gifted persons in the work of preaching and this sheweth that neither his necessitas praecepti nor necessitas medii can weaken the force of this argument We are at as great a losse to find any ordination of an ordinary officer without a precedent Election by a particular Church as he is to find it before the ordination of Paul Barnabas and Timothy who were extraordinarily or immediately called to Office and so needed not such Election Ob. And whereas he saith that in such cases of necessity they may be said to preach by extraordinary authority which the word of the Lord hath given them which may be called a Mission and they may be officers as to that time and state yet it will not follow but in another state of the Church Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister Vind. Revind pag. 63. 64. Answ Here he hath found out a Mission by the word which is not by the Church commanded Electing or Ordaining and so either his objection or else his Argument pag. 112. or both must needs be naught and he be guilty of selfe contradiction let his words be compared Those who preach in such casesof necessity where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear may be said to preachby an extraordinary authority which the word of That Gods revealed will in his word is called sending as his word is now written is of the Lord hath in such cases given them which may be called a mission Vind. Revind pag. 63. not proved nor can be proved Vi Revind pag. 112. He asserteth pag. 63 a mission by the word and denyeth pag. 112. that any such mission can be proved His officer in case of necessity hath no mission either mediately â—or immediately by any of the waies he mentioneth Ergo not at all thus might we urge his argument against himselfe 2. He hath given no proof for his extraordinary Office making mission in such cases of necessity and where nothing is proved nothing need be answered 3. If there were such extraordinary Officers by necessity then 1. They must be greater then ordained ones for extraordinary Officers are greater then ordinary 2. They are not to be ordained afterward though the Church cometh into an other state or else Ordination is not the constituting office-making act for saith he they were officers before 3. They must be either Apostles Evangelists or Prophets and these he concludeth to be ceased Or else they are Pastors and Teachers for the Gospel owneth no other preaching Officers but those aforementioned And that ordinary officers Pastors and Teachers should be made by an extraordinary call will hardly be proved Or that such ordinary offices can be convved without Ordination if that in ordinary cases be essential to such Offices we suppose can never be proved for it is as much as to say such offices have a being without that which giveth being to them A thing may have a being without some necessary accidents but that there can be any case so extraordinary as a thing should have a being without that which is essencial to it we find not Arg. 5. Our fifth Argument is taken from Gospel Rules about Prophecying All that are Prophets way ordinarily and publikely preach 1 Corin. 14. v. 23. 24. 29. 31. Dr. Collings saith Vind. Revind pag. 64. no such gifted men as now live are prophets To prove our minor that some men i. e. now living who are not ordained Officers are Prophets we lay downe three propositions 1. That Prophesie is a gift not an office 2. That Prophesying is a gift still continuing 3. That some men who are not ordained officers have that gift of Prophesie Preacher Sent. pag. 90. Dr. Collings pag. 65. repeateth three of our arguments and telleth the Reader that we bring them to prove that Prophesie is a gift not an office and cryeth out of a pittiful non sequitur c. whereas we use those arguments to prove the last position which is about the un-necessarinesse of Ordination for prophets Thus are we mis-presented as if we brought arguments to prove one Proposition which we use to prove an other and whether great wrong and injury be not offered to us and the Reader by such dealing let any wise man judge We neither argue in this place against their being extraordinary or ordinary officers nor against their being furnished with extraordinary gifts other mediums we use else-where that way and therefore his pittifull non sequitur is of his own making but the main question was about preaching without ordination and so we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 90. that ordination was not necessary for Prophets which here he graneth We knew not which part of our argument would be denyed and therefore left no part unproved Whereas he enquireth Vind. p. 65. who ever said these Prophets were ordinary Officers we answer Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt declareth it to be his judgement that this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets But neither of the Arguments which he is replying to speak one word about their being ordinary officers and therefore we wonder how that question should be started here Prop. 1. The prophesying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. is a gift not an Office 1. Because all who have the gift of prophesie are Prophets and they must have the gift before they can be made Prophets by Office 2. Because this prophesying ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth and so of any other Church whereas Office might not be so coveted by every man who was a member of a Church 1. It is not promised 2 Not possible to be obtained c. Preach Sent. p. 91. 92. Obj. Dr. Collings pag. 66. 67. c. saith 1. That God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary authority and furnished them with an extraordinary gift so he did Jeremy Amos c. 2. That the same argument will prove it was no gift except a promise can be shewn thereof 3. Things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will c. 4. They cannot be Officers to that Church but may be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea he saith they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides Vniversal holiness may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained c. 5. All doth not include every individual alwayes c. Ans 1. No ordinary Officer can be orderly made unless those gifts which furnish for the Office be first found in him Act. 6. 3. 1 Tim. 3. And that not extraordinary but ordinary Prophets are intended 1 Cor. 14. we have largely proved Preach Sent. pag. 100. 101. 102. and so our Argument is valid though extraordinary Officers as Jeremy and Amos should have the gift and Office together yet there the gift in order of nature at least doth precede
brethren as we shewed Preacher sent p. 326. As to what he saith pag. 142 to Tit. 1. 5. we answer We do not call ordination an unnecessary adjunct The Apostles paines might have been very usefull in other places when yet the Lord would have them abide at Jerusalem and so Titus at Crete The setting in order things that were wanting is expresly and firstly mentioned as the cause of Titus his staying at Crete and as that concerned but the wel-being of the Church no more did ordaining of Elders in every City for Churches have a being before Officers Acts 14. 23. and if Titus himselfe had acted in neither of these works but onely had taken the over-sight of those Churches and directed them therein yet it would have been necessary enough especially in that Infant state of the Church that Titus should a bide at Crete but doubtlesse he had preaching work enough there which was greater then his ordaining Elders Ob. 2. From the Nature of Election Deu. 1. 13. look what Moses was to the Jewes that are Ministers unto the Church c. Here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers onely the one is civil the other Ecclesiastical Mr. Pool p. 143. Answ 1. The Commonwealth of the Jews was a Thearchy in respect of the Legislative part of Government but it was a Monarchy in respect of the executive part and Moses the Monarch thereof the spiritual Commonwealth or Ministers not so 2. The power of Moses was Supream all other powers subordinate unto him the power of spiritual officers not so 3. Moses had power to appoint Officers of a new species under him Exod. 18. ver 24. Ministers not so 4. Christ is compared with Moses Heb. 3. not so with Ministers of the Gospel 5. Moses was over Babes and such as were under Tutors and Governours Ministers over a free people 6. Yet Moses gave to the people those that they gave to him so Christ the King D. 1. v. 13. 15. of Saints giveth unto his Churches those that according to his directions they chuse That freemen in a Corporation give the Essentials of a Call to their Officers c. is enough to shew that such as have no Office-power yet frequently do make Officers which answereth the Provinc Ass especially seeing they ground their objection upon a general Rule nihil dat quod non habet c. That Christs free-people may have office-power eminently in them as well as those instanced in is enough for us here we being in the defensive part But whereas he calleth p. 144. for Divine institution we reply 1. Many like instances lie giveth and we have as good reason to Call for a Divine institution there as when he telleth us pag. 7. of a vaste number of sheep committed to twenty Shepherds c and p. 8. of a general relation to the whole Empire a special respect to their own Territories we crave a Divine institution for any such order in the Church and so for his instances pag. 131. 132 about a presentation and the Archbishop and a D◠of Physick and 137. 138. of a Corporation a Court of Aldermen c. let him shew a Divine institution that it is so in the Church and why doth he require of us and not give it himself The use of such examples is to clear some general rule to illustrate and to shew that there are cases paralel and ours go thus far 2. We gave an institution in our Arguments to prove that Election giveth the Essence of the Call As to Ministers being before the Church we sufficiently disproved it in our former book pag. 303 304. It is evident that Churches were before Elders Act. 14. 23. it concerneth him to prove that any ordinary Elders were before a Church and that they act as officers to such as are no Church else he saith nothing to the purpose that Churches to are be gathered and baptized by them 〈◊〉 answered in the place even now quoted To prove that the Essence of the Cal I doth consist in Ordination they used five arguments he pleadeth for two of them The former is taken from 2 Tim. 1. 6. stir up the gift of God which is in thee 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee c. Object He saith 1. It was an ordinary Presbytery 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for Office as well as gift 3. That a man may be said to stir up his Office and office may be said to be in a man 4. That an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary officers who were inferiour to him 5. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the gift 2 Tim. 1. 6. and of the office 1 Tim. 4. 14. Mr. Pool from pag. 146. to 151. Answ 1. That it was an ordinary Presbytery is not proved extraordinary Officers were Presbyters 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly signifieth an absolute gift its questionable whether it be used any where for office 3. It is a stirring up as fire and it s very improper to say that office is so stirred up especially seeing the gift is said to be in him which is not true of office Though a man may be said to be in that which is in him as being swallowed up or overcome thereby as a man in sin in bear or drink in joy c. Yet it cannot with any propriety of speech be said that is in a man which is but upon him office is onely adherent to a man not inherent or in him it were very improper to say to a Major Bayliffe Justice Constable c. stir up the Office that is in you 4. If an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary Officers which is not proved yet their Argument is of no force unless he can prove that it was done here what he addeth pag. 149 of its being ordinary in state and Church for a Person to have an Office conveyed to him Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him c. doth plainly contradict what himself said p. 138. 160. That the less is called of the greater and by this Rule though the people be inferiour to their Officers yet they may convey their Office to them His instance of a King whose Office is conveyed by some of his Subjects if true proveth that those who are placed in a state of subjection yet may have authority enough to give the Essence to their Officers and so answereth what he saith pag. 139. 5. It is seldom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there is no evidence that it must be so taken here 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for gift 2 Tim. 1. 6. and for Office 1 Tim. 4. 14. is altogether without proof or probility of truth For as the phrase were improper neglect
not the Office that is in thee So it would follow that either Timothy had the extraordinary gift when not the Office or the Office when not the gift that qualified for it It is a feeble Argument that cannot stand unless there be a receding from the usual signification of divers words and a plain sense of the Texts alleadged for it And himself can find their argument to amount but to an it may be and so we may retort upon him what he groundlesly saith to us pag. 126. all the answer it deserves is it may not be he should not onely have shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for Office and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but that they must be so taken here else their Argument is invalid We said one relate gives being to another Object It is true in esse constituto but consider relations in esse constituendo as they are to be constituted and so somewhat else gives being to them the husband gives being to the wife and the wife to the husband but there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation to wit the act of the Justice or Minister pag. 151. Answ Relata give being one to another in esse constituendo especially if they be voluntary Relations as this between Officer and a Church is thus a mutual Covenant or agreement constitutes one a master and another a servant and so for husband and wife the act of the Magistrate is not constitutive of the relation between man and wife but Declarative What he addeth about Titus was answered before he was not left in Crete to ordain only but to Preach and to perform other acts peculiar to his office CHAP. XIV Concerning the peoples power in some cases to Ordain THat in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers we proved by six Arguments Mr. Pool replyeth to three of them Argu. 1. Else Ordination were unattainable for there is not one precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over Ob. 1. There are divers practices lawfully used which yet we find no president for but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in as excommunication Mr. Pool p. 153. Answ If there be a precept for such practices as there was for excommunication Mat. 18. we do not require a president our Argument was from the want both of precept and president Ob. 2. It is against them if what they say be true then there is neither precept nor president for the ordaining of officers Mr. Pool pag. 153. Ans This is a great mistake also for we did not deny that an ordinary officer hath precept or president for acting in Ordination in the Church he is over but that any of the Texts alleadged for Ordination do warrant his ordaining out of the particular Church he is over this is it which we deny and so if a Church wanteth officers then those Texts warrant none in ordaining and other general Rules authorize no officers of other Churches to do it more then believers without office◠And this answereth also what he addeth pag. 153. 154. we grant that some acts of extraordinary officers are presidents for us but not such acts as are of an extraordinary nature or did flow from an extraordinary power In the act it self of ordaining the Apostles are presidents for us but if Ordination was upon the hands of Apostles Ministerially in every Church yet it doth not follow it ought to be so on the hand of every Minister in this the Apostles are not presidents because they were Elders in every Church so are not ordinary officers as we have proved That the proper Elders of every Church should carry on the work in their own Churches is according to the president but it reacheth no further Ob 3. For 1 Tim. 4. 14. we read nothing of them which was extraordinary Mr. Pool pag. 154. Answ 1. It s very probable it was an extraordinary Presbytery For there is not a word to evidence it to consist of ordinary persons Apostles were Presbyters 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. Joh. 1. and Paul one of the Presbytery 2 Tim. 1. 6. we proved before that no office was conveyed 1 Tim. 4. 14. and if it were onely an extraordinary gift no ordinary Presbytery could convey that himself saith the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary officers p. 150. he that will conclude it an ordinary Presbytery must argue a genere ad speciem affirmative and say it was a Presbytery Ergo it was an ordinary one 2. If it were an ordinary Presbytery which yet is not granted the Call to lay on hands was extraordinary by Prophesie as themselves confess Jus Div. Min. p. 167. and this is enough to our present Argument Ar. 2. Our second Argument is taken from believers acting in a Synod Act. 15. and other publick services Ob. 1. If there be Scripture precept or example for the one and not for the other then they may do the one and not the other Mr. Pool pag. 155. Answ Where hath he any Scripture precept or example for provincial National or oecumenical Synods invested with power of censures he must argue from a parity of reason which is no good plea in that case there being no institution for any such Assemblies if they were instituted their being warranted to do some services might by a parity of reason evidence them to be empowered for other services also and thus believers not in office have a warrant to act in other publick and more weighty services as Preaching c. Ergo they may act in this Ob. 2. I deny that the brethren acted in making the decrees thousands consent to acts of Parliament that have no hand in making them pag 155. Answ The acts themselves are ascribed to the brethren Act. 15. the whole Church is said to send ver 22. and the letters did run in their name ver 23. The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting c. All in whose name an act of Parliament runneth are not onely consenters but makers of the act so here As to what he saith pag. 156. to Numb 8. 10. we leave it to any unprejudiced Reader to judge whether their Arguments or our answers carry most evidence with them Ob. 1. This was an extraordinary case the Levites and Church officers were not yet instituted c. pag. 156. Ans Though the Levites were not instituted before yet there were other officers the Provincial Assembly tell us Jus Divin Min. pag. 188. Aaron and his sons were present and if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders Master Pool saith it is as if a man should argue gifted men may Preach where no Ministers are to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers
how these arguings agree we know not Object 2. No doubt they were the first-born that did lay hands on the Levites Ans This is fully answered Preacher Sent pag. 344. most that he saith from pag. 157 to 161. is either inconsiderable or answrable or answered before Object 1. We hear not a syllable of the peoples concurrence in ordination c. p. 158. Paul in all his Epistles to the Churches speaks not a word about ordination surely the Scriptures silence is Argumentative p. 159. Ans If this will stand many of his principles must fall for we hear not a syllable in holy writ of the subordination of a Church of Christ in point of Government unto Assemblies made up of the officers of other Churches nor of the subordination of Synods one to another nor of its being an ordinary Presbytery which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. Nay there is not a word in Scripture for an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over upon an ordinary Call and so the Scriptures silence is as much argumentative in case a Church hath no officers in it against Ordination by officers of other Churches our officers as against Ordination by the people Object 2. There is the same reason for the Apostles being a president for Ministers baptizing and not the people and for their ordaining and not the people pag. 158. Ans We have reasons against the peoples baptizing which are not fetched from the president of the Apostles baptizing and which speak not against the peoples acting in ordination when a Church is without officers as for baptisme being a part of worship only by institution which as worship the people are no where warranted to perform in the acts of it whereas the Essential act of Ordination is prayer which though reqâ—â—red by Gospel Rules on that occasion yet in it self is an act of natual worship which the people may perform so Baptisme is a seal of the Covenant c. Ob. 3. We never find Ordination practiced but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. Ans 1. Then 1 Tim. 4. 14. cannot speak of Ordination by an ordinary Presbytery for Timothy was an extraordinary officer and so was not inferiour to an ordinary Presbytery either this or else what he saith p. 149. 154. must be false 2. We never find Ordination by ordinary officers upon an ordinary Call out of the Churches they are over and so the case is as difficult on his part as on ours His last Argument p. 160. viz. That Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in office we confuted before And thus we have finished our reply to the chief matters in his book onely for a conclusion he accuseth us to the Reader 1. For novel and strange passages 2. For self-contradicting passages Mr. Pool p. 160. 161. 162. 163. we shall briefly answer to these 1. As to his list of novel strang passages we answer 1. Our words pag. 13. do not so much as implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Jewes as a Teacher by office That Text Mat. 13. 54. 57. was alledged onely to evidence that stumblers at and opposers of the word in respect of him that teacheth may be said to be taught this is all we produce it for as any Reader may see and this it clearly proveth that no meer man can be an officer to such we prove but it is by other mediums not by that Text neither can any inferrence be drawn from our words against Christs being an Officer to such especially seeing Christ was an extraordinary person even the Law-maker and determiner who men should be Officers to As to the Apostles in a large sense they were officers to heathens but not Officers over them or in a strict sense as we have shewn in this book Ch. 7. 2. The second we own if the rest of our words be added to it neither hath he disproved it we would know from whom Apollo had a probation before his preaching 3. The third is proved in the pages he quoteth and also in this book Chap. 10. Let him evidence that an outward call from man is any where in Scripture stiled a mission or sending or that any but God doth send in the sense we take it in there We do not deny that a Church is to give a Call to Office but we deny that sending is that call 4. The fourth we own neither hath he disproved it and the same we say to the sixt and seventh As to the fist about administring the Sacraments not as Pastors we desire the Reader would view our former book pag. 280. and this book Chap. 6. As to the eight ninth we have spoken to them Ch. 6. 2. As to his accusation for selfe-contradicting passages we answer 1. We can find nothing like a contradiction in our words if pag. 20 and 149. be compared For if a man may lawfully preach yet may there not be divers things pre-required unto his preaching here or there May not a man have power to preach and yet want requisites unto the exercise of that power in this or that place do not they say a man may have power and yet without the consent of some or a special call may not exercise that power in such a place Jus Div. Min. pag. 144 Doth not Mr. Pool expresly assert it pag. 6. Yea he saith pag. 48. It is true no preachers are in Scripture oblidged to preach in such or such a place c. what do we say more We may turne his words pag. 163. upon himself say how can a man preach but he must preach in this or that place quod nusquam fit non fit So that the contradiction if it be one is as much his as ours 2 It is his grosse mistake to say that we are guilty of selfe-contradiction in the other two particulars which he mentioneth pag. 163. For what he rehearseth out of our book pag. 300. to make one part of the contradiction is an objection of theirs they are not our words but the words of the provincial assembly Jus. Divin Min. pag. 133. And that which he maketh the other part of the contradiction is our answer to the aforesaid objection and so we do but oppose them pag. 302. not contradict our selves They are their words from p. 300. l. 21. to p. 301. lin 14. this he might easily have seen though it be not printed in a different Character And now we shall put Mr. Pool in mind of some of his 1. novel and strange passages 2. Selfe-contradictions 3. Repugnancies to the provincial Assembly whose case he pleadeth the Dr. 1. novel strange passages 1. He saith that a Minister may be a Minister though he have no particular Church to which he stands related p. 11. by Minister he intends an officer pag. 10. 2. He saith that heathens are a part of Christs body pag. 13. And therefore are the object and
