will not serve the turn This was the substance of what I said Now let us hear what our Brethren say 1. They grant Mission is of ordinary Teachers pag. 118. 2 That it continues in all Ages but deny it essential to the constitution of a Minister by that Text but say it is necessary to the Act of preaching p. 119. 3. They deny the major of my first Syllogism and the minor of my second and say gifted persons are sent 4. They say the sending there is not an act constituting an Officer 1. Because some who were Officers before had Mission afterwards Matth. 28.19 2. Because it may be repeated without losing the office Matth. 10.5 6.7 Chap. 28. v 19. 3. Because some had Mission who were no officers Luk. 10.1 Because all that are instrumental to Conversion would then be judged Officers Rom. 10.14 5. They say Mission is not ordination 1. Because no Scripture saith it 2. Because then Deacons are sent Acts 6.6 3. Because Mission may be iterated but not ordination Matth. 10.5.28.19 4. Because a Church may Ordain its own Minister but cannot send to it self 6. They grant bare gifting is not sending Matth. 10.1.56.7 Sending doth not make but suppose them Preachers 7. Sending they say is Christs commanding by his word or assigning Preachers to go and publish the Gospel 2. Or a providential disposing them to this or that people Upon this they Comment largely that this is sending they prove p. 129. by Isa 6.8 9. Jer. 14.14 15 23 21. Matth. 10.5 8. They judge the sense of the Text to be a providential sending p. 136. except they be ordered by Providence to go to such a people I never love to throw a needle into a bottle of Hay it is so hard to find it again in these 22. pages our little Argument is almost lost in short the Question is this whether gifted men as gifted be sent or no if they be not they cannot actually at least Preach Let it be naturally or Morally impossible They cannot preach except sent Our Brethren must say they are sent and so deny the Minor of my second Syllogism I proceed If they be sent it must either be by Christ or by Antichrist But we say they are not sent by Christ I hope our Brethren will say they are not sent by Antichrist Ergo not at all We prove the Minor If they be sent by Christ it is either immediately or mediately But neither immediately nor mediatly Ergo not at all Our Brethren must deny the Minor and say they are sent immediately for if they be sent mediately it must be by his Church commanding electing or ordaining which soever of these it is it is more than gifted The last our Brethren deny the second is non-sense viz. to say the Church sends by electing choosing and sending are two things as to the first our Brethren judge it not necessary though convenient If their Mission be immediate We always thought it must have been by Christs own voice as he sent the 70. and the 12. or by a sign from heaven of his will as in the case of Matthias or by extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost inabling them to which was added a power of miracles to confirm their Mission and give them credit in the world But our Brethren have found out two other ways 1. By his revealed will in his word 2. By his Providence 1. As to the first our Breâ—hren have not proved it by one Text for all their Texts quoted concerning such Missions as were made or should have been made by an extraordinary voice either from God in heaven in a Prophetical vision Isaiah 6.8 9. Jer. 14.14 15. Jer. 23.21 Or from God incarnate on the earth Mat. 10.5 6. But that Gods revealed will in his word is called sending as his word is now written is not proved nor can be proved God commands men in his written word to believe repent to do good to all and to distribute but we no where find that this is called sending and we should think this strange language to
say God sends men tâ— relieve the poor But be it so at present We say the written word commands none to Preach but such as are ordained Our Brethren only say gifted men are allowed and they may do it occasionally no more therefore say they they are not to be maintained 2. Besides sending makes them Officers who ever I send is my Officer the Kings Ambassador is his Officer and so by this Rule they are all Gods Officers no man can send another but he is in office as to that whereabout he is sent nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary If a man be an Officer before another Mission makes him still an Officer those sent Luke 10.1 were Officers by their Mission though Mission may be repealed and yet the Office not lost yet Mission makes an Officer My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer as to that business and if I send him a second time my second sending makes him my Officer too I see no contradiction in that when the work is enlarged as in those instances Matth. 10.5 6 7. Matth. 28.19 Nor will it follow that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers because it is said How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard or how can they hear without a Preacher c. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases else a man may believe without hearing suppose a man be deaf and hear without a Preacher too c. 3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Providential sending and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach if God doth not by his providence direct or permit them to Preach if God doth not give them legs to stand and a tongue to speak Hence it follows That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is denied as if a man should say How can a man see if his eyes be out And this our Brethren own pag. 137. for they say all the other interrogations deny a natural possibility Christian Reader doest not thou think this had been a great Gospel-Mysterie worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans none could preach if they had no tongue to speak or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where But to evince this to be a vanity 1. If this notion of sending be true then none can run before they are sent for all motions are under the providence of God But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent 2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned 1 Tim. 3.6 were sent for they could never creep into houses but by divine providence Object But say our Brethren Gods command in his word must concur with his providence Answ What command is that 1 Pet. 4.10 say our Brethren As every one hath received the gift let him minister But say these men we have received the gift therefore we are sent who shall judge now Not the Presbyterie say our Brethren nor is it necessary the Church should say they Ergo t is enough they say they have and you ought to believe them and look upon them as sent till the great day comes which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order can any one think which Jesus Christ hath taken for his Church But I need not multiply words here our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending unless the Person â—o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word and they can shew no command conclusive in the case but for such as are otherwise sent then meerly gifted and providentially disposed Only I must examine their reasons