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
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
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
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
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.
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