men be under any promise in their preaching Affirm Pr. S. 189. 30. Whether preaching be an act peculiar to Officâ— Neg. Preach Sent. 196. to 199. Vindicat 53. 31. Whether gifted men may require and receive maintenance when they preach Pr. Sent. 214 215. Vind. 61. 183 184. 32. Whether Election of a Minister belongeth to the major part of a Church Aff. Pr. S. 216. to 240. Vindicat. 71 72 185 186 c. 33. Whether an argument from the lesse to the greater affirmatively be valid and in what cases Pr. S. 224. to 228. Vindicat 75. 187. 34. Whether the whole essence of a call to office doth consist in Election Affirm preac S. 241. to 321. Vind. 190. 35. Whether Ordination doth give the essentials of the Ministerial Office Neg. pr. S. 244. c. 36. What is ordination preach Sent. 257. to 266. 37. Whether imposition of hands be so necessary unto ordination that it cannot without sin be omitted preach S. 259. to 262. 38. Whether an Officer may administer the Sacrament to some that are not of his particular Church pre S. 278 279 Vindicat. 101 102 39. Whether baptism admits into or maketh to stand in relation to any Church Neg. pre S. 284 25. Vindicat. 109 110. c. 40. Whether an Excomunicate person be Ejected out of all Churches pr. S. 284. Vind. 104. ib. Whether baptism ceaseth when Church membership ceaseth pag. 292. Vind. of Epist Vindicat. 105 107. 41. Whether blessing be an act peculiar to Office pr. S. 289. 42. Whether a Churches sinful rejection of a Minister doth nullifie his Office pr. S. 296. Vin 115 116. 43. Whether if an officer removeth and becometh an officer to another Church may there be an iteration of ordination pr. S. 297 298. 44. Whether in a Church which hath no Officers in it some believes may ordain without Officers pr. S. 323. c. 45. VVhether the difference between apostolical and pastoral power lyeth in the extent of the relation Aff. Vind. 120 121. 46. Whether Apostles were Apostles before Mat 28 19 20 Aff. Vind 169 170. 47. Whether officers be before Churches pr. 303 304. 48. Whether it were an ordinary or an extraordiry Presbytery that is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. v. 14 pr. S. 327 3 28. Vind. 49. Whether womens state of subjection doth forbid all un-officied men preaching Neg. Vin 177 178. 50 Whether it be the duty of gifted men to preacâ— Aff. pr. S. 36. Whether in some cases they may not warantably or without sin omit preaching or whether gifted men be obliged unto constant preaching if they have other callings pr. S. 159 Vindicat p. 129 130 131. 167. 184. THE TABLE Some Texts of Scripture opened in the preceding treatise noted by Vind. or in the Preacher Sent noted by Pr. S. those places which are largely handleâ— have an Asterick note against them Book Cap. ver Pr S. pag vin p Levit. â—9 17 4â—â— 4â— Â * Numb 8 10 34â— to 346  * Deutr. 1 13 272. 273.  * 1 Sam. 13 9 10. 155.  * 1 Chron. 13 9 10. 155 165 * Jerem. 14 14. 15. 127. 130.   23 13. 21. 128 179   22. 178 180. Malach. 3 16 17. 189  Math. 10 1. 5 6 7. 122. 124.     126   13 54. 57. 13   18 17. 18. 176   25 18 25. 26. 47. 60.  * 25 29 62. to     66. 29.  28 1â— 20. 121. 123.     125. 127.  * Mat. 28 19 20. 166. 167. 169.    188. 200. 170    289. 293.     311  Mark 3 14 124   4 24 25. 64 65.  Luk. 10 1 122  * Iohn 10 4 5. 225 82    237  * Acts. 1 17. 21. 22 23 217 to 220 71 72 c.    267 185  2 41. 288   5 42. 21. 79.   6  15 16 20     30 81.     152 162.     236 268.     270 318.     326 74 c. * 6. v. 2. 3. 5. 221 to 228. 185 186 * 8. 1. 3 4. 72 to 88. 32 137.  10. 41 228.   10. 46 47. 95   11 19 20. 74    21.     22      77 82.     83 84  * 13 1 2 3. 83 195.     251 to 257 192    267 268     299 326  * 14 23 228 to 235 78 187    16 242     243. 274.     275 303.   15 12. 22. 352.    23 50    32 335     109. 179  * 18 24 25 26 28. 56. 66. to 73 30 137  1â— 3 4 5. 69. 70. c. * 20 17 7. 15    28 8 9 11 118 * Roman 10 15 16. 249. 119    21 80 62  12 6 7. 117 to 138 154   8 33  1 Corin 1 17 50 89     202 203   7 20. 24 253  * 12 7 53    13 48 65    21 22. 286    28 47     294   13  93 94.    8 9 10. 113  * 14 many verses 88 to 116 36 144. 2 Corin. 8 18 19.     23 336  Galat. 1 11 12. 181  Ephes 1 16 17 18 105   4 11. 6 9. 17.    12 93. 295.  Philip 3 15 105.  Colloss 3 16 44. 45.   4 17 205  1 Thess 5 12 46. 205  * 1 Tim. 2      12 175 174.  3 1 2. 9 15 16.    4 5. 20 32.     222 311  * 4 14 234 275     3â—3 to 3â—5   5 18 114    22 194  2 Tim. 2 2 209 to 213 59. 2 Tim. 1 6 3â—3 314.     327  * Titus 1 5. 194 309     329 353     355  Hebr. 3 13 44  * Hebr. 5 4 5. 138. to 141 161  7 12 52 135  10  174 173  13 25. 54 136   7. 17. 17 205     247. 249.  * 1 Pet. 4 10 11. 32 to 62 23 c. 126 c.  5 1 3. 61  2 Pet. 1 19 20 110    21. 30. 111  1 Iohn 3 16. 51.  ERRATA In printing the book called the Preacher Sent beside those which were printed with it In the Epistle Page 2 Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 13. line 19. for not Read now In the Book Pag. line  4 18. 19. Read they say 14 4 dele of their 18 24 r. Acts 13 v. 16. 21 1 r. 〈◊〉 24 1 r. Preaching 46 33 r. 2 59 5 add and 66 8 r. Argument 4. 79 13 dele Jus Divin 83 6 r. christians though no officers 83 7 dele though no officers 101 9 r. foretelling future-events 101 33 r. Impostors or Seducers 103 15 r. Object 1. 129 20 r. undenyably 135 4 r. no mention 136 11 r. but that 137 33 dele Acts 8. 14. pag. line  142 5 add Jus Divin 72 73. 143 17 r. break their trusty 145 35 r. make 152 30 r. his own 155 19 r. before designation 155 29 r. did performe 160 22 r. an Officer 166 33 dele that 173 9 r. was preached to 203 1 r. himselfe asserteth 203 17 r. ingenuously  24 r. or the distinctive 217 15 r. limit it unto  29 r. needless 220 9 r. it was 230 36 dele that 239 32 r. was a stone 247 15 r. such a power 249 11 r. to prove 251 22 r. was not of the Essence of but 273 21 r. Church officers  29 r. It is 284 11 r. not nullifie 299 24 r. oblige 300 22 r. object 301 14 r. Answer 310 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 315 5 r. Presbyter  31 r. fift Page line  316 24 r. relatives 317 10 r. Solemnities 323 31 dele upon 325 36 r. Text in which 334 14 dele are 338 3 dele that 343 16 r. immediately 345 32 r. fully evidence 346 13 r. in the Tent 353 16 r. visit the 354 32 dele or else and r. and it must Add Jus Divin Minist and its page in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent. Jus Div. min. pa. Preach S. page line  111 78 2 Add Vind. Min. Evang. by Dr. Collings its pag. in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent. 111 79 18 111 80 33 69 131 35 77 133 4 70 133 26 73 74 144 24 74 75 147 6 Jus Div. Min. pa. preach S. pag. lin Dr. Coll. Vin. pa. preach S. pag. line 81 154 26 49 64 2. 28. 82 156 23 60 71 28    60 73 7 83 157 31 60 81 3 85 159 21 50 107 12. 30. 85 160 6 51 110 27 86 162 29 51 11â— 12. 22. 88 173 29 44 135 15 89 174 8    89 175 7      36    FINIS
A VINDICATION OF THE PREACHER SENT OR A VVarrant for publick Preaching without Ordination Wherein is further discovered 1. That some Gifted men unordained are Gospel Preachers 2. That Officers sustain not a relation as Officers to the Universal Church and other weighty questions concerning Election and Ordination are opened and cleared In answer to two Books 1. Vindiciae Ministrij Evangelici Revindicatae or the Preacher pretendly Sent sent back again By Dr Colling of Norwich 2 Q. warrante or a Moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the Preaching of gifted and unordained persons By Mr. Pool at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London WITH A Reply to the exceptions of Mr. Hudson and D. Collings against the Epistle to the Preacher Sent. Published By Frederick Woodal Minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk Samuel Petto Minister of the Gospel at Sandcraft in Suffolk LONDON Printed by J. T. Livewell Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1659. An Advertisement to the Reader IT is Recorded of the most holy that when the cry of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah came up unto him he went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry thereof before he executed judgment upon them and this is written for our instruction that where indictments are drawn up against persons or things we may not proceed to sentence upon the charg untill wee see the proof thereof We are not ignorant of cries even outcries against the liberty of Prophsying we contend about and we fear notwithstanding our former and present defence if the question be moved about it what evil hath it done the answer will be returned unto it away with it crucisie it Our brethren are preparing Spirits unto this while they represent it an Idol the City of Jericho which was not to be built a Trojan horse full of Error nonsense and blasphemy A Pandoras box whence all sorts of mischeivous soulpoysoning opinions fly out c. See their Epistles And here suffer us a little to expostulate with them Is ordination indeed as a Venice-glass that can hold no poyson are you not partial who can finde Errors Heresies impertinencyes among persons not ordained but among the ordayned omnia bene Alas what learned non-sense amongst many of them what empty notions What Aiery speculations how often are people served with bones instead of bread How oft have they froth for drink They that condemn too much Lead in a window because it hinders light might be offended with painted glasse We confesse and deny not we have seen Theeves and murtherers going out and in at this door as also in the other way who deserve indeed that their mouthes should be stopped but their evil flowes not from our principle but from the abuse thereof not from the principle as stated by us although Mr. Pool in his Epistle thinks it done very loosly because though we assert it inexpedient mischeivous and uncomfortable to preach without approbation from others yet we say in some cases for ought we know it may be so done Preacher Sent. pag. 20. wherein we might promise our selves favour for them whose principle it is that in some cases it may be lawful to preach without Ordination Mr. Pool pag. 68. 102. If they put Ordination in the place of Aprobation yet say in some cases a man may preach without ordination where is the offence But Dr. Collings doth judge that no rule of Regulation can or will be fixed by us upon this liberty so that it differs not from licentiousnesse but is a very strumpet harlot Mother of abominations c. We answer 1. If by this rule of Regulation he mean the form or patern to which all doctrine must conform which therefore is called regula regulans the Rule is fixed viz. the sacred Scriptures 2. If he mean the measure or standard for qualification the Rule needs not be fixed by us where it is fixed as in Rules of examination unto Ordination it is rarely observed and a man may be qualified for one place or people not for another 3. If he mean the order of reducement in case Error or heresie be preached or the liberty any way abused the Rule is fixed Mat. 18. 15 16. The Church hath power over preachers and over Pastors Coloss 4. 17. 1 Corin. 5. 12. Rev. 2. ver 2. Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers That Church and the Angel thereof are commended for trying of Preachers Those that may and disapprove may approve where there is cause here is a Scripture rule for approbation of Preachers and that not so much as in order to Ordination Courteous Reader we desire thee to take notice of these few following particulars 1. That we do not repeat all the words of Dr. Collings or Mr. Pool but what is most material in their Arguments which liberty they have taken to themselves in replying to us 2. That although we have cause to complain that many Arguments in our former book yet remain untouched and some but slightly wounded are buried alive with too much of the dust and ashes of reproach cast upon them yet hoping and expecting that the determining Reader will examine and compare Arguments and answers impartially we shall be silent 3. That very many of Mr. Pools Arguments and replies are drawn from the Apostles and that in matters wherein they acted as extraordinary Officers Also necessity is often urged against us whereas necessity cannot justly be pleaded to justifie actings unless it be in natural duties Their instance of the Shew-bread reacheth no further it was a natural duty to eat that for the preservation of life to kill a man in self-defence is a natural duty which may further answer what Mr. Pool saith pag. 102. about necessity we say to defend the life of a man or to take away the life of a murderer is not a peculiar work to a Magistrate but to command persons to the one and the other is the Magistrats work and this a private man may not do in a case of necessity and if they will grant preaching to be a natural duty how can they deny gifted men liberty for doing of it 4. That thou art to expect this the last thou shalt receive from us in this controversie we cannot absolutely promise it because the righteous and the wise and their works are in the hand of God Eccles 9. 1. but are very much inclined unto it amongst others upon these grounds because we have spoken fully to the matter in our former and this book and there is no end of words neither do we love alwayes to be wading in a controversie which diverteth from more practical things at present and at the last must be left to the Reader to judge and we would not by multiplying replies carry thee away from those Arguments we used in the first Book which they have left behind without any thingof
particular yet as Church-Officers no place in nor power over any but particulars It is usual to apply general termes indeterminately to particular things as to say the wife is bound the man is the head of the woman i. e. This and that man wife c. so set in the Church i. e. in this and that and the other Church Mr. H. replyeth further several bodies are one body genericaly not Integraty because not united by one external bond but the Vniversal Church is united into one body by bonds of the same Soveraigne the same Lawes covenant c. pa. 6. Answ Either particular associations are no institutions of Christ or they have several unions Lawes Acts and Ends Men as men have their union Law Acts c. Men as Armies as bodies politick have their union Law Acts differing So christians as christians have their Law proper to that state Christians as a common wealth their Law proper to that state and differing from the other Law If Church Vnion be one and that Catholick union then schism the breach of that union must be as the catholick breach so that though a member cease worshipping with this assembly in this place yet if he worship with any assembly part of the Church Catholike in any place he is no Schismatick upon which reason the loud outcry against Sepration is unjust as it is unreasonable upon an other account we therefore yet renounce the name and thing of a Church of Churches or a visable Catholick Church formed unto fellowship in new Testament ordinances in which term we declared our sense but do not renounce the Scripture nor reason much lesse our own bretheren as Dr. Collings hath rashly affirmed Our thoughts for this Abrenuntiation were confirmed in five particulars wherein all exceptions considered we findâ— nothing for Retractation 1. Nâ— part hath the power of a whole in it Every particular Church hath the power of a whol in it Ergo No particular Churâ—h is a part Exception Dr. Col. A particular Church hath not the Power of the whole because not Power to make a Synod nor to ordain nor to excommunicate Answ His reason from a Synod is reason'esse The common wealth of England is a whole and hath the power of a whole in itâ— yet a controversie arising of what nature soe ver it be between Eng. and another common-wealth or commonwealths Eng. hath no power to constitute commissioners who shall debate determine and compose that difference yet Power to meet in a treaty is as much kingdome power as power to meet in a Synod is Church power Ergo either Englands power is incompleat or the Drs. Argument is so His argument from Ordination and Excommunication is but named therefore in this place we do but deny it Where nothing is proved nothing is found to be answered Excep Mr. Hudson A particular Church is a whole in reference to its own members but in reference to the rest of the Church it is a part as a Corporation is compleat according to its constitution yet a member of a greater body Answ If a Corporation be considered with reference to other Corporations to which it stands co-ordinate it is a whole not a member not a part If with reference to a Kingdome to which it stands Subordinate t is a part a member not a whole So if a particular Congregation be considered with reference to other Congregations to which it stands Co-ordinate it is a whole not a part If with reference to a Church to which it stands Subordinate t is a part not a whole But there is no such Church The Subordination which our brethren plead for is of the Church to Officers not of a Church to a Church And that Officers are not called the Church in Scripture we shall shew and that by their own principles they cannot be stiled so 2. Every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts Collectively considered no Church of Churches is really distinct from all particular Churches Ergo There is no such Church Except Dr. C. Mr. H. There 's a fallacy in the Argument It is a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsa non dissert a partibus simul sumptis unitis Answ Our Argument is right according to that Rule Partes simul sumptae do not constitute a Totum except they be unite or the whole differs from all the parts Collectively considered though unitively considered it differs not suppose ten heaps of Corne in one Room contayning all the Corne which is in the World which afterwards are reduced into one great heap when they are ten they are not one and when they are one they are not ten Of the supposed union of the universal Political Church something hath been spoken already and more will occur under the head of union 3. There is no universal visible meeting to worship God Ergo No universal visible Church for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Congregation or Assembly company meeting together Except Dr. Collings There is an universal meeting of the Church Catholick visible at the Throne of Grace c. Answ We wonder at his discourse upon this Argument for from our instance of the Church of the first-borne gathered indeed in one spirit united unto one head meeting invisibly in one worship he would obtain this That although there be no local meeting yet there may be a visible Church when it speakes plainly thus much viz. as invisible union and invisible communion is necessary unto the being of the invisible so visible union visible communion is necessary to the being of the visible church although we may be present with Dr. Collings in spirit and he with us never coming together in the same place yet visibly present we cannot be nor in the performance of any visible work Exc. Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a calling out not a calling together the particular congregation is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ That particular Congregations and Assemblies of people whether civil or sacred are in Scripture alwaies termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr H. cannot be ignorant what he writes therefore is not a Corrective from the writings of weake men but for the Scriptures of the most wise God by which alone we desire to measure our notions and expressions in this controversie Be it so that the Scottish word Kirk and the English word Church comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies the Lords all assemblies are not so properly the Lords as Church-Assemblies as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as is the Church so is the union thereof so the worke and meeting thereunto the Vniversal Church is the general assembly Heb. 12. 23. meeting in one place spiritually and invisibly they are all come to mount Sion to the City of the living God To the heavenly Jerusalem Heb. 12. 22. They are all chosen out of the World 10. 15. 19. i. e. called
nothing to his purpose we grant that though he be sick or in prison and so cannot execute his Office yet he is not only potentially but actually an officer still But suppose the City of Norwich should either by fire or sword or famine or any such sad providence cease to exist if the Mayor should be left alive we ask whither he could be deemed a Mayor or an Officer still when there were no City of Norwich existing to be the correlate to him as a Relate The like we say in the case in hand how can a man remain in the Office of the Ministry if there be no Church as a correlate for him to stand related to Either he must be an Officer or no Officer If there be no Church existing that he is over then no Officer existeth for they exist and perish together as to the same degree of being What he meaneth by habit of Office we know not He intends not we suppose the indelible character which Bellarm. saith is qualitas absoluta as every habit excepting the tenth predicament Office cannot be proved a qualitative habit forasmuch as it is not any thing inherent in body or mind but something adherent onely And now Christian Reader thou mayest see Dr. Collings dealeth not kindly with thee in perswading that Officers are nominal relations Is it not more likely that Office should be such a relation as is between a father and child master and servant husband and wife Magistrate and subject then such a relation as is between scibile scientia a thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing Object But may not a man be in the Office of Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the goverment of them it is his Commission makes him an Officer Vind. Revind pag. 15. Ans This is but a similitude and so proveth nothing and it will serve our purpose as well as his for his Commission doth not make him an habitual Officer nor give him a power in actu primo to act as a Colonel in the goverment of all Regiments in the Army but limiteth him unto one particular Regiment and so will speak as much against a mans being an Officer to any but a particular Church as it may seem to speak for the actual existence of a relation without a correlate 2. Here is a begging another question viz. That Ordination doth Commissionate men to be Officers this being denyed there is no parity in the cases and so no strength in the objection We have proved that Election with acceptation doth make men to be Officers and so the correlate viz. the Church electing doth exist as soon as the Officer 3. We would know whether a Licence given a man from his Prince whereby he is impowered to keep so many servants unto such an end and so to govern them doth make a man a Master when not one servant is engaged by him or related to him 4. A Colonels Commission before he hath a Regiment doth authorize him to raise one giveth him right unto a Colonels pay and so maketh him an Officer nominal and Titular but it is the Assignment or submission of a Regiment unto him that maketh him an Officer reall and actual Many Captains and Colonels retain Commissions and former Titles when Wars are ended and Companies are disbanded yet are no Officers but as is expressed If he will yet contend that a Colonel as is instanced is an officer we say further In ordinary cases a Regiment is Assigned to him and if he hath none he can be but an extraordinary Officer answerable to Apostles having Commission from the General of the Army as the Apostles had their call and Commission immediately from Christ not from men Ergo there is no parity in the cases and so the instance is vain Obj. 3. To our third Argument he saith The Gospel owneth the Church as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry Acts 20. 17. 28. But not alone he saith it owns the work too Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. and Ephes 4. is as much Gospel as Act. 20. 17. Vind. Revind pag. 16. Answ In the Major of our third Argument nothing is wanting not alone or onely for the Church alone or onely is the correlate to a Church Officer should we say a wiâ—e is the correlate in wedlock not onely but cohabitation c. Or a Son not onely but Education whatever we might be for Logicians yet in this our Logick would not be good In dividing between the correlate and the end non dividimus componenda sed distinguenda which upon second thoughts he will not blame us for That Ephes 4. is Gospel we grant but that it owneth the work as the correlate we deny It owneth the work of the Ministry as one end of Office-gifts not as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry It is said he gave some to be Apostles c. and if it be enquired for what end the answer is for the work of the Ministry Obj. 4. To our fourth Argument he saith It is a feeble Argument Vind. Revind pag. 17. 18. which is drawn from names and titles If we say that all their titles have the Church onely as their correlate he desires to know whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have so 1 Tim. 27. c. He saith every rational creature yea God himself is the correlate and therefore they are called the Ministers of God c. He desireth us to shew one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called the Minister of the Church he addeth that we speak no Scripture phrase when we call Ministers i. e. preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church c. Answ 1 An Argument from Names and Titles surely is as feeble when our brethrâ—n use it as when we use it against them doth not D. Collings argue from the name of Officers to their acts and particularly from the title of Teacher Vin. pag. 34. yea in this very book Vind. Revind pag. 89. lin 1 2 3 4. 5. Also to prove the Office of the Ministry of divine institution the London Ministers argue expressely from their Names and Titles Jus. Divin Minst pag. 8. 9. 2 So far as Nomen is notamen rei so far definitio nominis is definitio rei Consider Father in a naturall sense and the definition of the Name is the definition of the thing The names of Pastor Teacher Elder c. Notifie the relation and so are forcibly Argumentative for a Churches being the Correlate 3. The intendment of some names and titles is not to expresse what is the Correlate but some thing else about a relation as Officers may be called Ministers of God and Christ onely to intimate who is the Author and institutor of their office Ministers of the Word to intimate what is the subject of their preaching Cryers or preachers as in the Texts he mentioneth 1 Tim. 2. 7.