why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended though we only contend it to be the ordinary Mission and that alone which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased as our Brethren easily will grant they be They say 1. They no where finde Ordination called Mission But this falls as heavily on our Brethren for they cannot finde us any Text where the Command of God in his written word is called sending 2. We find Acts 13.3 Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas They fasted and prayed and laid their hands on thâ—m and sent them away if the last words be not exegetical of the former our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth in sending them that is called by that name 2. Because our Brethren finde Deacons were ordained but they do not finde they were sent It doth not follow that because the Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending on the Churches part therefore no Ordination is or may where the persons are ordained Officers to more then those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them 3. Because Mission may be repealed but not Ordination According to our Brethrens principles Ordination also may But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned Matth. 10.5 6 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission we do not say Ordination is so There was a new work to do but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do which shall need require a new ordination 4. Our Brethren say None can send to themselves But a Church which hath a Presbyterie may Ordain its own Officers Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers no more will I if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Churches have excepting onely Cases of necessity but although a Church cannot send to its self yet it may send one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member a Citizen of Norwich may properly enough send a Message to the Corporation though himself be a Member of that Corporation and the person thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholick Church to all which he is sent And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15 My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a topick From the contrary practise and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches and all Reformed Churches Our Brethren make light of this But in cases where the Scripture speaks at best but so darkly on our Brethrens side and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty we think it very much if we can say with the Apostle If any list to be contentious we have no such custom neither we nor the Churches of Christ And in cases which are dark we follow the guidance of Christ while we walk by the footsteps of the flock and feed our kidds by the shepherds tents Cant. 1.8 CHAP. VI. Containing a review of some passages in our Brethrens Book and in my answer where is examined whether the Baptism of Christ and John are according to our Brethrens sense to be distinguished Our Brethrens three Texts for Election by a particular Church arâ—
it was given to them as their concernment it says not It saith Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly the crowd of names present was an hundred and twenty the word signifies a company of persons a multitude Mat. 4.25 Matth. 5.1.7.28 By Disciples ver 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant who are very often in Scripture distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multitude as Matth. 13.34 Matth. 9.36 37. and in many other Texts Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles and said to them in the hearing of the multitude I know the term disciple is sometimes taken in a larger notion but it seems to be here distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure I am our Brethren can give no sufficient reason to shew that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles not exclusively to others but emphatically and more eminently than others called Disciples as in many other Texts and if this sense be allowed they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two verse 25. according to our Brethrens own Argument 3. But lastly It is a plain case God here chose for two stood forth or were set forth when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle till God made the choice Hence it is plain that from this Text nothing can be concluded 1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor 2. It doth not say any chose them But they stood 3. If any did choose probably they were only the Apostles called Disciples by way of emphatical distinction 4. The truth is it was God who made choice If therefore our Brethren could prove that the Brethren set these two before the Apostles and as they say in doing that did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer yet this was just nothing for nothing was needfull from them in that Case Their second Scripture is that Act. 6. v. 1 2 3 4 5 6. where it is expresly said that the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples and said Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report c. In the former Argument our Brethren argued thus If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer then they ought to choose the less Here now they argue quite contrary If they ought to choose the less then they ought to choose the greater Surely both these Arguments cannot hold being both made affirmatively But as to the present Argument stated thus If the Church mentioned Act. 6. v. 3 4. c. ought to choose Deacons then a particular Church now ought to choose her Pastors But the Church Acts 6. chose her Deacons Ergo. 1. We deny the consequence 2. We deny the Assumption I will offer Reasons for both 1. For the denial of the Consequence 1. It is plain that Church Acts 6. was the universal Church as well as a particular Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all mankinde nor is this nonsense for by universal Church I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth in which were Catholick Officers it was furnished with twelve Apostles 2. It is plain that the persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning Spirits Act. 2. Act. 4.31 No particular Church now can pretend to any such thing 3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative from the lesser to the greater particularly it will not hold in this Case That in most cases it will not hold is evident none can argue thus if a man can carry a thousand weight much more an hundred thousand If my Friend will give me a nights lodging he will much more give me his house and land or a lodging in his house as long as I live On the other side it is true in some cases it will hold But not to run into a Logical dispute The present Question is How far it is lawfull to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another Our Brethren will grant that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God Now as to this I say 1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawfull to choose the greater and yet unlawfull to choose the less as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choose Parliament men and yet not Lawfull