Collings see a mote and can he not behold a Beam doth he strain a t a Gnat and swallow a camel Are there not greater absurdities in his way 1 Is it not an absurdity to engage a man by office to preach when none are ingaged to hear suppose ordination make an officer sinetitulo which may be in Dr. Collings judgement a Pastor Teacher or overseer to whose charge no man or company of men is committed to whom none are bound Where ever this pretended officer Preacheth upon the Lords day the people may leave him and goe to other Ministers especially if ordained also whom they preferre before him who yet is bound to preach and none to hear 2 Is it not an absurdity solemnly to set a man apart to the work of the Ministry wherein neverthelesse he shall not be engaged to work but turning aside to a School Physick c. may say to them that ask why he standeth idle as to preaching work no man hath hired me 3 To make an Officer to every rationall creature when no creature can rationally say this is my Minister nor he say this is my people As if a Justice should marry a man to woman kind and leave him to act as an husband where he could find a woman that would entertain him 4 To determine a relate and relation actual and the Correlate potential onely He excepteth against our description of office pretending that two Rules are offended by it Ob. 1. The former rule he supposeth to be broken by our bringing a particular Church into it and our leaving Ordination out Vind. Revind pag. 38. Answ In our former book and also in this we have proved that a particular Church is the Correlate to Office and that Ordination is not of the Essence but onely an Adjunct of Office and what Logick teacheth to leave the Correlate out or to put an adjunct into the description of a relation Ob. 2 His second rule supposed to be offended is mentioned Vind. Revind pag. 38. Answ In his explaning himselfe he doth not onely oppose us but a multitude of ancient and modern Popish and Protestant divines yea Scripture and reason That a man should be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place be put into office when there is not a man in the world whom he can challinge by vertue of office to submit to him It is not onely rational and prudential for a man to stay his coronation till he have his Kingdome but orderly and just but when a man will cause himselfe to be crowned and cannot tell whether ever his kingdome will come it is a disorder nor is he a King though crowned The terme is of the relation as laid down by us he doth deny which we yet assert and let the Reader judge between us The causes of the relation we declared viz. principal God instrumental the Church or flock His answer is the efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church but not the flock Answ 1. We desire to know what difference there is between Church and flock or how they can be distinguished Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock to feed the Church of God c. In the very same verse Church and flock are used Synonymously 2. What one Scripture doth call officers the church in the necessary sense thereof See Park de Polit. Eccles l. 3. cap. 15. upon this question An soli Sacerdotes sint Ecclesia which he answereth in the negative saying no place in the scriptures or Fathers can be found where it is said officers by themselves considered are the Church The former cause he asserts to be Mission of which in the special controversy thereabout He finds fault with our Logick Vind. Revind pag. 39. in arguing from the lesse to the greater Affirmatively We wonder Dr. Collings should trouble the Reader with such objections that are fully answerd in the very book he is replying to In what sense we argue from the lesse to the greater and how far we are from arguing from ability to do the lesser to ability to do the greater and how full the scripture is as Mat. 6. 26. 30. of such Logick as we use he may see Preacher Sent. pag. 224. 225. 226. having blamed us for arguing aminori ad majus Affirmative To prove preaching for tryals sake he alleageth 1 Tim. 3. 10. and saith he Vind. Revind pag. 40. we may argue a minori ad majus negative If the lowest Officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I meane ordinary officers c. We deny not that Officers are to be proved but we wonder Dr. Collings is not ashamed to accuse others causelesly for using false Logick when in the very next page himselfe doth so grosly mistake He pretendeth to argue from the lesser to the greater negatively and yet there is never a note of negation in his argument If the lowest Officer must then much more the higher-Surely no man will reckon this a negative proposition CHAP. II. Wherein a brief answer is given to the exceptions against our two first arguments for the preaching of gifted persons without ordination DR Collings in his second Chapter chiefly telleth us what he understandeth by authoritative preaching He saith the authority of the preacher 1. Obligeth him to preach 2. Obligeth people to hear Our arguments for the preaching of gifted men being built upon a command of Christ a Gospel promise c. will evidence that they are obliged to preach and that souls sin in neglecting to hear them that there is an authoritative preaching in that sencewhereas pag. 45. he opposeth it to precarious preaching in which the preacher may beg but cannot command either auditory or attention We answer His colonel which he mentioneth Vin. pag. 15. may beat his drum and none are bound to follow him So that a Colonel is no officer or this instance sheweth it to be no sin not to hear an ordained man as well as not to hear a gifted brother We would know whether a man who hath submitted to the Ordination which Dr. Collings pleadeth for can command either Auditory or attention when none have desired him to Preach to them or no particular Church hath by Election made him their Minister or whether the Minister of one Church can command another Church to be his Auditory and to give attention to him without or against the consent of the Pastor thereof If he will say he cannot in such cases command Auditory or attention then it followeth that it is not Authoritative Preaching out of a mans own Congregation or to any but those that call him and so it is Preaching ex dono not ex officio to others and then it is election or the desire of the people and not Ordination that maketh it Authoritative Preaching in that sence for a man is ordained and yet is not obliged to preach to any nor any people obliged to hear
him If they be under a general obligation to Preach when opportunity or a call is offered so are gifted men If he will say they can command it let him prove it whom they may require to hear when Churches are full of Pastors We urged diverse Arguments for the Preaching of some men without Ordination Argu. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination Preacher Sent. p. 29. Obj. Dr. Collings knoweth no need of any Preaching in order to election but onely twice or thrice to try a mans utterance and denyeth the election of a particular Church as necessary to precede Ordination c. Vind. Revind pag. 45. 46. Answ A tryal what gifts a man hath for Scripture interpretation and of the sutableness of a mans gifts to such a people c. maketh ordinary Preaching necessary in order to election as well as the tryal of utterance 2. Election did precede Ordination Act. 6. vers 5. they chose Stephen vers 6. And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them Dr. Collings asketh whether we think that the election there was by the whole multitude We answer yes for it is expressely said v. 5 the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen c. they who chose the Text answereth the whole multitude Their being divided because some widows were neglected in the daily ministration did not hinder their agreeing together in the chusing of Deacons which was propounded as a means purposely for the healing of those divisions neither doth the number if it were so great forbid it for more have met We expected his attempting to give some Text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election but he waveth that altogether Argu. 2. From Gospel commands 1 Pet. 4 ver 10. 11. Hebr. 10. 25. Preach sent p. 32. Obj. Dr. Collings his chief exceptions against this are 1. If any one who hath ability may dispense the the gift then gifted brethren may administer baptisme and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text. Vind. p. 50. 2. The context speaketh of the good things of this world pag. 50. 3. If the ability to Preach be the gift only meant he that never had the Oracles of God committed to him cannot speak them as the Oracles of God And however this was when the Church was in a scattered state pag. 51. 4. He inclineth to take it in the latitude for any communicable gift but it must be ministered in a due way and order and upon a regular Câ—lâ— Vind. Revind pag. 55. Ans 1. We do not limit it to the gift of Preaching but say that is one special gift intended 1 Pet. 4. v. 11. If any man speak c. and so it cannot be restained to this worlds goods And the foregoing and following exhortations being left in general amongst the Saints and a note of universality being used here v. 10. as every man c. hence the generality of those that have grace and the gift of Scripture interpretation are commanded to Mister that gift and hence gift cannot be restrained to Office seeing many are so gifted who are no Officers And the gift of Preaching being a publike gift i. e. such as fitteth for and is mostly laid out in a publike way hence it is very probable that an use of it in publike Assemblies is that which the Apostle driveth at especially seeing other Texts do warrant gifted men in such publike actings as Hebr. 10. 25. Act. 18 26. 28. 2. Neither may every one that is gifted administer Baptisme and the Supper by vertue of this Text. For 1. The gift of Preaching is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 11. the administration of Sacraments not so 2. Some Preaching is an act of meer charity no ministering of Seals is so Every friend of the bridegroome according to his ability may serve the Bridegroome in acts of charity but none can serve him in those rites wherein mutual engagement is Sealed but one appointed especially thereunto 3. Dr. Collings is at liberty to Preach many Sermons without the knowledge or expresse consent of his eldership but not to suspend one member from the Supper or admit one thereto there is then some difference between the dispensation of the word and the administration of Sacraments 4. Baptisme and the Lords Sâ—pperare act so purely of institution that they would never have been duties nor could have been known to be so without Scripture-light and so are not to be dispensed by any though gifted without an allowance thereunto by the institution which is the onely determining rule about the Adminstrator and Administration But as prayer is a natural duty though commanded over in the Gospel and many rules laid down to regulate direct in the performance of it So Preaching in it self is an act of natural worship if there had been no Scripture rules laid down about it yet man by natures light might have learned it to be a duty to publish the will God his Creator unto others according to ability and opportunity and therefore the Law of nature doth firstly lay gifted men under obligations to Preach and this is seconded by Gospel rules as in the Text alledged 3. It is nothing to his purpose if gift be understood of Alms or Office unlesse it be exclusive and that it cannot be limited to them onely we proved in our former book and he inclineth to take it for any communicable gift Vind. Revind pag. 55. and so he cannot restrain it unto Alms or Office But if his Arguments did prove it very probable that by gift is meant Office which they do not they were equally strong to prove that Alms are not the gift chiefly intended It might then be said the gift is to be administered as Stewards and to acts of Office are instanced in ver 11. and therefore it is meant only of Office not of Alms which many men out of Office may give and when some of his Arguments will serve as answers unto others or when he is found answering himself let the Reader judge whether that childishness which he mentioned Vind. Revind p. 49. be to be found in our replies or in his Arguments 4. The Church was not in such a scattered state but that it had Officers in it for it s said 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort c. If gifted men may Preach in Churches that have Elders in them much more may they do it elsewhere 5. The main stress is upon the Call Quest What gives a Call to Preach Ans 1. That which maketh an habitual Prophet Preacher c. although we allow not actual and habitual in relations yet otherwise we allow it justifies the actual except the hearers be incapacitated as to that priviledge If men be Prophets in the collation of grace and a gift through the use of means who will forbid them prophecy but rather wish as Moses Num. 11. 29. 2. Christs command concerning a work is mans Call to do
both which we mentioned Preacher Sent. pag. 203 204. argue that none else may act herein nor wil officers be useless and un-necessary as to those acts if gifted men may preach and the Church act in government And this answereth divers of his exceptions pag. 103. 104. only we shall add that his straining one of our similitudes to make it run on four feet for the drawing this out of it That gifted men may preach or may let it a lone and then adding many lines pag. 103. to disprove what himselfe hath wrested out of it is far from a canded dealing with us especially seeing the very words of our similitude do plainly deny this sense of it and these words he hath concealed Our similitude runneth thus A Christian friend or neighbour may and ought to give gratious and wholsome instructions c. If he had rightly applyed the similitude he must have said so gifted men may and ought to preach and then he would not have used so many words to prove that they are not at their liberty whether they will preach or no. Likewise our words are the one is under a standing obligation by the parental relation to performe such acts the other not He giveth our words thus The one is under a standing obligation the other not Whereas our words do not deny friends to be under an obligation to such acts but assert their obligation to be indifferent from that which is parental He granteth pag. 105. that our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture and whether there be any ground in Scripture for the preaching of gifted men let the Reader judge That Apostles and Evangelists differed in nothing from Pastors and Teachers but in the extent of their power which he asserteth pag. 105. we apprehend is a great mistake for besides a power of miraculous operation they had immediate inspirations and infalible directions from the holy spirit As to their being Officers it s answered Preacher Sent. Pag. 209. We conclude that Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and Teachers also were needful then but his argument seemeth to us to deny some of them to be necessary in those dayes We might as well say that where Pastors and teachers were resident there was no need of Apostles or Evangelists for preaching or such ordinary acts as he may say pag. 106. that when they were resident in this or that particular Church there was no need of Pastors or Teachers and his reason will be as strong for us as for him because they could do all their acts And surely when there were many Apostles at Jerusalem and Prophets at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. though all did not speak at the same time yet none were un-necessary no more are gifted men We may turn his argument pag. 98. upon himselfe God doth nothing in vain But in case the preaching of Officers could render it un-ecessary for gifted men to do it then he had done something in vain for we have proved that he hath appointed gifted men to preach Ergo it is false that gifted men may not do it Arg. 4. His fourth argument is taken from the committing of Gospel truths to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others by Gods Timothies 2 Tim. 2. 2. Vind. Revind pag. 106. To what he saith about mens being able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into their own Tongue we answer 1. We grant a knowledg of the Original to be a good help yet it s not absolutely necessary as himselfe confesseth 2. It is learning in Gospel mystries that the Text speaketh of 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things thou hast heard of me commit c. As to what followeth we say it is a commitment of the word not of persons they to whom this commitment was were set over none thereby It was to be committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Epethite of members Eph. 1. 1. The Church in other Scriptures not Officers onely is the object of the commitment Rom. 3. 2. called therefore the pillar and ground of truth 1. If the ability be before commitment then he must say a man may be morally able to preach before Ordination for id possumus quod jure possumus and so his argument falleth for the committing is not ordaining If the ability be attained by committing those things to them Why doth he pag. 107. deny it to be an effect or end thereof And seeing the Gospel owneth a committing doctrinal and this doth make men naturally able how will it ever be proved that a morall ability is onely intended And unlesse that be proved his argument is of no force for men must be naturally able before they may warrantably be ordained if that were a committing of Gospel truths to men And that the ability is subsequent is plain who shall be able 2. It cannot be concluded that the future is used for the present-tense but when â—special reason doth enforce it and none is found here 3. Men ought to commitCospel truths unto others doctrinally without a certaine rule to assure them who should be converted strengthened or comforted and as well might he do it in this case without assurance that every one should be able and therefore his query pag. 107. how could he know who they should be is of no concernement 4. It must be proved not onely that ordination is necessary but that it is the committing of Gospel truths which is spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 2. or else this argument is of no force 5. He required what means the restriction of faithfull men Vind. Revind pag. 40. We answered this in our former book and shall add thus much The Apostle careth about a succession of truth which might be most hopefully expected from faithfull men and therefore he would have it committed unto them especially for that end thus the restriction Iob. 21. v. 15. 17 feed my sheep doth notifie that they especially are to be fed 6. We do not grant that the other committing is meant but if it were the manner must necessarily be understood else it will not help him at all We do not deny that teaching publikly is intended but how he can tell us it s meant of publike teachers and yet say the Apostle plainly speakes de re of the thing not de modo of the manner of performance Vind. Vindic. pag. 140. would be considered And if it be understood of Officers that is not exclusive of gifted men Arg. 5. His fifth argument is from their requiring lawfully a maintenance Vind. Revin pag. 109. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 18 Math. 10. 10. Gal. 6. 6. Hespeaketh very little to our replyes unto this we say the Scriptures alleadged speak of a constant preaching he denyeth that Mat. 10. 10. or Gal. 6. 6. hint the least of such a thing Why will he trouble the Reader with such words without profit Will he allow of any occasional if not why doth he so much as seem to deny these to be constant
Preachers or were not the Apostles constant Preachers Mat. 10. 10. and will he say those Elders 1 Tim. 5. 18. were not constant preachers Or in this and the former argument doth he intend only thus much that the Scriptures do not speak expressely of a constant preaching or that 2 Tim. 2. 2. do not speak expressely de modo If this be all he aymeth at let him shew an expresse Scripture to prove that all preachers must be ordained or that none may preach without ordination or else give over such arguings His minor indeed was neither true in the matter or for me he faith pag. 109. It is true by a slip of his pen instead of the Church to which they preach he put in the Church in which they are but it is the same thing for admit that they may Prophecy he proved before he faith from 1 Cor. 14. 23. that they had no warrant to goe out of their Church to do it To which we answer 1. He that is so subject to false Logick himself might be more cautious of accusing others especially without ground 2. This which he calleth but a slip of his pen was the very thing which his argument had dependance upon and falleth with let any peruse his former book Vind. pag. 40. and they will find it so for he asketh whether any will say that a Church is tyed up to that duty which no Church is able to perform He supposeth there may be twenty poor men well gifted and ten rich men meanly gifted in a Church and enquireth whether any will say that it is Gods ordinance that these ten rich men should allow a competent maintenance to the twenty others So that his argument taketh its force from their inability to maintain them in the Church where they are Whereas the Churches to which they preach may be able though not the Church wherein they are We would not have mentioned this again if he had not minced the matter and concluded it the same thing still 3. His assertion which he groundeth that conclusion upon viz. their not being warranted to goe out of the Church to Prophecy 1 Cor. 14. 23 we disproved before but how he is consistent with himself in asserting these Prophets to be extraordinary officers pag. 65 and yet to be confined in their exercise to a particular Church pag. 73. 85. 109. we know not Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is taken from Rom. 10 15. concerning mission Vind. Revind pag. 109. Because many build so much upon that place we insisted largely upon it he replyeth very little to what we say but bringeth an Argument to prove that gifted men as gifted are not sent and it riseth to this They are neither immediately nor mediately sent Ergo not at all He concludeth that we must say they are sent immediately for if it be mediately it must be by his Church commanding Electing or Ordaining If it be immediately then by Christs own voyce or by a sign from heaven but he faith we have found out two others wayes 1. By his revealed will in his word 2. By his providence c vind Revind pag. 112. Ans 1. We say that God sendeth by the meâ—ns of his word and providence but we no where call these an immediate mission We use these words it is not an immediate mission but mediate by the word Preacher Sent. pag. 130. 2. Gods commanding men to Preach is his sending Jer. 14. ver 14. 15. I sent them not what is that neither have I commanded them His not commanding is his not sending therefore his commanding is his sending so Mat. 10. 5. Mat. 28. 19. Christs commanding them go Preach is his sending We have proved that gifted menare commanded to preach and that proves that God sends them by his word Let him prove that Ordaining or any act of a Presbytery is Gods sending unlesse in the sence we mentioned Preach Sent. pag. 137. which will not at all serve his purpose because no Authority to Preach is conferred by the mission we there speak of We do not say that Gods commanding men in his written word to believe repent c. is called sending yet such commands in the word are mediate Calls to such works though no men should urge such duties upon those that are to perform them So his commanding gifted men to Preach by his word is a mediate Call and his saying by that word go is a mediate mission though no Presbytery by Ordination or otherwise faith go 3. That sending makes them Officers we deny That no man can send another but he is in Office as to that whereabout he is sent in a large sence we grant but that sending setteth men over those to whom they are sent or maketh them Officers in a strict sence we utterly deny neither doth any thing he faith pag. 113. prove it The Kings Ambassadour is his officer in the former but not in the latter sence for every Officer properly so is superiour to those that are the object or terminus of his Office so are not Ambassadours unto them to whom they are sent and however unlesse the mission Rom. 10 15. could be proved to be Ordination the Argument thence cometh to nothing And many more words are spent about the travelling of Paul and others from place to place and many other matters also which were no greater Gospel mysteries then this though it be understood of a mission of those who before were made Preachers and not of an office-making mission especially seeing their sending was to the Gentiles which was a thing in those dayes so much questioned by the Jews His other exceptions pag. 114. against a providential sending viz. 1. That none can run before they be sent 2. That then the creep houses 1 Tim 3. 6. were sent must needs be vain seeing in the same page he confesseth that we do not own a bare providential sending without a command by the word 4. What he saith Vind. Revind p. 115. giveth no evidence that Ordination is the mission intended 1. That the command of God in his word is sending we have proved And that Act. 13. 3. cannot in the least prove Ordination to be mission he might have seen proved Preacher Sent. pag. 253 254. 2. That Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending proveth that Ordination is not mission If as in the case of Deacons Act 6. there may be Ordination without mission then these are separable each from other and so are not the same Pag. 115. He saith the mission mentioned Mat. 10. ver 5. 6. 7. and Mat. 28. was extraordinary mission It is true they had it immediately from the mouth of Christ men in these dayes mediately and so the way is different but the mission may be the same still Christ by his own voyce commanded his Disciples to watch Mat. 24. ver 42. and 25. 13 and 26. ver 41. and the same which were immediate commands to them
Church Jus Div. Min. pag. 139. and Mr. Poole saith pag. 25. in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission and cals the contrary a monstrous paradox pag. 28. And how he can deny it to be their assertion or free himself from self-contradiction in these expressions we know not for what difference is there between being made a church-member by Baptism and being admitted into the Church by Baptism and how can one be a church-member before Baptism and yet be admitted into the Church by Baptism especially if there be not any other door of admission How can those that are within the Church already be said without a loss of membership to be admitted into it by any after act surely admission is of those who are without and no members not of those who are within and are church-members The scriptures know no such thing as a being church-members inchoate either they are church-members or not if they be church-members as he confesseth they are before Baptism then they are admitted for membership presupposeth admission 2. As well may we say that men are Officers by a Churches Election before Ordination and onely the solemn admission into the Office or rather exercise of it to be by Ordination as he may assert an admission by Baptism after membership and then the Essence of the call to Office is not in Ordination 3. If Infants church-membership be as he saith pag. 24. the ground of their Baptism then they are visible church-members before their being Baptized for the ground of an action must be visible before acting and so their visible admission into the Church is not by Baptism but before it And in converts profession of faith which he supposeth them church-members by must first be visible and so their visible admission into the Church is antecedaneous to and is not by their Baptism And as publike as their profession is so publike is their visible church-membership or admission into the Church before Baptism As to what followeth pag. 24. 25. we formerly did and still do deny that a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church ejects him juridically out of all other Churches for this see our answer to Dr. Collings Epistle Object If he be not juridically ejected out of other Churches then he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce c. Mr. Poole pag. 24. Answ It will not follow for that sin which made the ejection just would make another Churches admission unjust Yet mens incapacity to be received by other Churches doth not arise from their being cast out of those Churches but from the want of such qualifications as are perquisite to admission into church-fellowship He grants p. 25. that when a Minister is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by deposition he ceaseth to be an Officer to the Universal Church Whence we infer that if he repenteth and becometh an Officer again he must have a new Ordination or else he may of no Officer become an Officer without Ordination and so Ordination is not Essential to Office That which followeth pag. 25. is but a repetition of what he had said and is answered before That such as are converted from heathenisme may joyn as members to some Church and so be baptized we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 289. he replyeth nothing to the proof of it yet chargeth us for obtruding uncouth notions upon the world without evident proof c. And he that saith pag. 24. they are church-members inchoate before Baptism and who maketh so little a matter of admission into a particular Church should not stumble at this notion And what is said to shew that admission is not by Baptism will not be far from a proof of it Our Arguments Preacher Sent. pag. 292. plainly shew that their assertion runs them upon Anabaptism Mr. Poole pag. 26. 27. giveth a double reason against it 1. That an excommunicate person ordinarily is a church-member though a diseased member 2 Thes 3. c. 2. Though his Baptism ceaseth at present actually and really as to all the actual priviledges of it so ceaseth that while he repents not he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person yet when he doth repent and readmit himself to the Church he needs no new Baptisme forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former Baptism and the Church accepts of it c. Answ 1. Anabaptism unavoidably followeth upon their assertion thus he that ceaseth to be a member of the visible Church his Baptisme ceaseth say they Jus Divin Min. pag. 146. But he that is excommunicate ceaseth say they to be a member of the visible Church for they tell us excommunication ejecteth out of that Church Jus Divin Min. pag. 139. Ergo He that is excommunicate his Baptism ceaseth Ergo If he be readmitted he must be rebaptized or else be in the Church unbaptized Surely Mr. Poole will not say that one may be ejected out of and yet remain a member of the Church for it is a contradiction to say that one is out of and yet in the Church at the same time and contrary to 1 Corin. 5. 12. which proveth that those who are without are not within yet he hath no other way to save the London Ministers from the dint of the foregoing conclusions To help them out of this Laborinth Mr. Poole telleth us that an excommunicate person is a church-member still but this is not to defend but to contradict them whose cause he undertaketh to to plead for they tell us an excommunicate person is ejected out of the Church and Mr. Poole saith he is a member of the Church still This therefore might suffice for the defence of what we have said but we shall add a few words 2. It is the judgement of many that the withdrawing mentioned 2 Thes 3. ver 6. 14. vastly differeth from excommunication because after the one a man is to be deemed as a brother and after the other he is to be accounted as a heathen and a Publican Mat. 18. ver 17. and if so this is no proof that excommunicate persons are church-members seeing the Text speaketh nothing of excommunication but onely of withdrawing 3. We observe his halting here he doth not say an excommunicate person alwayes but ordinarily is a member as if excommunication did sometimes make a man cease to be a church-member but ordinarily not which there is no syllable in Scripture for and much against it Mat. 18 v. 17. excommunicate persons are to be deemed as heathens and Publicans Ergo Not as church-members That such as are excommunicate for blasphemy denying Christ to be the Messias or renouncing some such grand Article of faith should still be a church-member is strange doctrine yet this must be or else his Argument pag. 26. is nought for it may be said He who is under a Church
is true we fully proved and that they may Preach for tryals sake undeniably evidenceth that the Gospel owneth a Preaching by gift as well as by Office or else neither Election nor Ordination do constitute Officers for they have neither of these And if he will grant that gifted men may Preach untill they have Election from a Church which they can accept of we can grant that then they are to submit unto Ordination There is not a syllable in Scripture for Ordination before Election and therefore a man may Preach many years without Ordination if he wanteth Election all that time and may plead a case of necessity as well as he that Preacheth meerly for tryals sake for its necessary a man should remain un-ordained until he can take up Ordination in a Gospel way and order Argu. 2. OUr second Argument is taken from Gospel Commands 1 Pet. 4. 10. 11. Obj. 1. It may look backward and relate to hospitality it may look forward and relate to speaking and Ministring and the words will bear either sence but both sences it it should be they cannot bear that being an undoubted truth that sensus unius loci literalis non est nisi unicus c. Mr. Poole pag. 44. Answ 1. Let the Reader observe that the Provin Assem in their Jus Divin Min pag. 101. tels us expressely that they do not limit the word gift in the Text as some do onely to the gift of liberality but extend it to all endowments of nature yea to all spiritual gifts c. And it is not fair for Mr. Poole to undertake the pleading of their case without owning their concessions He should not put us upon the trouble of proving hospitality not to be the gift when they had granted that it did extend to all spiritual gifts and this concession assured us that they could not fairly deny that the indefinite expression a gift was to be taken Universally 2. What he saith for its relating to speaking and Ministering may serve as a full answer to what he saith for its relating to hospitality in regard he confesseth it cannot bear both sences 3. That every gifted man is under a command of God to use or exercise his gift as he hath received is fully proved ver 10. If we infer from thence Ergo every man that hath Preaching gifts is under a command of God to use them how will this conclusion be avoyded indeed verse 11. doth much strengthen it 4. That every man should be commanded to use his gift immediately some gifts should be partiticularly mentioned and a direction be given how rightly to use those gifts and yet these gifts particularized should not relate to the general exhortation cannot rationally be imagined yet here is the case there is a general command to use gifts ver 10. and some particular gifts are mentioned ver 11. with a direction how to use them and let Mr. Poole shew instances of a like nature where the verses have no dependance on each other Nay as we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 10. so we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 11. and a ministration of gifts being required in both verses what impartial Reader can think them without a connexion If the ministering v. 11. be of any gifts intended v. 10. that is it we plead for if it be the ministring of this worlds goods then it referreth to hospitality and its relation to the for egoing verses is proved either way and the speaking as the oracles of God cannot be denyed to relate unto verse 10. as well ministring So that our argument is firme viz. That every man who hath graces and gifts is commanded to use them and the gift of speaking or Scripture-interpretation is particular zed Therefore every man who hath preaching gifts and graces ought to preach We said it was a gift indefinitely and so may extend to all gifts Ob. 2. As he is called to it and in his own spear And indefinite expressions are limited pro subjecta materia according to the matter in hand Mr. Pool p. 45. Answ 1. Concerning the call to preach and the indefinitenesse of the expression we have spoken in answer to Dr. Collings chap. 3. and that gifted men do not act out of their spear in preaching we shall shew more fully by it selfe once for all 2. An indefinite expression we granted Preacher Sent. pag. 59. may admit of limitations where some special reasons enforceth iâ— but in this Text there is none or in other Scriptures to restrain it 3. A gift of speaking as the oracles of God is mentioned v. 11. and that is enough to our purpose That v. 10. cannot be restrained to hospitality and doth relate to v. 11. we have already proved and that Ministers and Deacons are not onely intended in the latter verse we have further shewn in its place and this answereth what he saith p. 45 to our second reason He addeth page 46. preaching gifts are to beused as far as God doth call him forth to the use of them but no further We answer Gods command to exercise a gift is mans call to use it as in â—he gift of prayer c. There is a difference made by himselfe pag. 6. between power and exercise and he that is commanded to exercise a power by one that hath authority to command he cannot be denyed to have the power now every man that hath a gift of Scripture-interpretation is commanded to minister his gift 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. and ministration being the exercise it proveth that they have power or are called of God to preach As to what followeth pag. 46. he cannot but know that the ordinary signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is even as or as Eph. 5. 25. 1 Corin. 13. v. 12. and it being confessed by himselfe that gifts are to be used in a proportionable way to the gift afforded we wonder he should seek to draw it to an other sense we have proved from 1 Pet. 4. 10. 11. That every man who hath grace and publike gifts is required to preach and this is a positive warrant for their doing of it and therefore those who will affirm that there is an exception from that general command must shew it else the plea is in the same Court still Obj. 3. Here is not onely a liberty granted but a duty enjoyned c. They who are by vertue of a divine precept to preach the Gospel are to do it necessarily necessity is laid upon me yea wo c. to give themselves wholly to these things c. But all that have preaching gifts are not under such obligations Ergo they are not obliged to preach the Gospel Mr. Pool pag. 47. Answ 1. We grant it is the duty of gifted men to preach and this text proveth it 2. The scripture expressions which the major of his argument is made up of refer to such as were undoubtedly Officers 1 Corin. 9. 16. Acts 6. 2. 1 Tim. 4.
A thing may be prohibited either in expresse termes or by solid consequence Vzzah was punished not principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his hands but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders He argueth from 1. Corin. 14. 34. That an expresse prohibition is not necessary And addeth that there is no more expresse prohibition to restrain men from administring the Sacraments then from preaching the reason of the prohibition is the same in both to wit because Officers were appointed for those works Mr. Pool pag. 98 99. Answ 1. We grant that we are to be satisfied with Scripture consequences but that the preaching of gifted men out of Office is prohibited by any solid consequence we find not 2. We wonder how Mr. Pool durst say that Vzzah was not punished principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his hands seeing it is said expresly 1 Cron. 13. v. 10. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Vzzah and he smote him because he put his hand to the Ark and there he died before God 3. For 1 Corin. 14. 34. we have spoken to it before It cannot prohibit the preaching of all persons under authority for all Church-officers are under authority to Magistrates and all young Scholars whose parents are living are under authority to their parents yet if they have submitted to Ordination he will grant they may Preach and if such a being under authority be intended as is peculiar to women then nothing can be concluded thence against the preaching of gifted men 4. That Gods appointing officers to do a work doth not prohibit others doing of it we have already evidenced and therefore Officers being appointed to Preach doth not by consequence prohibit others preaching 5. An expresse prohibition or Gods appointing Officers to administer the Sacraments are not the chief much lesse the only Arguments against their doing it who are no Officers there are many other mediums that prove the administration of Sacraments to be more restrained unto Officers then Preaching as from others not having such a Divine allowance for that as we have proved they have for preaching from the Sacraments being purely by institution c. There is no prohibition either expresse or by consequence of gifted mens preaching and though this doth not prove that they may preach yet it sufficiently evidenceth the weakness of their Argument against their preaching for the Acts of Saul Vzza and Vzziah were expresly forbidden and threatned and so their Argument hath colour onely and no substance As to pag. 100. publick preaching is not the whole work of a Minister any more then private exhorting or rebuking and seeing he granteth private rebuking by an Officer to be an act of Office either private Christians doing this rendreth Gods Officers void or unnecessary as to that act of their office and so one appointment of God should be vain which it were an impeachment to to the wisdom of God to assert yet he saith little less pag. 100 or else gifted mens preaching in publick will not render Gods Officers vain or unnecessary as to that act of their office viz. publick Preaching Himself granteth that men are not restrained by humane or Divine Lawes from keeping School yet a general liberty for that publick work breaketh no order no more doth a liberty for gifted mens Preaching in publick But our instance of a Fathers and a Schoolmasters Teaching prove that distinction between relations is not destroyed by their doing the same works and this we produced it for Argu. 2. Their second Argument is from gifted persons not being appointed or warranted thereunto for then every gifted man that Preacheth not is guilty of a sin of omission We answer gifted men are appointed to Preach yet the want of opportunity or a Call from others may free it from being a sin of omission Object 1. Peter was forbidden to preach yet he accounted it his duty Act. 5. 29. if gifted men were appointed by God to preach no men by negligence in not desiring them could disoblige them pag. 101. Ans 1. Officers are called to preach by the Churches they are over and if those Churches should grow negligent and not desire them yet they ought to Preach if they will hear In some cases Officers are obliged to preach as Peter was Act. 5. 29 when men forbid them yet when circumstances do not concur they do not sin though they forbear 2. Gifted men are so obliged to preach that no men can disoblige them but as to the exercise here or there at this or that time many things may hinder an obligation to that as we proved before To pray read hear and privately to exhort c. are duties that Christians are obliged to by their general calling yet men may sin if they act in these so as to neglect or justle out the works of their special calling for it is duty to be exercised therein also and therefore mens acting in such duties must be determined by the special calling as to the time or by conveniency opportunity c. and so for gifted mens Preaching Object 2. If Preaching gifts be talents Mat. 25. then whoever useth them not is under a curse pag. 102. Answ Talents though not used are not as talents wrapped up unless through slothfulness or wickedness the use be neglected Mat. 25. ver 26. If one ' hath a talent of Counsel and counsel be despised he that hath the talent is free Argu. 3. Their third Argument is no man may do the Office of a Magistrate or Deacon who is not called to it Mr. Pool taketh a little piece of our reply and seeketh to answer it with his case of necessity which we have spoken often enough to our chief answers he saith nothing to Whereas he telleth us of setting up our own devices in Gods worship pag. 103. we wish their way were not more guilty of this evil then ours And if it be a sin for ungifted men or such as are erroneous to preach surely a Church is to take care that its members be not guilty of it and this will amount to little less then a proof that there may be approbation without Ordination Our instance of believing which he mentioneth pag. 104. proveth that one may perform a work of greater consequence and yet may not perform a work of less consequence and so was no fallacy but now he restraineth it unto such works as relate to others we shal instance in private exhorting this is a work of greater consequence difficulty and danger then the works of Magistrates or Deacons and that for the reasons they mention Jus Divin Min. pag. 87. viz. because if they miscarry in private exhortation they destroy souls yet private Christians may do that Arg. 4. Their fourth Argument is none may administer the Sacrament who is uncalled Ergo none may preach who is uncalled for these two are joyned together Mat. 28. 19. Our first reply to
that is much more they being moderators therein Object 3. They ordained who going away commended the people to the Lord pag. 125. Ans Paul and Barnabas for ought we see were they that were commended and the Churches the persons commending them to the Lord as we have further shewn in answer to Dr. Collings We did not insist so much upon its reference to ver 22. but as strange references are found in Scripture As to the faint conclusion which he mentioneth pag. 126. we firmly proved Preacher Sent pag. 231. 232. that it cannot be meant of a chusing or ordaining onely by Paul and Barnabas and that is enough against him Prayer used in managing Election is no Essential act thereof as it is of Ordination and so the Tautologie doth not remain on our part as he supposeth pag. 127. The Scripture neither useth such Tautologies nor expresseth imposition of hands by that word which signifieth quite another thing our present work was to deny that Paul and Barnabas onely did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what we said if granted will evince this and this answereth what is said pag 127. What we have replyed to Dr. Collings about Churches fitness to judge of Ministerial abilities will answer his exceptions pag. 128. 129. we shall add a few words in the next Chapter CHAP. XIII Concerning Election as Essential to a Call to Office THe second question is whether the Essence of a Call to Office lie in Election or Ordination We prove it to be in Election our first Argument is grounded upon Act. 14. 23. and is vindicated already That the Essence of the Call lies not in Ordination we prove divers wayes Argu. 1. Ordination doth not set a man over a Church Ergo Object 1. This is but a begging the question pag. 131. Ans There is not a word of setting over a Church by Ordination in the question It s an apt medium that which giveth the Essence of the Call doth set over a Church Ordination doth not set over a Church for 1. A man may be ordained and yet be over no Church at all 2. If it did then there must be an iteration of Ordination both these we proved Preacher Sent pag. 246. 247. c. Ergo Ordination doth not give the Essence oâ— the Call Obj. 2. Election may be necessary as the causa sine qâ—a non and yet Ordination may be the causa formalis of the Call pag. 131. Answ 1. That which maketh a Superiour and inferiour is the Causa formalis of Office-power and that which setteth over a Church doth so and therefore must needs be more then a causa sine qua non even the cause formalis of Office-power That which setteth a man over a woman as her head is the causa formalis of the conjugall relation That which setteth over servants is the causa formalis of the relation of a Master So here 2. His instances cannot help him To that of presentation we say 1. The Magna Charta of Christ empowereth a Church to Elect without submission unto other men 2. In such a case the essence is conveyed in Election the Gentle-mans approbation or representation is only a causa sine qua non exercitii 3. The instance is impertinent because it proveth not a call to office but a civil call As to that of Arch-Bishops it is a begging the question that his call did lye in consecration the King did write to certain Bishops to confirme the Election now confirmation followeth creation nor can the essence of the call be in it Ob. 3. His ordination sets him over a Church indefinitely his Election sets him over this or that particular Church pag. 132. Answ 1. Three arguments we give against this Preacher Sent. pag. 248 249. which are unanswered 2. We would know which setting over giveth the call to exercise office-power that which giveth operari giveth esse man can challinge neither audience nor maintenance untill a call to exercise It is a strange paradox that one should be set over the Catholike Church when yet he may justly be denyed a liberty to exercrse office-power in any particular Church 3. His instance of a Dr. of Physick is impertinent Physitians are not Rulers are not over any by a choice or otherwise neither is there a parity between Academical and Ecclesiastical preferments Arg. 2. Our second argument is from ordination being consequential to a mans having the essence of the call to Office Acts 13. 2 3. Ob. 1. There is an Ordination ad munus to an Office and another ad opus to a work this text speaks of ordination to a work pag. 132. Answ We believe that the Apostles had no ordination to office but onely to Office-work and therefore his ordination which came after did not give his call to Office no more doth it give it to any Gospel Officers in a proper sense Ob. 2. They â—assert that the essence of the call lyes in election and to urge this they urge the Election of an Apostle Acts 1. as in that Election so in this ordination some thing was extraordinary and peculiar to the Apostles viz. That the essence of their call did not lye in this ordination pag 133. Answ 1. This is a grosse mistake for we do not as he injuriously reporteth urge the election of an Apostle Act. 1. to prove that the essence of the call lyes in Election we plainly deny it Preacher Sent. pag. 267 268. though we improve their objection from that Text against themselves It is to prove another proposition that we urge Acts 1. viz. That the power of Election belongeth to a Church Preacher Sent. pag. 216. and therefore Mr. Pools argument pag. 133 is nothing to us 2. That it can be no good plea in this case to say it was extraordinory in that particular we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 252. c. 255 256. and that it should be a compleat ordination in all the Acts and requisites belonging to it and yet not attain the main end which â—e supposeth is the giving the essence of a call to Office who will believe it The Apostle needeth not ordination if the use of that had been to give the essence of a call 3. This clearly proveth that a call to Office and Ordination are separable a call may be as here before and yet a compleat ordination in all its Acts come afterward and therefore the intendment of Ordination is not to give the essence unto a call to Office Ob. 5. Peradventure Paul had the essence of his call from his ordination men were used as instruments yet to speak properly it was not men but God that was Pauls ordainer for the Holy Ghost said separate me c. pag. 135. Ans 1. This is grosse for Paul was an Apostle divers yeares before this Ordination that was after he had been at Jerusalem Acts 12. 25. and 13. v. 2 3. But God had revealed Christ in him and made him an Apostle above three years before
answer offered to them whereby it would come to passe that the cause would appear more weak when it wanteth no strength to support it And as there is liberty of spirit or vanity bewrayed even in the Drs. Title page so we meet with insulting language here and there in both their books all which considered we desire thou wouldst not think their books unanswerable if they reply to us and we do not answer agaâ—n 5. If thâ—â— requirest after that man of God Mr. Iohn Martin whose name is in the title page of our former book but not in this know beâ—â— gone to God and by a passage through the gâ—tâ—s of death hath obtained rest from all his labours who owned this cause in which he was ingaged with us to the last and witnessed his approbation and to use his owne expression when in his last sicknesse free concurrence with us in so much of his book as was prepared and came under his eve 6. That whereas Mr Charke of Waldron in Sussex in the latter end of his book hath pretended to answer six arguments which are found in the latter end of our book the reason why we gave him no reply is partly because of his book we apprehend him to be of such a spirit that an answer would only exasperate his corruption partly because his replyes are very weak and need no answer nor are worth the answering This is all at present onely That the Lord who gives the light without may annoint their eyes with eye-salve and make thee see is the prayer of Thine to serve thee in the work of the Gospel Frederick Woodal Sam. Petto Mon. 1. day 27. 1659. A vindication of the Epistle THe vindication of our Epistle to the former book intituled the Preacher Sent Wherein the nature of a Church capable of Officers and of being preached unto by such Office-wise is cleared from the exceptions of Dr. Collings in his reply and of Mr. Hudson in his addition or postscrip to his vindication of the Church Catholick visible As we saw it needful to assert in our other book our perswasion of the nature of a Gospel Church for the better clearing the nature of office and of power of preaching Office-wise therein So the Dr. saw it incumbant unto him to overturne if possible that foundation which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this controversie an account whereof was given by us in these words A-Church formed unto fellowship in new Testament Ordinances and is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the meanes of worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God and edification of their own souls and the good of others 1. This description he examineth in the six particulars thereof That it is a company he grants and that one cannot properly be called a Church we accept of this but if he thinketh by a figure one may be called so as his assertion qualified with a strictly and properly seemeth to imitate we doubt his figurative will be found not a Scriptural but anti-scriptural sense no better then that wherein a Prelate a Pope claimeth the denomination not as properly but vertuaâ—â— so against whose usurpations himselfe stands justly engaged as well may one man be called a City as one man a Church which cannot be in any sense 2 A particular company Dr. C. I cannot fathom your notion of particular c. Answ That notion is not singular a man cannot travel far in this controversie scarce in any author but he meets it and comes acquainted with it It is indeed opposed to universal 1. If a universal company of Saints holding forth the word of Life in a conversation becomming the Gospel may be called a universal visible Church 2. If all the members of particular Churches are or ought to be members of this universal yet the particular Churches themselves as such are not members That forme which giveth them their being as such implyeth another union and is attended with other Lambs and orders then the vniversall is ingaged in or obliged unto as shall more fully appear in its due place 3. As therefore a flock of sheep a swarme of bees being part of that company of sheep of Bees which is in the World may be called a particular company of sheep bees c. though as a flock Swarme they be no parts but otherwise distinguished and so a Church of Saints part of that company of Saints which is in the World may be called a particular company and stand related to the universal but as Saints not as Churches of Saints as we expressed our selves before under this head But the controversie is not onely about a word he now disputes for the term universal to have been put in the place of particular Dr. C. an universal theam in Logick is that which is apt to be predicated of many Church is such a Theam Answ We wonder that a man of learning should run into such a contradiction to Mr. H. unto whom we are sent for further light iâ— this controversie and also to himselfe within the verge of the same Paragraph 1. He contradicts Mr. H. who expresly denies that the Church Catholick is a Genus or universal notion and Theame apt to be predicated concerning many in the 4th Chapter of a vindication of the essence and unity of the Church Catholick visible 2. He contradicts himselfe when in the next leaf he affirms that the Church Catholick is Totum integrale which we are sure is not apt to be predicated of many naturally if the whole were predicated of the part The part might be said Vind. Sheibl Topic. Cap. 28. Sthal Axion Tit. 9. Reg. 9. to be the whole The head the body the branch the tree because Animal is predicated of Homo Homo is aptly said to be Animal But because he sends us to Mr. Hudson to Mr. H. we will go and willingly as to a man that understands himselfe whose moderation conjoyned with learning and diligence in this controversie though professedly against us we highly respect and value 1. He urgeth Scriptures where the word Church is used not applicable to a particular Church Acts 8. 3. c. 2. He useth arguments to prove that every Officer is an Officer to a universal because by baptism he admits into it and by Excomunication casts out of it not into or out of a particular onely Answ The term Church in the singular number is frequently used in Scripture to signifie not a universall Church nor a singular onely as in some of his Scriptures but this and that and the other particular as amongst many other in the Scriptures hereafter mentioned Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church i. e. this or that Church in which the offence was committed Surely none will say that after taking one or two the offended brother must in the next place tell it to the universal Church where doth any such Church meet for
such Acts to tell it unto So Ephes 3. 10. 21. 1. Tim. 3. 5. If a man i. e. any man knew not to rule his own house i. e. this or that house how shall he take care of the Church i. e. this or that Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. in the house of God which is the Church i e. in any Church where thou presidest 〈◊〉 Tim. 5 16. Let not the Church be charged i. e. any Church where the any man or woman mentioned by the Apostle having widdowes doth reside Heb. 2. 12. In the midst of the Church This declaring praise cannot be in the midst of the universal Church which never meeteth upon such Acts and therefore it is not meant of this or that particular onely but this and that and the other distinct indeed in distinct individual formes as Plato Socrates are distinct but agreeing in common nature inseparable inherent in them both Thus it is said the wife is bound 1. Cor. 7. 39 every particular wife the man is not of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. 8. nor this nor that man nor any man when the name of an Integrum is given to a part it s not so because its a part but because of the common nature so that the flesh of Iohn and the flesh of Thomas is all flesh as well as the flesh of the Leg and arme of either of them we do not think a particular Church formed unto fellowship according to institution is as so a part or hath its denomination for parts sake but being of the same kind with other Churches of the same constitution it s included in and represented by the same name for kindes sake This may answer the argument from the Apostles who because not officers to a certain particular onely are supposed to have been so to the universal For the Apostles were Officers in and over every particular by vertue of an immediate call and general commission wherin they have no successors which particulers though not parts as is already expressed may be signified by a singular word Church even as many common wealths as to order and government Independent may be so signified and it may be properly said God appointed for a common-wealth Rulers Judgges c. i. e. for this that and the other Common-wealth Nor is it haâ—d to Imagin how one may have power in and over two or three or more yet they have no dependance one upon an other A Father may have ten daughters and each daughter her family distinct the Father hath power in each family though the particular sisters or their o fficers not so Nor are the arguments more cogent taken from baptism and excommunication Baptism makes not any one stand in relation to the Church more then the Lords-Supper nor is it administred that persons may be members of the body we know our brethren will not administer it to the heathens or Idolaters but to persons called from Idols i. e. to members in their sense of the visible Church We know our brethren qualified their Catholick notion with this terme solemn intending not admission in a general sense but solemn admission as the enlisting or enrolment of a soldier is his admission into the Army But its consistency with their other principles we see not If a soldier be casheired he is readmitted by a new enrolment If a member be excomunicate yet when absolved he is not rebaptized We need say no more to this argument here having occasion to meet it againe and to consider the Scriptures whereon it s built We rest very confident that some Parent Master or neighbour who through providence is instrumental to the converting of a sinner doth more to the entring a person into the body of Christ then any Minister ever did by Baptism or can do Though baptism entereth not a member into any Church yet where ever regularly performed is valid to its ends uses and consequential priveledges in every Church not by reason of the unity of Churches but upon an other account Suppose a man be free in London and have the seale of his freedom in that Corporation onely yet he is free to buy and sell in every Corporation in England and interested in common Priveledges where ever he is though not in proper as Jurisdiction and Government If he that sets the seal at London admits not into every Company and Corporation in the Land If communion with every Corporation in some things doth not prove such an union among them all as is between the members of some one Corporation The argument upon Baptism to prove a Catholick Church falleth to the ground Excomunication indeed separateth the person excomunicate from Relation to and communion with the body from which he is cut off 1 Cor. 55. 7. 13. But as a member forfeiting his freedom at London is formerly desfranchised there where he was actually a member and consequently incapacitated to claim the Priviledges which formerly he enjoyed by vertue of that freedom other where though London and other Cities and Townes Corporate make not one Corporation So it is in this case Mr. Hudson objects postcript page 5. several Corporations are constituted by several Charters c. and but the universal Church hath but one Charter from our Soveraigne under the same Systeme of Lawes c. Answ As the World according to the fellowship of Nature hath one Jus Gentium and Law of nature for the whole yet according to the fellowship of Order must of necessity be under other Lawes for the several parts thereof in those combined fellowships so the Church in the fellowship of its Nature or the whole company called to union and communion with the Lord Jesus hath one Law of faith obedience c. For all its individuals yet not one Law for the whole as such for Order Policy c. But the Churches in the fellowship of order have Lawes suitable to their order by the wil and appointment of Jesus Christ It s the Law of the universal Church that the members of it worship the Lord. It s the Law of the particular that the members meet and worship in one place 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. thus they walk together in ordinances so that walking in ordinances with an other Church neglecting it in this is sinful because every one is bound to walk with the same Church whereof he is a member That Text is yet in controversie 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church we said its paralel to God hath set the members every one in the body verse 18 If this prove not a Catholike body nor doth that prove a Catholick Church Dâ— Collings replyeth the body is totum integrale If members had been enumerated not confined to the service of that particular it would have proved a universal body Answ The body to which the Church is compared is totum intigrale Organicum but particulare so is the Church The Apostles had place and power over more then this