for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace and so again to choose the less and not the greater as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choose a Constable of a Parish and yet not lawfull for them to choose a Colonel of an Army or a Justice of the Peace so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law but the Law of God must justifie the Consequence so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is 2. It is probable that the Lord who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage Our Brethren must say no more than it is probable And then we answer 1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scripture is not a certain Rule for us to walk by 2. We say it is not probable because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon than of a Pastor 2. Because this Church was more able to judge â—f both than any Church is now Our Brethren see what they are come to 1. They â—rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church to other Churches the least members of the universal Church not in the least measure so gifted from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight 2. When all is done they argue it but probable â—nd this probable hath a great improbability attending â—t too 3. From a choice limited as to the persons to be chosen Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose yet the Argument is a lamentable Non sequitur But to their Minor Are our Brethren sure that either the whole or the major part of the Church here made the choice Our Brethren have to prove it ver 2. The twelve called the multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude in the Original all the multitude
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all To which I answer 1. Our Brethren know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in Scripture always signifie either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of nor yet the Major part How many times in Scripture is Christ said to have died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all yet Christ neither Died for every individual man nor for the Major part of men Mat. 3.5 6. It is said That all the Region round about Jordan went to hear John and were Baptized of him confessing their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region nor yet the major part did either go to hear or were baptized or confessed their sins Christ tells the Pharisees they tythed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—very herb yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees or any other Jews Gardens so that this word will not conclude especially considering what reason we have to believe the contrary viz. that neither the whole nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls 120. were in it Acts 1.15 3000. more were added Acts 2.41 5000. more added Acts 4.4 here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls Now let any one in reason judge 1. What one place in Ierusalem could well contain them except the Temple and whether it be probable that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither enough to have made a good Army the major part of these must be above four thousand 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too for Acts 6.1 there was a murmuring about the poor between the Grecians and the Heâ—rews we therefore think it more probable that the Apostles spake to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them and if our Brethren talk till Dooms-day they can prove no more from this Text. And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in reference to this Text and enough to shew it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake viz. That the whole Church or Major part of it must of divine right choose its own Officers I come to their third Text. Acts 14.23 I will transcribe ver 21.22 Ver. 21. And when they that is Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel in that City and had taught many they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch Ver. 22. Confirming the souls of the Disciples and exhorting them to continue in the Faith and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God Ver. 23. And having ordained or chosen it is no matter which as to our Brethrens purpose them Elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed 1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said something to it before but I would fain know of any one that understands sense whether those that ordained or chose were not those that confirmed and exhorted v. 22. those that preached and returned again to Lystra c. ver 20. If they were it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men 2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what other Syntax of the words according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured Object But the Disciples are twice mentioned v. 22. Answ T is very true but not as the persons confirming and exhorting but as the persons confirmed and exhorted so they are mentioned here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the dative case the other the nominative Our Brethren say that Dr. Ames saith it may include the Disciples too or they might go before the Disciples I answer what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove that the people ought to choose not that it may be they may choose But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing or ordaining here was such as could not be performed onely by Paul and Barnabas 1. They say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in Scripture for laying on of hands This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here I hope our Brethren know there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case where it signifies the people choice The word is indeed used but twice more in the New Testament once for choosing by suffrages once otherwise for Gods destination and appointment Acts 10.41 Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes c. should so use it But if they mean that in Civil Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for the constituting of a person in Office without the peoples suffrage if they look Stephen or Hesychius or Budeus they will better inform them Hesychius saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is nothing to the present purpose we say if it signifies choosing here yet Paul and Barnabas chose 2. Our Brethren say this could not be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choose by suffrages now Paul and Barnabas could not make suffrages All this is a riddle to me for if I understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— signifies the hand not the tongue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to stretch out not to speak the word no otherwise signifies a choosing by suffrage than the lifting up of the hand did testifie the suffrage But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages Surely they made two and that is the plural number sure The truth is the primary signification of the word was to choose by lifting up of the hand in token of their consent to a person named for an office now in regard this made vulgar Officers the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office whether there were an hand lifted up or no thus it is used in Scripture too Acts 10.41 chosen or appointed before of God yet I hope our Brethren will not say that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage and if two persons according to our Brethrens Grammar cannot make suffrages surely one indivisible God could not 3. But say our Brethren the thing intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