out of the World else the World would not hate them they are all gathered unto Christ Gen. 49. 10. The particular Church is a particular assembly or a Society of men assembling together for the Celebration of Ordinances according to Christs appointments not that their assembling thereunto constitutes them a Church but it is a main end of their union and the fruit issue and manifestation of their constitution by such union The meetings of the Jewish Church at appointed times were as extensive as the Church it selfe wherefore we yet conclude if no National meeting no National Church if no universal meeting no universal Church entrusted with the administration of ordiâ—ances according to the mind of Christ. 4. There are no distinct officers appointed for such a Church Ergo no such Church Exc. Dr. Col. No need of distinct Officers because the Officers of particular Congregations which as parts constitute the whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole The Church is one body and as it is una so it is unita in one common profession c. To the same purpose Mr. H. Every Minister hath an indefinite Office which is equivalent to a general Every Minister hath power in actu primo to dispense the word in any sacred convention and though not an actual Officer of the whole yet hath an habitual power c. Answ It cannot be denyed but in all civil policies our argument stands good no greater body is made up of lesser but it hath a greater authority distinct in Law and government from the lesser divers Townes united into one hundred divers hundreds into one County diverse Counties into one Common-wealth are in their several subordinations distinguished by several acts and Officers appointed unto them If diverse Churches were united into one Church surely it would be so also In the Jewish politie it was so besides the Ruler of the Synagogue besides the Priest and Levite through every Tribe disperced there was a greater authority distinct in Law and Government in order and ministration from them viz. the High Priest Who knowes not that a Church Catholick visible intrusted with the administration of Ordi nances bath been hotly contended for by the Papists as a fit body for the Pope their head But as earnestly contended against by the reformed They saw no truth in what Dr. C. affirmes viz. That a Church may be a universal visible yet have no Officer over it or Act performed in it but what is particular Nor will it salve the businesse to say every Minister is an indefinite Officer with habitual power c. An Officer actu primo to the Vniversal Church who as a Justice of peace may be commissioned for a County though exercising but in a part thereof For a Justice of Peace hath power by vertue of his commission to act in the whole County without any other Call fundamentum Exercitii which is Ans of the Assemb paâ— 10. denyed a Minister an Officer actu primo is furnished with all power needful unto and productive of a second act He that is general of an Army in actu primo hath power over the Army exercere cocrcere a particular Officer not so He that is a King actu primo hath power to governe a Kingdome a Mayor of a City not so When any thing is in the first act it is in a capacity for a second act in nature and extent like unto the first If a minister hath not the exercise of power in every Church if he hath not the foundation of the exercise in any but his particular Church to whom he stands related as their minister he is not a minister actu primo to every Church The case of an Officer definite to some viz. to a particular Church and indefinite to others viz. to a Catholick Church is a strange case instances sometimes given in Lawyers Physitians c. reach it not who as so are not officers over any nor have they office rule to paralel it There is no Church greater then that which hath power to hear and determine upon offences committed but that is particular Exc. Dr. C. This Argument is nothing to the Question which is not which is greater but whether there be any Catholick Church or no The particular Church hath not power of final determination Answ When a question is de toto made up of divers parts it being out of question that a whole is greater then its parts he that proves the preended whole not greater then the supposed parts pr ves that to be no whole and these to be no parts and so speakes to the Question and resolves it That power of final determination is in the particular Church we proved Mat. 18. 17. which Scripture either is no rule to bring the offence unto the Church particular at all or is a rule to end it there And if Christ hath placed power in the hand of seven we may not remove it to place it in the hand of seventy though more wise and juditious then the Exc. Mr. H. By the Church Christ doth mean the Elders The people never had any right of judicature among the Jewes but the Courts where appeales were from three Judges to 23. and from 23. to the Sanhedâ—im no Christian congregation was instituted when Christ spake Mat. 18. 17. It s to be taken therefore in the Jewes Dialect c. Answ That the eldership of a Church is by a Synechdochâ— called a Church in Scripture cannot be clearly evinced from one Text nor is it suitable to Mr. H. his principle to attribute that denomination to Officers either in congregational or classical or higher assemblies For he saith vindic p. 126. The body of Officers is a governing body But the whole Church whether general or particular is not a governing body Ergo Say we the body of officers is not the Church general or particular again every Church saith he is a similar part of the Catholick obtayning its denomination upon that account pag. 123. and else-where whence this is clear that the Eldership of lesser or greater Congregations is not a Church Such a body indeed is a body of Organs not an Organical body though it should be supposed a part of the Catholick yet could it not be said to be a singular part so that upon the account of similarity it should though a particular bear the name of the universal and be stiled a Church That offences among the Jewes were never brought before the people to be judged and sensured but before Officers meeting apart from them we believe not mos suit Hebraeis rem ultimo loco ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. eorum qui eadem instituta sectarentur producers cujus tamen multitudinis juditia seniores tar quam presides moderabantur Grot. in Mat. 18. 17. and this was the custome of Christians in Tertullians time who was converted to the faith Anâ—o
question it must have been Ergo Office is a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as its Correlate Arg. 2. The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is termniated Vin Revi But the office of the Ministry is terminated pag. 12. in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate Answ 1. An illogicall argument◠in the major the subject of the relation is remembred in the Minor it is forgotten and the relation it self put in the place thereof If it were in form it must run thus The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the subject of office relation is terminated in the worke Ergo work is the Correlate Answ 2. If his major be understood universally viz. That the correlate to any relation is any thing wherein the subject is any way terminated we may fairely deny this without denying all Logick If it be taken particularly it is not conclusive against us we grant that the Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is so terminated as the essence or being of the relation is introduced by its termination as a Father is so terminated in a Son or Child that he hath his being as a Father in having a Son or Child and therefore a Son or child is Correlate so in other such relations But the Correlate to any relation is not that wherein the subject is terminated as the end of the relation for the ends cannot be attained until the relation it self hath an actuall existence and exist it cannot without a Correlate As the relation of a Father is terminated in the worke of a Father as its end yet there must be a Son or child in being before the doing of that work and the same may be said of other relations as Master and servant Husband and wife c. and thus the work of the Ministry being the end of that relation there must be a Correlate in being before that worke can be performed and so work cannot be the Correlate If this will hold good in relations secundum esse that is enough in this matter to evidence his argument to be false for that runneth generally the Correlate to any relation c. and besides it doth not yet appear that officers are relations secundum dici 2. As to his Minor we say The office of the Ministry is not terminated in the work considered absolutely but respectively as the office of the Mayor of Norwich is not terminated in the work of a Mayor or Magistracy absolutely and so for Justices of the peace or other civil officers if they go out of the city Corporation or county whereunto they are limited they cannot act as officers and therefore their office is terminated in their work in such a place or amongst such a people And thus the office of the Ministry is terminated not in the work in general but with respect and reference unto such a people or such a Church Relata sunt aliorum Dr. Collings proceedeth in a reply to our four arguments which shews that worke cannot be the Correlate to the Office In answer to the two first he saith Ob. 1. Officers are Relata secundum dici not Relata secundum esse nominal relations not those that Logicians call real relations Vind. Revind pag. 14. 15. 16. Answ We suppose Dr. Collings is the first that hath ranked officers who are to be over others amongst those that are Relata secundum dici we have not met with any Logicians that have done in before him the Rules upon which our arguments are built are known by all that are acquainted with Logick to be true in such as are Relata secundum esse Answ 2. Against its being a Nominall Relation we shall offer an argument or two Arg. 1. If the office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation then it is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse or a real relation But the Office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation Ergo The office of the Ministry is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse The major none that is acquainted with Logick can deny The Minor appeareth because there is no other predicament that it is reducible to let him shew to which if it may be referred We yet adhere to Aristotle in this and Seton who giving an instance of predicamental relation giveth it in the office of Magistracy we suppose the office of the Ministry is in the same predicament with that Arg. 2. If officers qua officers have their whole being in respect and reference unto others then office is a Relation secundum esse but officers qua officers have their whole being in respect reference unto others Ergo office is a relation secundum esse The major he cannot deny The Minor he excepteth against Ob. But the Essence of office lyeth not in its relation but in that authority wherewith the person is cloathed by his ordination Vind. Revind pag. 14. Answ 1. Authority hath no Causal influence into office but floweth from it and followeth after it therefore the essence of Office doth not consist in it The London Ministers say Church Officers are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first recepticle or subject of Church authority Jus. Divin Regim pag. 163. If so then officers are before authority at least prioritate nature and then authority is but an adjunct which though a necessary concequent yet is no constituent consider Master and Scholers a Tutor pupils c. Ans 2 If this were true then it were possible for a relation to hold though every thing in the world should cease which it should stand referred to There might be a relation and yet nothing be related to or else ordination in such a case must be lost It is not proved that a person can stand cloathed with the authority of the Ministerial relation if there be no Church that he standeth related to Ob. 2. Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines Vind. Revind pag. 14. Ans Zabarel whom he mentionethis against him who saith Non est relatio nisi interea que sunt actu non est enim pater nisi qui actu filium habeat quo fit ut semper necessarium sit uno relativorum existente alterum quoque existere Zab. de fac an cap. 3. Consider Job to day he hath children he is a Father consider him to morrow he hath no children he is no Father when he hath none it is possible he may afterward shall we say therefore he is potentially or habitually a father His dividing an officer into actual and potential is as the dividing Ens into Ens non Ens. His instance about the Mayor of Norwich is
Rom. 10. 14. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to signifie their declaring or publishing their message as Cryers or Heralds use to do Some names and titles are not intended for the discovering what is the Correlate to the Office of the Ministry but for other ends and therefore our Argument is firme though all titles have not the Church onely as their Correlate 4. We judge his first answer which he calleth most proper to this Question To whom are they Officers most improper For it is this to Jesus Christ Should a King passe through a street and it be enquired what or whose King goeth there and one should answer Christs King he should give a very improper answer and leave the enquirer in the dark but he that informeth that he is the King of France c. leadeth into light So for a Mayor its improper to say there goeth the Protectors Mayor but there goeth the Mayor of Norwich is proper 5. Whereas he saith p. 18. every creature is the Correlate to office as well as the Church 1. If so then the Elders of the Church are the Elders of the World Angels of the Churches Angels of the World then Pastors and Teachers set in the Church are set in the World too but where did he ever read of Elders of the world c. 2 We would know what is the foundation of the relation between a pastor and the world is it founded in nature as that of Parent and children or in Will or consent as that of Husband and wife Master and Servant or in some third thing 3. Then it s more proper to call Officers world-World-Officers then Church Officers as to call the Protector Protector of England rather then of London because of the extent of authority and office-power Nor is that reason in the least cogent viz. Officers are appointed to gather out of the World members unto Christ Suppose an Embassador from England be in France dispatching businesse for his master there he is not thereby related unto France So an Embassador for Christ in the world is not related unto the world as his Correlate but onely to the flock he is ever in the Lord. He saith moreover That God is the Correlate that God is the Author and institutor thereof we acknowledge upon which account there ariseth a Metaphysical respect between Officers and God and they are the Ministers of God but as the Correlate of a King is a subject and only that in predicamental relation he who is to be governed Ruled and not God So the correlate of a Church Officer is the Church and onely that which is to be watched over prayed for instructed by vertue of a special bond in which the Officer is engaged unto it The duty of a relation terminates upon the correlate God were to be governed if he were the Correlate of a Governour 6. Preaching Ministers are expressely called Elders of the Church Acts. 20. v. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church And this is as much as to say The Minister of the Church if not more for Elder is the name of Office They are called by that Church whereunto they are related Revel 2. v. 1. Vnto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus v. 8. Vnto the Angel of the church in Smyrna so v. 12. 18. and this is as much as to say the Ministers of such a church for what is it to be the angel of such a Church but to be the Minister thereof And whereas he beseecheth us not to endeavour to abuse simple Souls with such wofull falacies Vind. Revind pag. 19. Now let the Reader judge who hath gone about to abuse him most Dr. Collings or we Whereas he saith this is no Scripture phrase to call preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church Our second position is this Posit That Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to an universall Church Dr. Collings insiâ—â—eth upon an explication of the word Church and some other premises from pag. 19. to pag. 27. or 29. to which we shall not give any further reply at present then he meeteth within the answer to his Epistle Ob. 1. In his reply to our first Argument He complaines of fowl disputing because we take away the subject or suppositum of the question Answ When the question was whether the Pope were the supream Officer of the Universal visible Church Learned Protestants denyed the being of the Universal visible Church disputing fully against the adversary not fowlly as he saith Ob. 2. He tels us Vind. Revind pag. 29. what we say may be granted and yet nothing is proved by it Answ This we confesse we understand not how it was possible that the subject or the suppositum of a question can be taken away so as nothing should be proved if the whole be granted we desire to know of him by the next But what is his reason If the Gospel knowes a Church Vniversall under any notion though not under a Political forme it is enough Vind. Revind p. 29. Ans No Organ is related but to a body Organical hands and feet armes and legs as so are not related to flesh and blood as so but as so formed Rulers are not related unto men as so but as formed in societies and reduced under policy and Government as he referreth us to Mr. Hudson so we may refer him to Mr. Hooker Mr Stone and to our owne Epistle Our second Argument he putteth into a form of his own under a pretence to mend some faults it it and is not satisfied with that forme which himselfe put it into but then putteth it into an other and thus findeth himself work Surely this is not fair dealing he might have shewn us the faults of our argument and lest it to us to mend them and not cast them into his own form and then spend time in answering them we shall onely say this in way of answer Answ 1. As he hath formed the Argument the Office of the Ministry is made the correlate whereas we assert the Church to be the correlate let the Reader now judge whether he doth not wrong himself and us by this way of proceeding 2. Our Argument proceeded upon those Relative names and Titles which the Scripture expresseth Officers by and which they cannot lose without losing their Office and which are used upon the most special occasions and these Titles forbid a Universal Church to be the correlate unto Office as is shewn Preacher sent pag. 10. 11. c. As to Acts 20. 28. It concludeth that an Officer is commanded to feed all the flock that he standeth in the relation of a Bishop or Overseer to and so denyeth a Universal Church to be that flock which he is an Officer or Overseer to for he is not commanded to feed all the Universal Church And this sheweth that the terms Pastor and Teacher when used to expresse Office are
taken in a strict sence to denote onely a relation to a particular Church for Bishops Pastors and Teachers are the same officers under different names 3. If we were convinced that there were such a Universal visible Church made up of all particulars we should then grant that the Office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister had that Church of Churches for its correlate as much as the Office of a Justice of peace which he instanceth in as it resides in the whole number of Justices hath the whole nation as a correlate but still we should think that every particular Minister were limitted in his Office to a particular Church as a Justice is to a particular County Dr. Collings useth three Arguments to prove that the Office of the Ministry relates not onely to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. that they may do acts of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Argu. 1. Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Vind. Revind pag. 33. Christ are related to the Universal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4. 12. 13. Ans 1. This Argument from Eph. 4. v. 12. 13. for the substance of it is answered Preacher sent p. 295. 2. This Argument doth not conclude the question if such a Universal Church could be proved we might grant them to be some way related to it yet not as Officers His Argument if it were to the purpose should conclude not onely that Pastors and Teachers are related to the Universal Church but 1. As Officers 2. As to their correlate whereas if a Universal Church were the body of Christ there intended the place alledged Eph. 4. doth only specifie that the edifying of that body is one end of giving Pastors and Teachers and a correlate must be existing before the end of the relatoin can be attained and so that body may not be the correlate to Pastors and Teachers In his following this Argument there is an altering of the phrase from the Universal visible Church or body about which the question is unto the mystical body of Christ. If we grant that Pastors and Teachers are related to the mystical body of Christ which is made up onely of the Elect yet we may deny them to be related to it as Offices or that to be the correlate to their Office They may be given for the edifying of that body although they have no work appointed them by Jesus Christ to do but onely in a particular Church that body is edified if any member of it be edified Argu. 2. Those whom God hath commissionated to Preach and Baptize Vind. Revin Pag. 34. all Nations are not related onely to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his Ministers to go Preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo Ans 1. His major may fairly be denyed if it speaketh to the question as stated by himself Vind. Revind pag. 33. We say those whom God hath commissionated to Preach to and Baptize all Nations are so related to particular Churches as that they may not do acts materially and formally of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of the particular Churches they are over As the whole number of Justices of Peace in this Nation are commissionated to perform the acts of Justices in all Counties and shires in England yet the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person as himself observeth Vind. Revind pag. 31. 32. is limited by his Commission to such a County and he cannot act as a Justice beyond the bounds of that County of shire So the whole number of church-Church-Officers may be commissionated to perform acts of Office in all Nations yet the Office as it resides in this or that particular person is limited to a particular Church so as none may do acts of Office beyond the bounds of that particular Church which the person is over 2. To his minor we say The commission Mat. 28. 19. was not onely for the Apostles in the substance but in the Universality it was for them onely Apostles as such were extraordinary Officers and had no successors Were this Commission ours in the Universality we see not how we could fix with a good conscience As warrantably might a man confine his ministry to a family when appointed to a Church as confined to a church when appointed for all the world Our granting that the commission reacheth Officers now in the substance of it is enough to evidence how far we are from shaking hands with Socinus Smalcius c. though we deny their Office to have the same extent that the Apostles had Argu. 3. His third Argument is drawn ab absurdo Vind. Revind p. 35. There are five absurdities which he layeth at our door against which we have sufficiently justified our selves in the body of our discourse out of the womb of two principles he mid-wives forth these Pr. 1. That the Authority of him who Preacheth is that which makes the action of the hearer duty Pr. 2. That an act of Office cannot be done by him who is no Officer Vind. Revind pag. 35. Ans The latter of these is fully spoken to Preacher sent pag. 278. 279. 280. And in the same book we have largely proved this principle That many gifted men who are not in Office have Authority or a command and warrant from Christ to Preach From which joyned with Dr. Collings first principle aforementioned it will appear that the absurdities Vind. Revin Pag. 36. he talketh of are pitiful non sequiturs For hence it followes 1. That where there are no particular Churches formed yet the people are bound to come to hear because many gifted men not in office have authority to preach and it is the authority of the speaker saith he that maketh the action of the hearer duty and this taketh off his first absurdity 2. That in England where there is neither Church nor officer yet they may wait upon that publike meanes which is a special appointment of Christ to save their souls for gifted men not in office have authority to preach and so his second absurdity cometh to nothing 3 That where a particular Church is formed when their Officer preacheth not on the Lords day yet the members are bound to hear though gifted men not in office preach for they have authority from Christ to do it 4 That persons not of that Ministers Church who Preacheth may go in faith for he hath authority as a gifted man to preach unto those that are not members of his Church and so his fourth absurdity is taken away His fift Concerning giving the Sacrament to one that is not a member of his Church we have spoken sufficiently to elsewhere And here let us expostulate a little can Dr.