must be distinct from prayer and fasting Act. 14.23 and when they had ordained or ordaining them Elders and had prayed with fasting That imposition of hands in ordination is distinct from praying and fasting we grant But that praying and fasting is without it ordination we deny the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All our Brethrens strength lies in the English Translation In the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both the same tense and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equally applicable to both According to our Brethrens principle the nomination of the person and prayer and fasting and then executing by suffrage are distinct acts yet all make but that one act of constituting an Officer Neither is it said that the praying and fasting here at all related to the constitution of the Elders it might relate to their taking their leave of them mentioned in the next words and I am very apt to believe it did I am sure our Brethren cannot prove the contrary so that it is but gratis dictum a thing said which our Brethren must ask us leave to believe that the prayer and fasting here spoken of was any thing relating to Ordination 4. In the last place our Brethren because they cannot prove fairly beg the question p. 233. Because the power of Election is no where given to Officers but to the people I think this Text should have proved this thing that it is given to the people On the contrary we say our Brethren neither have proved nor can prove that the Scripture hath given the power of choosing Pastors to the people The Texts produced as we have heard will prove no more than a may be hardly so much And this Text it seems must have those to help it or it will not prove Thus Reader thou seest how easie it is to assert what is found hard to prove Read and judge whether from Scripture it can be positively concluded that it is Gods will that every particular Church should choose all its own Officers and this choice be all thaâ— is necessary by Gods word to make them Officers See if either in the Epistles to Timothy or Titus which of all other Scriptures are most to be eyed as our Rule about Church Government because there are given directions for the setling of ordinary Churches in a permanent state see if there be one word in them for the peoples choice though Titus was left on purpose in Crete to ordain Officers Tit. 1.5 and several Rules be given in those Epistles for the setling of Gospel Churches In the mean time we grant to our Brethren 1. That there is nothing in Scripture forbidding their election 2. That in many cases yea in all it is very convenient and by no means to be neglected if they will choose such a one as is fit for a Pastor But that it is necessary to the making of a Minister in Office by any rule of Scripture or that in no case the election of a Pastor in the strictest notion by a particular Church may be denied or over-ruled this we deny because we say every particular Church is not able to judge of the abilities of a Minister and often doth make apparent errours in Judgement Our Brethren p. 236. Assert the abilities of a particular Church to judge of the abilities required in a Minister they say they are able to judgeâ— if he be blameless the husband of one wife vigilant sober of good behaviour given to hospitality We grant this in some measure but there are some other qualifications too He must be one 1. That holds fast the faithfull word 2. Able by sound Doctrine to exhort 3. Able to convince gain-sayers Titus 1.9 4. Apt to Teach Now we deny that every particular Church even of our Brethren is able to judge of these things According to our Brethrens principles any seven visible Saints may make a Church we say seven real Saints may not be able to judge of these things How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince a gain-saying Socinian or Arminian or Papist who know not what any of them hold And how many hundred private Christians are there who are ignorant of these things I dare assume that in no Church our Brethren have in this County there are seven men know what the Socinians hold much less do the major part know yet they are doubtless able to judge whether a Minister be able to convince them Is any one so sensless as to think any seven private Christians is able to judge whether a Minister holds the faithfull word Our Brethren know two sevens of their Brethren have judged that the Quakers and Anabaptists hold the faithfull word which I speak not to create an odium upon them for some of ours have done so too It doth not follow that because a good Christian must be sound in the Faith in things necessary to Salvation therefore he is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister who is to exhort by sound Doctrine for a Minister is to preach more sound Doctrine than what is absolutely necessary to salvation Object Oh! But say our Brethren The sheep of Christ know his voice and they will not follow a stranger this importeth their having ability and liberty to judge what Teachers they should elect Answ Doth it so What belongs to Christ sheep as Christs sheep belongs to every sheep But this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ Ergo. The Major is undoubtedly true the Text saith my sheep not my fold what is here made to belong to sheep belongs to every sheep I hope our Brethren will not say this belongs to the Women yet are they Christs sheep too nor will it serve the turn to say they must not speak in the Church for we are now speaking of choosing and judging lifting up of the hand is enough But surely our Brethren will not say that every man hath ability if they do and will give us leave we will â—ick them out twenty out of every hundred they shall bring us if not four times twenty whose knowledge concerning sound Doctrine and ability to convince gain-sayers they shall be ashamed to own as sufficient â—o judge of the abilities of a Minister The truth is every sheep of Christ that is so truly and really i. e. every Elect soul so far refuseth the vâ—ice of strangers as though he may for a time follow them yet he shall first or last reject them again Our Brethren know that some both of their and our Brethren within these seven years last past have followed Strangers and such Strangers too as the Christian World never heard of before yet we should be loth to say they are none of Christs sheep because they are gone astray The Lord in mercy make them to return 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. consisting of all the Jews and Gentiles to be converted and that some of them are able so to judge or that all of them will not follow strangers we grant But this is nothing to our Brethrens purpose to prove that every individual sheep or every particular Church hath this ability FINIS