fourth argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples Act. 13. 25. c. Apollo preached publickly yet was not ordained and the scattered Saints Act. 8. Dr. Collings may see Preacher Sent. p. 66. that we intend not Gospel presidents by an extraordinary call and therefore what â—he saith Vind. Revind pag. 57. 58. about Apostleship the holy Kisse c. is but to raise a mist before the Eyes of the Reader Ob. In these instances there is not a parity 1. In the species of their gifts there might be office or extraordinary gifts Apollo is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1. 12. called a Minister 1 Cor. 3. 5. and was mighty in the Scriptures It is plain he preached onely in order to office p. 59. The scattered Christians were of the 8000. who were filled with extraordinary gifts Acts 4. 31. pag. 60. 2. In the Acts nothing found to evidence that they Acts 8. did preach in publike assemblies p. 6. 3. In the state of the Church it was an infant state and a persecuted state they might be under a necessity oâ— precept those extraordinary gifts might be attended with a praeceptive impression Acts 4. 31. there was necessitas medij there was no other ordinary meanes of Salvation for these people Vind. Revind p. 61. 62. Ans 1. Apollo's gifts were not of an other species Adam and Abel not two species of men though Adam by creation Abel by generation nor the habits in Adam a divers species from them in Abel because they infused these acquired If Apollo's gifts had been infused which yet is not granted this would not prove them of a divers species but his being mighty in the Scriptures maketh it probable that he received them in an ordinary way as now a dayes viz. by the Scriptures and not otherwayes as the Doctor argueth He wrongeth himselfe and us in affirming pag. 59. that we say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it the contrary may be seen Preacher Sent. p. 71. 72. 73. yet it being an endlesse work to answer the groundlesse â—urmises of men we had reason to desire proof But Apollo knew onely the baptism of Iohn Acts 18. 25. Ergo Apollo neither had extraordinary gifts nor did preach in order to office or ordination for without knowing more then the baptisme of Iohn he could not know these which belong to the baptism of Christ Mat. 3. 11. He i. e. Jesus Christ shall baptize you with the holy Ghost And that he should preach as a Probationer to a woman Priscilla and that at Ephesus in order to Office at Corinth how unlikely is it As to the Scattered Christians If all mentioned Acts. 4. 31. had extraordinary preaching gifts and were 8000. in number which yet we do not grant then the Gospel knoweth occasional preachers for so many could not have opportunity for constant preaching in that Church neither can it be proved that they did it else-where before the scattering Also then he must say that here was a whole Church of Preachers which is more strange then that in these dayes there should be in Churches some gifted men besides Officers who may Preach Some think that the speaking the word with boldnesse mentioned v. 31. hath reference to the Apostles as an answer of that prayer for them v. 29. 30. but we say it cannot be proved that they were the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost that they are there said to be filled with and so the objection vanisheth 2 As for parity of Acts Apollo preached publikely in the Synogogue and Christians heard him Acts 18. 26. and this he did not with the allowance of the Jewish Church onely but of Christ And if afterward he were an officer which we know not but he might though upon his proofs we do not conclude it yet now he was none The scattered Christians went every where preaching Acts 8. 4. and therefore they acted publickly as well as privately He must assert an order of private preachers who may goe every where preaching in private houses but may not do it in publick or else this exception Vind. Revind p. 61. is vain 3. As to the state of the Church as it was an infant state so Christ provided extraordinary Officers as Apostles and gave extraordinary gifts for the nursing of it up in infancy but as we have proved Apollo had no such gifts and the Dr. saith p. 59. its plain that he preached onely in order to Office by which he plainly granteth that for the present he was no Officer at all of a Gospel Church And let it be proved that any others had an allowance in that infant state to act in Gospel-administrations which were at other times peculiar to office as Apollo had if preaching were so all presidents or examples recorded in the New Testament refer to that infant state of the Church and therefore no argument for Gospel presidents could be vailed if the infancy of the Church could hinder it because that may be alleadged against all that some presidents have the force of a rule himselfe granteth Vind. Revind pag. 58. and others Jus Dinin Min. pag. 160. 161. as for those Acts 8. there being in a persecuted state will not make such a case of necessity as he speaketh of for it doth not appear that all these scattered Saints which preached had such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost however such extraordinary preaching gifts are to be used in the most tranquil setled state of the Church though many Ministers ordained be present and therefore persecution about which we are now speaking could not put them under any such preceptive impression as might render their preaching lawful now which in a setled state of the Church would be unlawfull And upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people no such necessity as he talketh of will be evinced from it If Churches had lost their Officers by persecution there were a greater colour for such a plea but here the case was otherwaies for the Apostles who were Officers were not scattered neither was it the persecuted Church that was preached to but others How mens being persecuted from their habitations can render their preaching Lawful which otherwise were not or lay them under either a natural or moral necessity to preach in their travels beyond what they should have if their occasions did lead them to the same places without persecution we understand not And the Apostles who were by Christs appointment to preach not onely in the Regions of Judea and Samaria where this scattering was Acts 8. 1. but in all Nations Mat. 28. 19. were neither scattered nor necessitated that it appeareth to stay where they were by the persecution and therefore there was other means of salvation for those people though these scattered Saints had not preached when the Lord had Officers of his own near viz. Apostles yet he would honour
the Office which authorize to such an exercise of the gift 2. There is a promise of the very gift of prophesie which is of far larger extent then office Joel 2. 28 I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh your sons and your daughters shall prophesie c. This all flâ—sh cannot be limited unto Officers This promise began to be fulfilled Act. 2. but its full accomplishment is not yet as appears Joel 3. ver 1. The captivity of Judah and Jerusalem is not yet recovered the Jews not yet converted and this shall be in those dayes i. e. wherein the pouring out of the spirit shall be for those were the daves before mentioned Both sons and daughters still have a gift of Scripture-interpretation which is a gift of prophesie And this promise of the gift of prophesie being so general hence our Argument will not prove that it was no gift as he saith 3. Prayers for the gift of prophesie or any other mercies which are to be begged with submission to the will of God cannot be in duty or faith without they be limited and bounded by some Divine word or promise for it is a humane faith which hath not a Divine word to bottom upon and if it were otherwise any man might pray that he might be made a King an Emperour or to have an estate of many thousand pounds per annum or to live many thousand years on earth or what he pleased and this might warrant him therein that he prayed for them with submission to the will of God If a Divine word be the boundary of such supplications then a particular mans recovery out of sickness may be owned as a fruit of Promise and then there must be some Divine word for every mans becoming an officer who was a member of the Church at Corinth else they could not in duty or in faith covet it and it cannot be imagined that such a word should be limited to Corinth and therefore it must extend to the Church of Ephesus Smyrna and any other Gospel Church and so it must amount to thus much That all the men who were members of any Gospel Church were bound in duty and might in faith covet to be Church officers and how likely it is that this should be a truth and how well it agreeth with our brethrens Principles who deny the Preaching of gifted men let the Reader judge And if he liketh not our Argument from a promise he may take it from a precept and then he must say That every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth and so of any other Gospel Church was commanded to covet to be an Officer if prophesying were an office for every man was commanded to covet to prophesie 1 Cor. 14. ver 1. 5. 39. 4. We apprehend there is an impossibility in respect of the revealed will of God of many mens becoming Officers who are Church-members hinted in that place 1 Cor. 12. 7. which we have according to his wish thought upon but although it seemeth to deny that all members of the Church can attain unto the same Office gifts or measure of them yet it doth not deny that there may be a joynt concurrence of all in matters of common concernment nor the usefulness of the suffrage of the meanest members And by several passages in his book pag. 2. we are apt to think that he doth not encourage the members of his Church to covet to be Officers either there or in other Churches though pag. 68. he saith if we mistake him not this is such a perfection as they ought to labour after The London Ministers are of another mind for Jus Div. Min. pag. 85. they deny it to be a common duty to study Divinity in order to Preaching Universal holiness is promised Ezek. 36. ver 26. A new heart will I give you ver 29. I will save you from all your uncleannesses If he meaneth Universal holiness in respect of degrees it is promised to and shall be injoyed in another life and so the attainment of it there is to be sought for here We are to labor for the highest pitch of holines which is attainable in this life and this is promised But that which is impossible to be attained is not to be coveted And it is considerable that no Church is exhorted to covet to be Apostles or Evangelists or Pastors or Teachers but a Church is exhorted to covet the gift of prophesie and therefore that gift may more generally be coveted then the lowest of those Offices 5. The term all doth include the generality of those spoken to and that is enough to our purpose He granteth pag. 69. that priority of order is no infallible Argument where there is any other Scripture or any found reason to evince it no intention of the holy pen-men and that both are found in this case our Arguments for their being ordinary Prophets do sufficiently prove We do not conclude that those Texts 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. 12. are meant of extraordinary Prophets but upon this supposition that they must be Officers we think it will not follow that those 1 Cor. 14. must be so also As if he lay upon the catch he cryeth out we take them at their word c. But seeing it s not impossible that the one place should speak of one fort of Prophets and the other place of another we might use an it may be about it for that often denoteth but a possibility and leaveth the matter dubious Ezek. 2. 3. Jerem. 36. 3. 7. Luke 20. 13. Prop. 2. That some have the gift of prophesie or that prophesying is a gift still continuing This we prove 1. Because there is no Gospel rule for the ceasing of it 2. Because it was ordinary Ob. So say the Prelates for Archbishops and Bishops where is there any now that Vind. Revind pag. 70. 71. can without study meditation infallibly give the sence of Scripture from Revelation or can foretell things to come we have experience 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 cannot do the latter St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased The gift of tongues and bealing in those dayes were ordinary yet none of them is continuing Answ 1. It is not proved that the prophecying 1 Cor. 14. was a gift of infallible Revelation or of foretelling things to come and therefore the ceasing of such gifts and the charging Timothy to study and meditate are far from proving that this prophecying is ceased Mr. John Tillinghast neither pretended to such an extradinary gift of foretelling things to come or infallible Revelation as he speaketh of and therefore is very impertinently alleadged here The first stirring of the Jews he thought in probability and greatest likelihood from Scriptures numbers would be in the year 1656. vid.
That probationers who are no Officers may Preach if it should be not ordinarily but occasionally or onely once seeing they will not allow them to Baptize so much as once this is enough to prove from their practice that if Baptizing be an act peculiar to Office yet it will not follow then Preaching is such and also that Preaching is not peculiar to Office and so his excepting them out of the question cannot hinder the overthrow of his argument pag. 92. thereby That proper acts quarto modo as he saith these are pag. 90. should admit of so much as one exception is strange Logick and as much as to say they are peculiar to Officers and yet not peculiar to them and therefore his exceptions pag. 93 cannot help him As to Mat. 28. ver 19 20. We do not yet find that it was an Office-making Commission but an enlargement of the Commission of Officers to other persons viz. to the Gentiles If a man hath two Commissions to the same work the latter may make him an Officer to more persons but doth not make him more an Officer then before and his instance pag. 94. about ejecting scandalous Ministers by one Commission in Norfolk by another in Norwich amounteth to no more nor his second reply pag. 94 we may grant that this Commission empowred them yet not to be Preachers and baptizers but to Preach to and baptize the Gentiles They did not of non-Preachers become Preachers by this Commission and such a Commission onely is to the present question about gifted mens Preaching His third reply consisteth partly of his meer conjecture and partly of what is truth but not against us The promise proveth that some in all Nations to the worlds end may warrantably be Preached unto and baptized but it being a promise of Christs presence with some in the work of Preaching hence it presupposeth them to be empowred to Preach before the promise can be theirs and therefore cannot constitute them Preachers As to pag. 95 96. we were speaking onely of acts of Religious worship which men were warranted to perform And is a high-way-mans pronouncing the same sentence the Judge doth allowed by the Laws of men for the same end that the Judges act is as exhorting and admonishing are allowed to men out of Office by the Lawes of God for the same end that Officers perform them or can the sprinkling and powering water on the face of Children or the breaking of bread and giving it to them be deemed any acts of Religious worship or are men allowed by the Lord to perform these acts for the same ends that an Officer doth in administering baptisme and the Lords Supper if not how doth this take off our answer about exhorting and admonishing In what way and manner men out of Office may perform these acts we have proved elsewhere Argu. 3. As to his third Argument from the uselesness of the Ministerial Vind. Revind Pag. 96. Office as to its chief act if this practice be allowed We utterly deny it The Ministerial Office is not set up as to that act in vain though many out of Office may Preach neither doth his instances pag. 99. in Justices Colonels Captains c. prove it For the main end of establishing Justices of the Peace is the conservation of the peace which others may endeavour who are no Justices The main act of Colonels and Captains and the main end for which they are established is fighting with an enemy and every common souldier is bound to fight even in open field as well as they yet their Office is not set up in vain as to that act If he shall say others do not act as Justices in keeping the peace or that common Souldiers do not Command a Regiment or company in fighting we answer no more do gifted men Preach to a Church as Officers as Pastors to it And Reader know that he offereth thee and us much wrong in telling thee pag. 99. that we say the Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office If this be not sence the fault is his whose words they are Our words may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 203. If we say Preaching in it self is no act of Office surely therein we deny some Preaching to be the main or chief act of Office and so do speak directly to his argument Yet we may grant that there is Preaching which is a main and chief act of Office Whereas he desireth to know the difference between these wayes of Preaching in the fore-cited place of our former book he may see it That which is a main act of Office is a preaching as under a special relation to them that are preached to as being over them in the Lord and having them committed to ones charge for feeding with the word Act 20. v. 28. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. The other preaching is not after this manner And this is not an empty motion as he calleth it pag. 102 103 but a real difference for if an officer of our Church preacheth to many other Churches often yet he is not over nor hath the charge of many Churches committed to him onely Episcopal men will assert that So whosoever preacheth to unconverted heathens and Indians cannot with any Scripture evidence be said to be over those Infidels in the Lord or to have them committed to his chaege onely a Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood is capable of such a commitment Acts 20. 28. and therefore it is one thing to preach and another thing to preach as over those in the Lord that are Preached to and this may answer what he saith pag. 102 103. We say gifted men by Christs appointment do the same acts materially that Officers performe in their preaching and that for those ends he mentioneth of Conviction Convertion and Edification yet there is a vast difference between their actings And that Christs appointing both the one and the other should make their authority the same which he asserteth Vind. Revind pag. 102. is strange Colonels Captaines c. may have commissions from one man yet have different authorities Another may be appointed by a master of a house to do some work yet not have the same authority that the steward hath Our Examples do plainly shew that different relations do empower for and lay under obligations to the same acts materially and thence it followes that the belonging of such acts to one relation can be no Proof that the other relation is vain uselesse or unnecessary as to those acts The parental relation is not vain and uselesse as to instruction if other relations or friends be under some obligations to give instructions to the same children Nor will it speak the bayliffs office in a Corporation to be uselesse and un-necessary if the free-men may put forth some of the same Acts which they do No more will the Lords establishing standing officers for the work of preaching or Governement
p. 2. pag. 432. Trelcatius Instit Theol. l. 2. pag. 204 205. Duae sunt causae cur inter suum Christi baptismum distinguat Priâ—r ut notet differentiam inter baptismum extrenum aquae baptismum internum spiritus altera ut distinguat inter personam officium suum inter personam â—fficium Christi c. Qui patris de discrimine utriusque baptismi egerunt aut de circumstantiis modo patefactionis Christi egerunt tantum non de substantia aut efficatia ut Origines Justiâ—us Nazianzenus Chrysost Cyrillus aut de baptismo sive externo Johannis sive interno Christi seperatim ut Basilius Tertul. Cypria Hieron aut humanitas a veritatis trumite aberrarunt ut Agustinus pag. 206. in answer to the Papists objection from that very place Acts 19. v 3. 4. 5. he useth these words ex ambigua significatione vocas baptismi nihil sequitur Nec enim baptismus a quam solum significat sed aut re baptismi aut ipsam Johannis doctrinam Mr William Lyford in his Apologie for the publike Ministry by way of reply to this very argument from Apollo's preaching without ordination pag. 26. useth these words The baptism of Iohn and of Christ distinguished Acts. 19. v. 4. 5. are not two baptismes of water but onely one with water which is called Iohns baptism Acts 19 3. and the Lordâ— baptisme Acts 8. 16. But Christs baptisme in distinction from Iohns was the pouring forth of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles and others in those daies as St Peter does expound it Acts 11. 15. 16. c. From all this it is evident that although some Protestant writers as Calvin Piscator Spanhemius and others have strongly asserted the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be â—â—e same as to the substance and essence oâ— them yet even they and many others before them as Cyprian Tertull. have asserted that the baptisme of Iohn and Christ were distinguished at least in Circumstances secundum modum patefactionis Christi And the aforementioned Mr. Lyford though he was against preaching without ordination yet granteth the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be distinguished in that very place which we alledge for it Acts 19. 4. 5. Wollebius Theol. pag. 126. saith there is baptismusfluminis seu aquae luminis seu doctrinae Mat. 3 11 Mat 22 25 Acts 18 25 And Scharpius Symphon pag 37. saith baptism is taken Synecdochiâ—e cum non tantum pro externo baptismo sed etiam pro tota doctrina sumitur ita in baptisma Johannis baptisati dicuntur ita Mat. 21. 25. baptisma Ioh. quod fuit pars Ministerii pro toto ministerio vel ut sigiâ—â—um pro tota doctrina obsignata sumitur And thus our assertion may divers waies hold true for Iohns water baptism Mat. 3. 11. is distinguished from Christs baptism with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit Acts 1â— 5. And the baptism of Iohn i. e. his doctrine is distinguished from the baptism of Christ i. e. from those doctrines which may be called the baptism of Christ wherein are contained many things about Gospel Churches Gospel Officers and Ordination c. which neither Apollo nor any other could know by the baptism of Iohn the revelation of them being in order of time after Iohns baptism and this difference is sufficient to cleare our argument We neither deny as the Papists do that grace might be conserred by the Spirit of Christ in or with the baptism of Iohn nor do we assert as the Papists do that all who were baptized with the baptism of Iohn ought to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ Nor are we yet perswaded that those Acts 19. were rebaptized with water-baptism though Musculus and learned Zaâ—chy and others who were neither Papists nor Socinians were of that judgement as we say with Dr. Ames Bell. Enerv. t. 3. l. 2. p. 297. Si rebaptizati fuerunt non fuit hoc propter imperfectionem baptismi Johannis sed propter aberrationem scioli alicujus a quo baptizati fuerunt Yet we are not perswaded that v. 5. is a continuation of Pauls narration of Iohns baptism but we shall not for the present contend about that We shall add but this who hath most cause to be ashamed we for bringing such an argument or Dr. Collings for giving such a reply let the Reader judge The residue of his book is spent about the three Scriptures which we bring for Election viz. Acts 1. Acts 6. and Acts 14. and the peoples ability to choose Iohn 10. we shall reply very briefly 1. As to Acts 1. v. 15. 23. how much it speaketh for the peoples Election may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 1â—7 c. In answer to his objection we say 1. Himselfe useth a like argument from a greater Officer to a lesse Vind. Minister Evang. p 31 32. for ordination he alleageth Acts 13. 3. and useth these words Their being Apostles makes but the argument afortiori better If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostles that were most eminently gifted with the holy Ghost should yet be solemnly set a part to the work of the Ministry how much more requisite is it for those who hath no such gifts and indowments We may now turne his reply to us Vind. Revind pag. 122. upon himselfe and say because all the people of a countrey may choose Parliament men by the Law it will not follow that they may châ—se Justices of the peace c. and the answer is as strong against his argument from Acts 13. 3. for Ordination as it can be against our Argument from Acts. 1. 23. for Election and so either his own argument must be nought or else ours is good for both stand upon the same foot we may put in Election for Ordination and use his own words thus If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostle that was most eminently gifted and indued with the Holy Ghost should be chosen by the people how much more requisite is it for Pastore and Teachers who have no such gifts and indowments as to his instance we say The people in choosing Parliament men to make them Lawes either choose Justices of peace who are established by their Lawes or abridge themselves of a liberty to choose them 2. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated and two stood as he rendreth it pag. 122 it must be by Gods direction else it would not have been followed with Gods approbation in that after Election v. 24. 26. neither could they have prayed in faith v. 24. that the Lord would shew whether of these two he had chosen if that act v. 23. had not given them a knowledge that one of these two and not any other of the company should be chosen which must be by some visible tokens thereof And if God witnessed this to them mediately we know not of any other meanes besides the Election of the people which we
Church are certainly invested with power to choose Deacons Act. 6. and election is Essential as we have elsewhere proved unto the Pastoral relation and so it cannot be without it neither in an ordinary way could there be a free submission to or a receiving edification by such Pastors as are imposed upon a people which being matters more especially of soul-concernment do speak the grounds to be more strong for a Churches choosing Pastors who are the greater then Deacons who are the less Object 4. The height of argument from this Text is It is probable And we say it is not probable 1. Because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon then of a Pastor 2. Because this Church was more able to judge of both then any Church is now Vind. Revind pag. 26. Ans 1. That Churches of Christ now are able to judge of the abilities of Pastors we proved Preacher Sent pag 225. 237. and so his improbabilities vanish 2. There is nothing in the Text to prove that the ability of that Church above any now was any reason of its choosing Deacons And if it were that renders it as improbable that any Officers now should judge of a mans abilities so much as to be a Deacon for as no Church so no Officers in these dayes are extraordinarily gifted Oject 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in Scripture alwayes signifie either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of nor yet the major part That neither the whole nor yet the major part of the Church was present be would prove 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls Act. 1. 15. and 2. 41. and 4. 4. 2. It was at this time in a faction Act. 6. 1. Vind. Revind pag. 127. Ans 1. Notes of Universality have their limitations and subject a materia but where the subject matter is Universal there is no exception In Act. 6. both substantive and adjective is Universal ver 5. The saying pleased or was accepted coram toto populo The Pharisees tythed every herb Luke 11. ver 42. not every one in the world but every herb which they possessed Luk. 18. 12. 2. It doth not appear that the number was so great as is supposed the 3000 converted ones Act. 2. 41. were of them which came together to hear of many were but comorantes Hierosolymis not dwelling there though it be so translated ver 5. So Calvin Aretius c. who the Feasts being over removed to their own home Nor can it be proved that the 5000. mentioned Act. 4. were believers but hearers ver 4. many of them which heard the wor◠believed and the number of the men was about five thousand It is not probable that there ever was a greater presence of God then at Pentecost A conflux of many was ordinary in those days Luke 12. 1. It is a common thing for men at varience to meet together for the choosing Arbitrators to end their differences and so might the multitude though divided or as he phraseth it in a faction meet together and agree in the choice of Deacons 3. As to Act. 14. ver 23. it clearly holdeth forth a Churches power to chuse its Officers Obj. 1. Were not those that ordained or chose those that confirmed and exhorted ver 22. if they were it is sure enough Paul Barnabas were the men He enquireth whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what other Syntax of the words according to any Grammatical Rules can be endured he saith the Disciples are the persons confirmed and exhorted c. Vind. pag. 128. Ans 1. That those which Ordained or chose by suffrages were not onely those that confirmed and exhorted ver 22. Or that the Disciples the Churches did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not Paul and Barnabas onely we have so fully proved Preacher Sent. pag. 230. c. that we are perswaded no impartial reader who shall compare his Book and ours together will in the least question it by all that he hath said 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth answer to the question if it be asked who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Preacher Sent. p. 243. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dicitur qui praeest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Dr. Ames Bellarm. Enerv. T. 2. pag. 97. And thus Paul and Barnabas might be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they onely went before the Churches in the choice as we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 230. c. The people had their free Election but least there should any Tumult arise Paul and Barnabas fit as chief moderators saith Calvin in loc And therefore if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this might intimate that Paul and Barnabas were moderators or directors in the choice but it cannot deny the people to be the choosers We have given arguments and Dr. Ames did it before to evidence that the people must be the choosers yet an it may be is sufficient to shew the non-conclusiveness of our brethrens arguments for the denying the peoples choosing As to his 4. particular Vind. Revind pag. 129. 130. we say 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used either in Scriptures or other authors before Luke for ordination or imposition of hands is enough to prove that without special reason which is not yet produced it cannot be taken in such a sense here As it is not granted that Ordaining is the constituting creating act of an Officer so it is not proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth any act which is used in ordination 2. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Creare per suffragria to create by suffrages see Stephan Even Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 55. telleth us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do originally signifie that kind of Election which is made by many expressing their consent and giving their voices or suffrages by lifting up of their hands c. And why should it be a riddle to Dr. Collings that we according to the common usage of the word should expresse the signification by suffrages or voices when himselfe giveth a signification of it pag 130. which taketh neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into it unlesse it can be proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used to expresse a choice in an assembly by the suffrage onely of one or two nothing is said to the case Acts 14. 23. or against our argument Paul and Barnabas being but two there could be no place for suffrages say the London Ministers Jus. Divin Min. pag. 130. According to their Grammer as well as ours two persons could not make suffrages He requireth why could not Paul and Vind. Rev. pag. 129. Barnabas make suffrages surely they made two and that is the Plural number sure We
answer they could not partly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an act of many especially when in an Assembly partly because whatsoever is put to suffrages may be determined by the major voice in case of dissent but this was impossible where there was but two for Paul could not out-vote Barnabas nor Barnabas out-vote Paul If Paul had given his voice for one and Barnabas had discented and had given his voice for another against Paul we aske who should have carryed it When the word denoteth the act of the indivisible God Acts 10 v. 41. it is not taken properly as it is in Acts 14. 23. but figuratively as God is said to have eyes eares hands c. So by a metaphor he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this answereth his second particular Vind. Revind pag. 129. 130. 3. The greek is as strong for us as the English translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth the peoples Election by suffrages and is not so clearly in apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he supposeth but rather in di-junction it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the article 〈◊〉 habet locum in divisienibus according to Grammar And if the praying and fasting related not to the constitution of the Elders as the Dr. saith pag. 130. but to the Apostles departure then the whole verse may refer to the people for it was the usual practice of the Churches to commend the Apostles unto the grace of God by solemn prayer in such parting 's Acts. 14. 26. Acts 15. 40. And Paul chose Silas and departed being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God 4. We had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken for Election or choosing by sufferages and not for orâ—ination and thence infer that Paul and Barnabas could not be the only persons that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our argument for that inferrence is this That which is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas onely But the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people Acts 6. Ergo The powe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas only And whether this be a begging the question or a proving what we assert let the Reader judge He bids us Vind. Revind pag. 131. see if there be one word in the Epistle to Timothy or Titus for the peoples choice We turne it upon himselfe let him see if there be one word in those Epistles for the officers choice or for the giving the power of election unto Officers What he addeth Vind. Revind pag. 132 133. is to deny that every particular Church is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister We have proved their ability from Iohn 10. v. 4. 5. See Preacher Sent. pag. 225. 237. Ob. 1. How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince againsaying Socinian or Arminian or Papist who know not what any of them hold Vind. Revind pag. 132. Answ 1. It is possible for those to judge whether a man be able to convince gainsayers who knowes not what many of them hold The Bishops or Presbiters who were administrators of Ordination in England 10. 20. 30. or 40 years ago could not know what Quakers and other blasphemers would hold yet surely he will not say that they could not judge whether those which they Ordained were able to convince gainsayers And why may not a Church as well be able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gainsayers though it knoweth not what Socinians or Arminians hold 2. Although some Church members know not errors by the name of Socinians c. yet if they hear them broached they are able to judge that they are contrary to sound dostrine As for those which turne from the faithful word in matters fundamental as they are unfit to judge of a Ministers qualifications so they are not duely qualified to be Church members Ob. 2. What belongs to Christs Sheep as Christs sheep belongs to every sheep but this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ. Ergo I hope our bretheren will not say this belongs to the woman yet are they Christs sheep too Nor that every man hath ability if they do and will give us leave we will pick them out Twenty out of every hundred c. Vind. Revind pag. 133. Answ 1. If it doth not belong to every sheep of Christ to judge of ministerial ability yet the reason may be because some want a word or institution of Christ to empower-them thereunto as in the case of women not because they want ability about which the present question is 2. It must belong to every sheep of Christ if Iohn 10. v. 5. reacheth so far as he concludeth it doth pag. 133. For such sheep as are hearers are there asserted to have both ability and liberty to judge what teachers they are to follow and who they are to avoid That one sold v. 16. is one specifically Jews and Gentiles have one kind of Church order not one Numerically all do not make up one Church of Churches But how he can reconcile his owne expressions upon this Text and make them agree in one we know not for he telleth us The Text saith my sheep not my fold what is here made to belong to sheep belongs to every sheep Vind. Revind pag. 133. If our Brethren say the Text is to be understood of Christs sheep as folded together in the Church we grant what they say but say it is meant of the one fold ver 16. Doth not one of the expressions deny it to be Christs fold and the other grant it to be his fold that is there intended 3. Although this or that Church-member taken singly may want ability to judge of ministerial qualifications yet all the members of a Church formed according to Christs institution being gathered together in Christs Name to wait for counsel at his mouth in such a matter will be able and so it may well belong to them to judge whether a man holdeth fast the faithful word be apt to teach and be able by sound Doctrine to exhort and convince gain-sayers CHAP. VI. Shewing that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to a Vniversal Church in way of reply to Mr. Pooles exceptions in the three first chapters of his Book THere came lately to our hands a Book entituled A moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons written by Mr. Poole at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London in way of reply to some part of our Book intituled The Preacher Sent. We shall give some brief animadversions upon the most considerable passages of his Book and
so leave it to the Reader to judge between us The Provincial Assemblies definition of Office is this The Office of the Ministry is a spiritual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a Person qualified founded upon a special and regular Call Jus Div. Min. pag. 3. This we excepted against because either it altogether omiteth or else determineth employment to be the correlate unto this relation and either way it is very faulty For it is grossely to swarve from the right Rules of a definition to omit the correlate in defining a particular relation which is Essential to the thing defined even themselves say that Relatives cannot be understood the one without the other Jus Divin Min. p. 2. we infer Ergo they cannot be defined aright the one without the other And there is nothing in their definition to be the correlate unless it be employment and that this cannot be it our four Arguments do evidence Preacher Sent. pag. 5. 6. 7. So that Mr. Poole may see that our Arguments were not onely brought to batter down one expression brought in onely obiter and occasionally as he supposeth pag. 3. but to discover a very considerable defect or imperfection in their definition which was made more obvious by that expression He saith pag. 3. it was not the design of the Assembly to deny the Ministry to be a relation to a Church nor was it their business accurately to insist upon the notions of relate and correlate they never called the work of the Ministry the correlate but onely obiter they asserted the Office of the Ministry to be better defined by relation to the work then to a particular Church which he saith we have not disproved Answ We speak nothing of an accurate insisting on the notions of relate and correlate but we say it is a false definition of a particular relation if nothing be asserted as the correlate and therefore their not denying a Church nor asserting work to be the correlate will not help unless they had affirmed and proved something else to be it Our proving in the second question a particular Church onely to be the correlate is enough to disprove that expression for Office must needs be better defined by its reference to its correlate then by its end His instance about a King pag. 3. cannot salve the business For it were very improper to say the Office of a King is a relation to Ruling and to give this as the definition of that and as absurd were it to say that the Office of a King is better defined by Ruling then by relation to his Subjects or Kingdom and it is not paralel unlesse it runneth us And so it is absurd to say that the abstract Ministry is better defined by relation to the work then to a particular Church for we have proved that such a Church is the correlate work not so but onely the end That office is a predicamental and not a Transcendendal or nominal relation and that a potential being is not sufficient in such a relation he may see in our reply to Dr. Collings But to clear the matter more fully and make way for the next question as a clew leading the right way out of this controversie we shall give this distinction The terms Office and Officer may be taken largely or strickly in a general or a special sence 1. In an general sence there is an Officer to man and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or work it self is the Office wherein one man doth serve another thus a mâ—n may be an Officer from an inferiour to a superiour or from one equal to another and have no relation proper or Predicamental growing thereupon In this large sense gifted men preaching yea any Church-members exercising any gift or doing any work for the profit of the body or Church may be called officers and the work an Office as Rom. 12. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Office But this is an Officer without Rule or Government of whom in this controversy we speak not In this sense though Apostles or others be considered as Officers to heathens it doth not at all contradict us 2. In a special sense there is an officer over man as a Prince over his subjects a master over his servants so a pastor over his flock this is an officer with power of Rule and Government Whensoever the Scripture speaketh of Office or Officer notified by the Titles of Pastor Teacher Elder or Bishop they are taken thus Acts 20. 28. Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1 Thes 5. 12. And thus we constantly considered it in our former book called The Preacher Sent. In this sense Apostles were not officers nor did preach as Officers to the heathens they had no power of Rule or Governement over them 1 Corin. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge those that are without Quest Whether officers stand in relation as officers to a particular Church onely We hold the affirmative part Mr Poole would have them officers to the whole Church pag. 6. 7. c. by which we suppose he intendeth a Church Catholike visible To his premises and preamble we say The Judgement of Churches is not our Rule but the Scripture we can find no such Synods as he speaketh of there Acts 15. holdeth forth that one Church may send messengers in difficult cases to an other Church as Antioch did there to Jerusalem for help and council but it cannot be proved that any acts of Government were there put forth towards any absent Churches and therefore this is no warrant for provincial or Occumenical Synods We wish that all differences in judgement amongst the Saints were at an end but we are not to silence a truth of Christ because some deare friends are dissenters neither is the difference between congregational brethren so great in this point as he supposeth We do not obtrude our Notions upon the world but have published our perswasions with our grounds desiring that they may be weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary and that either others may receive light from us or we from them Premise 1. He premiseth pag. 6. a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church 1. Actu Secundo actually immediately absolutely and independentlie 2. Actu primo habitually aptitudinally mediately conditionally dependingly so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where but may not exercise that jus or power every where but by the consent of the Church or Rulers c. Answ To assert an habituall Minister or Officer seemeth to us no better then to assert an habitual King Justice Constable or an habitual husband Father c. To be habitually and conditionally a Minister to a Church and to be no minister to it is all one 1. That Ministers have a jus or power to teach every where Office-wise is not proved the place alleadged go preach the Gospel to every creature injoyneth the exercise of the power and so must prove that
they ought to exercise their power every where if it were to his purpose but the Scriptures frequently witnesse and himselfe confesseth that they may not exercise that power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers 2. That any unblameable Officers of Christ should be iustly hindred from the exercise of all Office-power or have none that they can in Christs order exercise it upon whilst the Office-power continueth upon them in a strange paradox For all that have Office-power are actually and immediately under a command of Christ to do office-work as those Scriptures which speak of the duty of Officers do abundantly testifie and so Christ should command the same persons at the same time to do and yet not to do Office-work and then Christs commands should clash one with an other Now suppose such an Officer hath no particular flock and all Churches and Rulers deny their consent either from their being full of Officers or upon other lawful accounts in this case he will be justly hindred from the exercise of all office-power and hath none that he can exercise it upon for Mr. Poole confesseth p. 6. he may not exercise the power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers We might shew many other inconveniencies that the asserting officrs to have a habitual power over a universal Church draw along with it but we forbear saying onely this It doth not looke like the order of Christ that a Ministers power should extend to the Catholike Church when it is impossible that he should ever exercise that power it may be to the thousand part of that Church nay when he is by divine right fixed in a particular Church the residing in which forbiddeth his traveling to do acts of Office to the universal Premis 2. He premiseth pag. 7. that a general respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church This he illustrateth by an instance of a vast number of sheep which twenty shepherds are chosen to look unto and by the German Empire c. Ans 1. We deny that there is such a whole Church as he supposeth for which denyal we have given reasons else where And let the Reader take notice once for all that when ever we speak as if there were such a whole Church or Catholike Church we onely suppose it but do not grant it in his sense 2. Suppose there were such a Church we denie that any institution of Christ hath determined ordinary officers to have a general respect as Officers to the whole Church and so his infrances of a vast number of sheep and the Empire come to nothing 3 A peculiar respect to some one Church is inconsistent with the same relation to an other for nothing is peculiar but that which is appropriated Israel was Gods peculiar people that is his onely As to his instance about sheep we say If the Master of the sheep chooseth the twenty shepherds and committeth the whole number of sheep to them then the actual care of every sheep is upon every one and if but one sheep be lost every shepherd will fall under blame neither will the distributing the sheep into twenty parcels though some be careful of their parcels excuse any from blame the distribution or division being the act of the Shepherds according to his infrance not the Act of the Master If the catholike Church were thus committed to officers then every Officer would be blameable for the wandrings of any one member of that Church though their habitations were thousands of miles distant each from other But Christ hath committed onely a particular Church or flock of his sheep to the charge of any one of his officers and if others not of a mans own flock do miscarry his not seeking their reducement to the utmost of his ability and opportunity is a sin against charity but not against his office according to any Gosple rule that yet we can find The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is not rebaked for the miscarriages of the Church of Smyrna nor is the Angel of the Church of Smyrna reproved for the sins of Pergamus or Thyatira or Sardis Revel 2 and 3. but every Angel is reproved for the sins of that particular Church which he was set over As to his instance of the German Empire page 8. we say it hath a vast disparity in it to the case in hand For there are no acts to be performed in the Church to make a double relation necessary answerable to those in the Empire If no Emperours were to be chosen or acts of general concernement to the whole Empire as such to be exerted those Princes or Electors would not sustain any such general relation to the whole Empire and there being no universal church-Church-officer to be chosen or any acts of instituted worship to be performed which are peculiar to a universal Church as such hence the cases are vastly different and also it is very improbable that such an order should be of Christs appointment They have not one by Systeme of Lawes neither are these Electors or Princes intrusted with a joint-power for the ordinary government of the whole but every free Prince hath power to make what Lawes he will and if he will allow every congregational Church as entire a power within it selfe as every of those Princes hath within his own Territories we suppose no power beyond that will belong to any but Christ himselfe Ob. The Apostles were Pastors of the whole Church yet the work was divided among them and they undertook aspeciall relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jewes and Paul to the Gentiles James to Jerusalem c. Mr. Poole pag 8. Ans 1. The Apostles were extraordinary officers our question is onely about ordinary officers 2. The Apostles had immediate directions from the Lord where to labour in the work of their office Act. 13. 4. Act. 16. 9. Act. 10. ver 19. 20. yea that committing of the Jewes to Peter and of the Gentiles to Paul seemeth to be by immediate ducture from the spirit Gal 2. ver 7. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles The Lords making such a division if it were one was sufficient to give them a dispensation for acting in Office-work elsewhere until fresh instructions came But ordinary Officers have no such directions from the Lord or any thing equivalent to them and so are obliged to perform acts of Office to all Churches in the world and sin if they do not according to him for they have no dispensation from the Lord for acting in any and without that they must act to the utmost bounds of their relation 3. Apostles were not so limited and confined in their Office unto those which especially were committed to them as ordinary Officers are to their particular Churches the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul and the Gospel
of the circumcision unto Peter Gal. 2. v. 7. but yet Paul to use Mr. Pools words though improper was actually immediately and absolutely an officer at the same time to the Jews hence he is often executing his office amongst the Jews as Act. 21. ver 15. 17. 18. c. And he saith expressely the care of all the Churches was upon him dayly 2 Cor. 11. ver 28. Ergo He had an actual relation to the Jewish as well as the Gentile Churches even to all the Churches and so no double relation did arise by his being the Apostle of the Gentiles but as a father having many children with families of their own may abide and continue longer with some of them then with others yet standeth in the same relation of a father to all So the Apostles though they did abide more with some Churches then with others yet no distinct relation was introduced thereby and therefore this instance of the Apostles is nothing to his purpose For the relation of ordinary Officers to a particular Church is such that if they had a relation to a Universal Church it would not be the same but another and so distinct that themselves assert a double relation and that one viz. that to the Church Universal lasteth though his particular relation ceaseth Jus Divin Min. p. 151. Neither doth it appear that all the Apostles had some Churches more especially assigned to them then others and those that had not must needs be as he phraseth it actually and equally related to all Churches and without any such double relation but were obliged to travel from one Church to another where as ordinary officers are fixed in their particular Churches and obliged to abide there Mr. Poole p. 9. taketh notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which he saith is the great rule in all Church administrations for a Minister may joyntly with others rule a far greater proportion then he can teach he taketh notice that the Apostles could not teach every Church yet did actually rule all the Churches at least which are mentioned Act. 15. c. Ans 1. The question is not whether there be a possibility of a Ministers ruling more then he can teâ—â—â—â— but whether by Christs appointment a Minister is to undertake the Ruling of more then he can teach or oâ— more then a particular Church we can find no institution of Christ for any such thing and without that edification will not be a rule sufficient to warrant the acting in Church-administrations when every thing may lawfully be done that is possible to be done then this arguing will be good 2. It is not proved that any act of Rule or Government was put forth Act. 15. and there is no syllable of proof that the Apostles power of Government was more extensive then their teaching power so much as in the exercise of it He proceedeth to lay down some Arguments to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as officers to more then their own particular Churches Argu. 1. If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Mr. Poole p. 10. heathens then they are noâ— Officers onely to their particular congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible heathens To prove his Minor he saith 1. That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected is undeniable 2 Such are clearly expressed Mat. 28. ver 19 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostical Office and relation Answ 1. There were multitudes baptized by John before the Apostles were constituted Officers Mat. 3. ver 5 6. and either there must be some visible Gospel Church then erected to which these Baptized persons were related and then his Argument is untrue or else that must be a truth which he calleth a monstrous paradox pag. 28. viz. That Baptism doth not admit or make a man to stand in relation to any Church for they were members of the Jewish Church before and so were not admitted into that by their Baptism and if no Gospel Church was at this time erected then their Baptism did not admit them into any Church at all 2. Many did visibly stand in relation to Christ before the Apostles were constituted Officers or had that mission Mat. 28. therefore either his Argument p. 29. must be false or else this his position p. 10. that Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected cannot be true of which he saith it s a plain case and undeniable 3. If the Essence of the Church had been preserved in the Apostles in case all converted Christians had dyed as he supposed pag. 10. how can he deny the Church to have a being the Apostles having a being in whom he saith the Essence of the Church was 4. We desire our distinction formerly mentioned may be remembred we grant the Apostles were and others are in a general sence Officers to heathens but we deny that they were or that others are Officers to heathens in a special sence namely as over them in the Lord and this answereth his supposition pag. 10. of Christians dying and none remaining to be Preached to but heathens and also taketh off his charge against us in the same page for denying Apostles to be Officers unto heathens 5. Apostles were extraordinary officers our question is onely about ordinary Officers and therefore all he saith is beside the question If Apostles were before the visible Gospel Church was erected and if Apostles acted as Officers towards convertible heathens yet seeing they were extraordinary Officers it will not follow thence that ordinary Officers act as Officers towards convertible heathens Object Apostles and Pastors are parallel'd in this case Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. c. the body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum or the object of the pastoral Office but the body of Christ includes heathens Therefore heathens to be converted are the object and correlate of the pastoral office That heathens are a part of Christs body he thinketh evident they are called his sheep Joh. 10. ver 16. he laid down his life for them which he did onely for his body Eph. 5. c. Mr. Poole pag. 12. 13. Answ 1. If by the body of Christ Eph. 4. ver 11. 12. we must as Mr. Poole saith pag. 12. necessarily understand the whole collection of all Christs members in all ages of the Church all which in Scripture phrase go to the making up of Christs body c. then it is the mystical body of Christ that is intended consisting of the whole number of the elect redeemed justified or sanctified ones and these onely And if the body of Christ includeth heathens and visibly unconverted ones as Mr. Poole supposeth it doth here then it must be taken in this sence but that ministers should be Officers or act as officers to this mystical
body of Christ is a strange paradox For all the elect and called ones which lived before the coming of Christ in the flesh and all the Saints in heaven and all the elect unborn as well as those living in this or that age of the world belong to this body of Christ And now we shall turn his Argument upon himself The body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum or the object of the Pastoral Office but the body of Christ includes all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh and so before the Pastoral Office was instituted and all the Saints in heaven yea heathens even all the elect unborn Ergo all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh and so before the Pastoral office was instituted and all the Saints in heaven yea heathens and all the elect unborn are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office Who wil not easily see the weaknesse of this argument for many members of this body were in heaven thousands of years before any were invested with the Pastoral Office on Earth and surely they were not officers to those who were in heaven they had no need of their officr If body be taken in this sense his major is apparently false The body of Christ in its latitude is not the correlatum or object of the pastoral office 2. If it be understood of the visible body of Chr. then his minor is false The body of Christ i. e. his visible Church or body doth not include heathens to be converted Even the Text he alleadgeth evidenceth so much Iohn 10. v. 16. other sheep I have its true those were Gentiles heathens sheep by election but it is added which are not of this fold which witnesseth that heathens though sheep by predestination yet are not folded into the visible Church of Christ It would be an unscriptural and an abominable assertion to say that heathens are members or a part of Christs visible body or Church which onely is the correlate of the pastoral office Arg. 2. The second argument is taken from 2 Corin. 5. 20. where the reconcilable Mr. Pool p. 13. world which consists of such as are yet without and no members of the Church are made the chief objects and correlatum of the office of the Ministry To whom Ministers act as Ambassadors to them they act as officers But Ministers preach as Ambassadors to heathens convertible and to be converted Ergo His assumption he saith is evident for the termes to be an Ambassador is nothing elâ—e but to be an officer c. His assumption he would prove thus 1. First the scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others Ergo there is no difference 2. Even heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them and that not onely ex vi materiae because of the matter they treat of but virtute muneris by vertue of their Office Luke 10. 16. c. Ans 1. We deny his Major Ministers may act as Ambassadors to them they do not act as officers towards in a special sense and it is observeable that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Corin. 5. 20. for we are Ambassadors so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the work of an Ambassador from a King Luke 14. 22. he sendeth an Embassage and yet the same word is used to expresse the wicked act of those citizens against their King Luke 19. 4. â—is citizens hated him and sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Embassage after him It cannot be proved that those who were sent by these citizens were officers or acted as officers in a special sense in this message yet they acted as Ambassadors herein So if gifted men or other Ministers carry the message of the Gospel to heathens and the reconcilable world upon a command of Christ to goe with it they act as Ambassadors yet not as Officers therein 2. As to his minor in a general sense we grant that Ministers preach as Ambassadors to Heathens i. e. as those that are warranted or commanded by Christ to do a message of peace to them but in a strict sense they do not act as offfcers unto heathens As to his proofs of his minor we say 1. The Scripture concludeth that an officer doth preach as a Pastor Bishop or overseer to his owne Church Acts 20. 28. as over it in the Lord 1 Thes 5. v. 12. it no where saith that he preacheth under any such relation to others it lyeth upon Mr. Pool to prove it if he will assert it it were strange unscriptural language to say that God hath made officers overseers to Heathens or set them over them where are heathens called a mans flock If they were the object or correlate of the pastoral office they must be so for Pastor and flock are Relatives and Ambassadors if in office are the same Officers under an other name And this answereth his first particular pag. 14. and proveth that the Scripture makes a difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others for it concludeth his being in such a relation to his own Church as he stands not in to others and thence must needs arise a difference in actings 2. Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preach not onely for their doctrine nor for their Office sake but for Christs sake who sends them with that doctrine if they preach only as gifted persons not as officers yet it may aptly be said as Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me c. because they are warranted or commanded by Christ to do the message and so it is not their own but Christs he speaketh by them they are his words not theirs as in this instance A master of a family being from home may send a message by some friends or neighbours to his servants commanding some work from them if these servants do not hear those messengers they do not hear their master yet these friends or neighbours are no Officers nor can act as officers over them either in doing the message or in case of disobedience by inflicting any punishment c. So if a preachers message be not heard Christ is disobeyed therein concerning maintenance we have spoken in answer to Dr. Collings and also elswhere in way of reply to Mr. Pool The pronouncing of pardon and denouncing of wrath upon believing or disobeying in preaching are acts as we have sufficiently proved that gifted men may do without an office-relation Arg. 3. If conversion of heathens c. be the principal ground and end why the office of the ministry was instituted and the principal worke of the ministry then the Office of the ministry is related to heathens But the convertion of heathens c. is the principal end why the office of the ministry was instituted and the principal work of the ministry so instituted Therefore the office of the ministry is related to heathens
their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lyes Mr. Pool pag. 17. Ans 1. We suppose he intendeth that they are related to heathens as their correlate else he speaketh nothing to the question and then 2. His Major may fairely be denyed The fighting with enemies c. is the principal ground and end why the office of Colonels Captaines and other leaders of Armies were appointed and their principal work yet those enemies to be fought with are not the correlate to the office of Colonels Captaines c. It is a Regiment that is the correlate to the office of a Colonel and a Troop or company that is the correlate to the office of a captain And so heathens to be preached to are not the correlate to the office of the Ministery but particular Churches The instance of Colonels c. sheweth that a mans great work may lye among those that their relation is not toward 3. As to the minor that convertion of heathens and such as are without the Church is a great worke of officers qua gifted may be granted but that it is their principal work qua officers those texts Mat. 28. and Eph. 4. prove not The office of Pastors was not instituted until Churches were constituted had convertion of heathens been their principal work the institution of them before would have been as necessary as then And that officers and others qua gifted are appointed by Christ to preach unto unbelievers this sufficiently manifesteth Christs care for that great work the convertion of sinners though they do not act as officers in their conversion Thus we have answered his argument against this Assertion that Ministers are officers onely to their own congregations the provincial assemblie used divers arguments which we answered and Mr. Pool seeketh to indicate we shall briefly reply to his most material xceptions They objected that we receive members of other congregations to the Sacrament yet the administration of that is a ministerial act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher Mr. Pool is so disturbed at our answer to this that he saith p. 20. he questions not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it how we are faln from our own principles and pag. 21. would have all men take notice of that and also that we have through incogitancy precipitated our selves into the gulf of Annabaptisme and he doubts not but we will retract it c. And all this because we say If they perform these acts to any not of their own congregations they do not act as Past ors as officers to them therein Ans We see no ground to retract what we have said in this matter and we think any unprejudiced Reader who shall view our whole answer to their objection Preach Sent. pag. 278 279 280. will apprehend that there is more strength in Mr. Pools flourish of words to dazel the Eyes of the weake then of argument to convince the judicious that we are in an Error To clear the case 1. We professe that it was when we wrote our former book and still is our judgement that the administration of the Sacrament is an act which cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher None but an Officer may perform this act 2. Yet we conceive an Officer may administer the Sacrament which is a common Church priviledge unto members of other Churches without being an Officer over them for if any such relation as is between Pastor and the members of his flock did arise upon that act then an obligation unto the mutual duties of the relation must follow also else all in a relation were not bound to the duties of it and who will say that Pastors are to watch over the members of other Churches or that the Lord hath made them overseers of them or that such members are to aford maintenance c. to such Pastors And if they be no Officers over them they cannot be said to act as their Officers And let Mr. Poole and the Reader observe we never said that he who is no Pastor no Officer might act in the administration of the Sacrament but that in administring it to members of other Churches a man doth not act as a Pastor as an Officer to them i. e. in a special sence As Officers in corporations c. may afford some priviledges to such as they are no Officers to which none but such Officers can grant out Or to use the instance Mr. Poole mentioneth pag. 16. with some variation many acts of a Steward of an house in giving entertainment unto strangers cannot he done by any but the Steward except the Lord of the house yet saith Mr. Poole pag. 16. he acts not as a Steward to them whom he entertains whence it is undeniable that there are some acts which none but an Officer can perform wherein he doth not act as an Officer to some objects of them and therefore though none but Officers can administer the Lords Supper yet they may give it to members of other Churches which they are no Officers nor do not act as Officers towards That Rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali holds true onely in materia necessaria not in materia contingenti and therefore if a Pastor gives the Sacrament to those who are not of his own Church not as their Pastor yet it will not follow that every gifted brother may administer it or that our assertion cuts the sâ—news of Christian and Church-communion which he insinuates p. 22. That their Argument was against our practice may easily be seen in their Book not against the assertion but as supposed though ungroundedly to be contradicted by our practice And this is enough to answer what he saith pag. 20. 21. 22. and may clearly vindicate us from his aspersion for Anabaptism He replyeth nothing to what we have said Preacher Sent pag. 281. where we have clearly answered their third particular in the several branches and have proved against them that Ministers are called Elders of the people c. There are seven consequences which they said Jus Divin Min. pag. 140. would follow this assertion To our exceptions against the first and second of these Mr. Poole answereth little or nothing what he saith p. 23. is but a repetition of what he had said before which we have already answered In our reply to the third we argue against that position that a man is made a member of a Church by Baptism Mr. Poole telleth us it is none of their assertion that they allow Infants to be born Church-members and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism and a pari a heathen converted and professing the faith is a church-member inchoate before Baptism and that this onely they say that the solemn publike and visible way of admission of members into the Church is by Baptism Mr. Poole pag. 23. 24. Ans 1. They said that every Minister by Baptism admitteth into the Catholick visible
visible at least who were added to the Church therefore they stood in a visible relation to Christ in order before addition to the Church for this see more in our Epistle to our former book 2. His minor is untrue for multitudes even amongst us are baptized and yet do not visibly stand in relation to Christ but to Satan Ergo Baptism doth not make visibly to stand in relation to Christ Again a man must stand in a visible relation to Christ before baptism Math. 28. 19. They must first be disciples and then baptized And therefore it is not baptism but some thing antecedaneous to it that maketh visibly to stand in relation to Christ. As to Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. They may shew that believers being baptized in the name of Christ are solemnly engaged to professe and conform themselves unto him and that in his death but they do not prove that men cannot visibly put on Christ in his death or that they cannot visibly be in Christ without baptism and therefore they do not evidence that baptizing is that act in or by which they are so much as visibly made to stand in relation to Christ Our answers to this objection do also answer his next argument We say men must visibly stand in a covenant relation before admission into the Church or unto baptism for visible believing or a profession of Faith is pre-required in those that are adulti unto baptism Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. v. 12. 36 37. And therefore baptism neither maketh a man to stand visibly in relation to the covenant or to the Church It s being aseal of the covenant implyeth a precedent consederation or presupposeth a mans being in covenant as being but a ratification or confirmation of a covenant already made We demand whether the Lords Supper be not as wel a seal of the covenant as Baptism And whether that maketh a man stand in relation to the covenant and he be in covenant as often as he partaketh thereof and out when he doth it not If otherwise then it is no contradiction that the application of such a seal should not make to stand in relation to the covenant and surely they must stand in a visible relation to the covenant before a partaking of the Supper and then something else must make to stand in relation to the covenant To his last Argument pag. 29. we reply It is not that which gives the capacity but that which giveth the right to Church-priveledges that makes a man stand in relation to a Church Nei her doth Baptism make a man capable of Church-priviledges no not of the Supper which he mentions for some infants are Baptized and excommunicate persons also and yet are uncapable of that Church-priviledge nay the Presbyterians will not admit to the Supper without examination and the Provincial Assembly plead against admitting the ignorant or scandalous to the Supper Vind. Presb. Govern pag. 56. c. By which it appeareth that though they donot account unbaptized persons capable of the Supper yet they do not judge Baptisme enough to capacitate for the Supper for then they must deny it to none that are baptized His Arguments thus failing his conclusions from them come to nothing We denyed that 1 Corin. 12. 28. or Eph. 4. did prove a Ministers relation as an Officer to a Catholick visible Church if such a Church were intended there for it may properly be said there are set in the Commonwealth Justices Constables c. yet they are limited in their Office to a particular County or Parish c. And it is not improper to say God hath given to or set in the Church viz. this and that Church Apostles Evangelists c. Object 3. That implies that its one political body wherein they are set c. Mr. Poole pag. 30. Answ If there were a Catholike Church and that which is not granted a political body to as a Commonwealth is yet it s being said God hath given to or set in the Church Apostles Evangelists c. would no more prove that they are Officers to that whole political Universal Church so much as in actu primo then it s being said there are set in the Commonwealth Justices Constables c. would prove that they are Justices or Constables to the whole Commonwealth Much less can it be a proof of any such thing where evidence is wanting for a political Universal Church Ob. 2. The case wholly differs for Justices Constables c. have limited commissions c. Mr. Pool pag. 30. Answ So are Ministers limited in their office and confined to their particular Churches as we have proved and therefore this maketh no difference in the cases The case of the Empire we spake to before the Princes do not Govern in common but every one is distinct in Lawes and customes Object 3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon but the sence c. Apostles were so set in the Church that they were also set over the church so are not Justices they are in not over the Commonwealth c. Mr. Poole pag. 30. Answ This 1 Cor. 12. 28. is the main Text urged for a Universal origanical Church and yet Reader thou may est see when it cometh to they are constrained to borrow help from other Texts to shore up their Argument We grant that the Apostles were set not onely in but over all Churches but that this is the sence and explication of the phrase which the Apostle useth or the intendment of this Text so as the Apostle should mean that God hath set over the Church Apostles when he onely saith God hath set in the Church Apostles c. this is not nor ever can be proved And it s very observable that those phrases might be used 1 Cor. 12. 28. and Ephes 4. 11 12. the two places chiefly alleadged for a general visible orginical Church though those Texts should not be understood of the visible Church at all for Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers are set in and given for the edifying of the mystical body of Christ though they be not Officers to it or set over it And a poor Argument is it that hath no better ground to stand upon this answereth what he saith pag. 31. that it is that body into whith we are Baptized both Jewes and Gentiles and one whole body c. for all this may be predicated of the mystical Church or body of Christ But if the visible Church or body be intended the Church of Corinth and a pari all other true churches is the body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 27. Now ye are the body of Christ c. and in the very next verse its added And he hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. seeing this immediately followeth it need not seem strange that the meaning should be this The particular Church of Corinth is the body of Christ and God hath set in this Church or body first Apostles
c. The Apostles were set in Corinth though not limited or confined to that Church All the strength of their Argument from 1 Cor. 12. 28. dependeth upon the Apostles speaking in the singular number the Church had it been said God hath set in the Churches c. there could have been no shadow of an Argument hence for their being officers to a Universal Church and seeing in the same chapter ver 12. 14. 17. c. he speaketh in the singular number the body the body and the whole body and yet all natural bodies do not make one body and ver 18. God set the members in the body c. yet there is no Catholick body how can his speaking in the singular number the Church ver 28. and that in the application of the same similitude prove a Catholick Church made up of all Churches To evidence that the sin of a people may nullifie the Office of a Minister which they deny Jus Div. Min. pag. 146 we ask whether if they murther him will not this nullifie his Office and if so why may not their sin other wayes make voyd the Office also Object Mr. Poole saith we confound the nullifying of the Office and the hindring the exercise of it 2. He demands whether this hold of the Apostles or no whether if the Catholike Church was confined to one congregation and that proved heretical and voted down the Apostles would this make their Office null or no he saith this followeth upon our principles for the church the correlate ceasing they must needs cease also ejusdem est instituere destituere and we allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people in the same page he telleth the world that we say the Apostles were constituted Officers by the church alleadging Acts 1 He addeth that this doctrine renders it in the power of mens lusts and humours to nullifie the promises of Christ the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadours for now there are none but ordinary Ministers and he supposeth but twenty congregations in the world and each of these may resolve severally to eject their Ministers c. This is the sum of what he expresseth in many words Mr. Poole pag. 32. 33. Ans 1. We have not confounded but clearly distinguished between nullifying the Office and hindring the exercise of it as he that shall impartially read our Book may see 2. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers our question is onely about ordinary Officers The Apostles were neither of man nor by man but were made by an extraordinary call of Christ and so it did belong onely to Christ to null their Office because ejusdem est instituere destituere But we cannot but complain that Mr. Poole hath here offered abundance of wrong to us in reporting to the world that we say Apostles were constituted Officers by the church alleadging Act. 1. and not contenting himself with sayit once he cometh over with it again towards the end of pag. 32. of his Book Whereas we have expressed the contrary and that in expresse Terms in speaking to Acts 1. which he sayeth we alledge for it Let any one read our book Preacher Sent. pag. 268. where we use these words This was but halfe an Election and that is the reason why it did not constitute Mathias an Apostle as appeareth because the choosing of the one which was by God was the constituted act Acts 1. 24. c. by which any one may see that we deny the Apostle to be constituted by the Church and assert it to be by God and therefore he hath done us much injury in this report 3. Suppose a Church murthereth its Officers either he must say that they are officers after they are dead which is absurd or else he must grant that the sin of a people may nullifie the office of a minister which the Provincial Assembly denyeth 4. No supposition may be allowed which implyeth a contradiction to any divine promise For God is faithful and therefore will restrain from every act that would render any promise void Some suppositions may be admitted of but not such as are against Promises otherwise we may answer his with an other himselfe supposeth p. 32. that the Catholike Church may be confined to one congregation if the Elders possibly but two or three should excommunicate that whole Church they should by this juridicall act how un just soever nullifie the promise of the perpetuity of the Church Mat. 16. 18. as much as by his supposition the people should nullifie the Promises about officers In such a case two or three Elders cannot be proved to be the universal Church and Officers to it also and if there be not a Church Officers set in it either the promises about officers or the Church must fail if suppositions against promises be allowed And in what a sad condition then would the Church be in for there would be none to appeal to and thus we might turne his words pag. 34 35. upon himselfe Or we might suppose that persecutors being most of the world might murther that one congregation which he improperly calleth the Catholike Church being but few its true the act would differ one being an act of horrid violence the other a juridical act but both are equally possible and so a supposition may be taken from one as well as from the other and therefore he can get nothing from such supposals The monstrous opinion followeth upon his owne principle Suppose but Twenty Ministers in the World who only have power according to him to ordain and they through treachery and frowardness should refuse to put forth their power for a succession they dye and so the promise of Christ is nullified neither doth his answer to the objection pag. 33. 34. take off this for here the case is not wholly different here is not an act of horrid violence and therefore it is as great an inconvenience to assert that Jesus Christ hath given to Ministers a juridical power as they judge that of Ordination to be by the abuse of which they might if they pleased disanul an Ordinance of Christ CHAP. VII Wherein our arguments for mens being Officers to a particular Church onely and not to a universal are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Pool bringeth against them Some arguments we used to prove that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely and not to a universal Church Mr. Pool pag. 35. den yeth the major of our first Syllogisme but medleth not with the proofs of it and so it remaineth firme still To prove our minor we use this argument Arg. 1. All that flock or Church over which the Holy Ghost hath made a man a Bishop or Overseer he is commanded actually to feed and take heed to and sinneth if he doth not But no Bishop or Overseer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the universal Church c. Ergo Ob. Mr. Pool
pag. 35. denyeth the major and saith a minister is not obliged actually to feed all his flock and addeth every Apostle was a Catholâ—â—â— Pastor and so had the whole Church for his flock Mat. 28. 19 20. But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church and all Nations c. Answ 1. His denyal of the major is little better then a denyal of the very words of Scripture for the Apostle saith Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church c. Is it not plain that actuall feeding is enjoyned and that not onely some but all a mans flock is thus to be sed 2. This doth not answer our argument but leaveth us under a new seeming difficulty 3. If his reason should be wholly granted we do not see how it justifyeth his denyal of our major or taketh away the force of our argument and had he not left out the conclusion of his Syllogism he might easily have seen it himself For the utmost he can conclude from those premises is but this Ergo every Catholike Pastor who hath the whole Church for his flock was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church all Nations c. And what is all this to the purpose If every Catholike Pastor or every one who hath the whole Church for his flock was not will it follow hence that no officer is obliged actually to feed all his flock May there not be some officers who have no such large flock and may stand under such obligations If every Apostle was not yet may not every ordinary Officer be obliged actually to feed all his flock What shadow ofa consequence is here This might be enough in answer to that which he supposeth to be an unanswerable reason but that his reason taketh not away the force of our Argument we may evidence these waies 1. Because the impossibility of every Apostles looking to all the Churches is the reason which himselfe giveth pag. 7 8. why they did it not But our argument is drawne from a command to ordinary Officers fixed in a particular Church all which it was possible for them actually to feed and so the cases run not paralel And that a universal Church should be their flock the hundred it may be the thousand part whereof by reason of their fixednesse in a particular Church they can never feed and yet be commanded to feed all their flock who can Imagine it Or doth not such a comand rather determine their particular flock to be all over which they are made Overseers 2. Because the Apostles had immediate directions from God which gave them a dispensation for an actual feeding every Church 3. Because if every Apostle was not commanded actually to feed all that flock or all those Churches that they had liberty by their commissions to act as Officers towards seeing every ordinary Officer is commanded to feed all the flock he is an Overseer to Acts. 20. 28. hence his supposed unanswerable reason faileth in the main thing it should prove If Mat. 28. 19 20. were spoken to this or that Apostle singly then that being a command of actuall teaching and baptizing every Apostle was obliged actually to feed or teach all Nations and then his minor is untrue But if it were spoken to all the Apostles together v. 16. 19 20. then if every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed all Churches or all Nations yet all the Apostles together did actually feed all the Churches in that age and were obliged to do it and all officers together in after ages are under the like obligation yet no one ordinary Officer is obliged actually to teach all Nations but every one is bound to feed all the flock over which he is made an overseer Arg. 2. If Officers now were actually to feed and take care of all the universal Church then their power were as extensive large as the Apostles c. Prâ— Sent. p. 11. Obj. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation but in the independancy superiority and singularity of jurisdiction Mr. Pool pag. 36. Answ 1. If this were true yet it proved what we produced it for viz. That no ordinary Officer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the unisal Church for himselfe granteth pag. 6. that it was peculiar to the Apostles to be actually Ministers to the whole Church 2. But that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation seemeth to us very false For 1. Apostles had universality of jurisdiction Ergo Apostles had generality of relation Ordinary officers have not universality of jurisdiction Ergo ordinary officers had not generality of relation Nomans jurisdiction can be extended beyond his relation and therefore none can deny the Apostles universality of relation and that ordinary officers have so extensive a jurisdiction let him prove that will assert it 2. As Apostles had general relation so they were under obligation to actual discharge of the duty of the relation in like extent 2 Corin. 11. 28. and so were the Churches towards them But ordinary Officers are not under an obligation for the actuall discharge of the duty of their relation to all Churches as we have already proved from Act 20 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. neither are all Churches under such obligations to duty towards them as their officers either â—o submit or afford maintenance c. to them and therefore ordinary officers relation doth not extend to all Churches 3. Apostles general relation obliged them to an Itinerant execution of their office so as they could not fix in any Church but ordinary Officers are not engaged to such an execution but by Divine appointment are fixed in some one church and are bound there to reside which is inconsistent with such a relation as the Apostles had 4. The general relation of the Apostles was so special as all Churches might plead a like interest in them and call them their officers with ordinary officers it is not so our brethren themselves being judges Jus Div. Min. pag. 143. If ordinary officers be not equally related to all Churches they are not at all related to them for relations do not suscipere magis minus unlesse the subject or foundation be mutable Arg. 3. Ministers are Pastors onely to them whom they can exercise Church government towards as well as teach Obj. Then the Apostles did not preach as Officers to heathens for towards such they could not exercise Church-governement Mr. Pool p. 37. Ans If Apostles did Preach as Officers over heathens it did arise from the extraordinariness of their Office for no ordinary Officers civil or military can act as Officers toward any that they cannot govern and having the Rule over and being over others in the Lord is made the specificating distinguishing Character of ordinary Officers from such as
are none or from such as they are Officers to 1 Thes 5. ver 12. Heb. 13. ver 7. 17. and they cannot be said to be over those that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. or that they cannot exercise Church Government towards and therefore are not Officers to such for what is it to be an Officer to any but to be over them in the Lord Argu. 4. This brings in Episcopacy to make one man an Officer over many Churches Preacher Sent pag. 248. 283 187. Object The Episcopal way leaves to inferiour Ministers nothing but the name and Title of Officers all power of Jurisdiction being ingrossed into the Bishops hands c. That government by Bishops is a government by forreigners as it were the power of ruling being neither in the hands of the people nor of any chosen by them c. The formality of Episcopacy lies in this in the Superiority of one Pastor to another and to many other and of one church to all the rest in a Diocess not in the Superiority of a colledge of Pastors or convention of churches over one Pastor or church c. Mr. Poole pag. 37. 38. A. 1. We know not that we have used that Argument but onely in the Pages even now quoted and in neither of those places do we assert a government by a Colledge of Pastors to be Episcopacy it s the Superiority of one that we give that name unto and therefore most that he saith here as about the low countries not being a Monarchy c. is but to make the Reader believe that we speak what we do not 2. As government by Bishops was as he saith a government by forreigners so is that by Provincial and National Assemblies who must needs act as he telleth us Bishops do without knowing or being known to any one Church which they undertake to govern And as the choice of a Bishop by a Diocess cannot render that Government lawful so the choice of a Colledge of Pastors by a particular Church to Rule over it cannot warrant that neither having footing in Scripture 3. Episcopacy lies not only in the Superiority of one to many Pastors but in the Superiority of one to and usurped Power over many Churches sad experience as well as the writings of men do sufficiently bear witness to this Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 28. speaking for Bishops asserteth a Bishop to have Preheminence over diverse smaller particular congregations And such as plead against Bishops speak the same thing as Smectymnuâ—s pag. 54. 71. 78. And also the Provincial Assembly in answer to Episcopal pleas saith Jus Div. Min. part 2. pag. 82 83. The believers of one City made but one church in the Apostles dayes and add that the Asian Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but congregational Presbyters seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one So that its undeniable that for one man to be an Officer to more then one Church for one to be set over many Churches is Episcopacy and this onely do we call by that name Preacher Sent. pag. 248. 283. and that this followeth upon their principles we have there proved and therefore it is no frivolous or intemperate accusation We may turn what he saith upon himself in this Argument Those the formality of whose Office lies in their Superiority to many Pastors who engrosse all Power of Jurisdiction into their own hands and leave to inferiour Ministers nothing but the name and title of Officers and make them officers without Office and whose Government is such as the Power of Ruling is neither in the hands of the people nor of any chosen by them and who generally neither know nor are known to those whom they undertake to govern they are no Officers of Christ Let any shew any Scripture proof that Christ owneth such as Presbyters or any Officers of his who so far encroach upon the Kingly Office of Christ as to set up an Office not equall with but even in its formality Superiour to and over those Officers that Christ hath instituted yea which degradeth Christs Ministers and robbeth his people of that Power which he hath left them But Bishops and their Government saith Mr. Poole pag. 37. 38 is such Ergo Bishops are no Officers of Christ Ergo either Ordination is valid by such as are no Officers or else their Ordination is null who received it from Bishops CHAP. VIII Wherein our first and second Arguments for gifted mens Preaching are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Poole laid against them HIs fourth chapter hath little in it worth taking notice of That we do not plead for all that conceit themselves gifted he may see in what we say about a Rule of Regulation in our Advertisement to the Reader He findeth fault with our description of the work of Preaching yet he hath not replyed any thing to our proofes of it which may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 20 21 22. It s not proved that the end of their meeting Act. 17. ver 16. 17. 22. was to hear Paul Preach to them but he did it when they were met for other ends and that it is Preaching though in private and but to a single person is undeniably proved Act. 5. 42. and Act. 8. 35. and therefore neither a congregation Sacred nor the publikeness of the act doth make it Preaching The end of the work cannot but be sacred whoever be the workers and if this be all they intend they say just nothing We cannot but wonder that Mr. Poole pag. 41. 42. should use these words The end of the actor or speak er is purely solely the salvation of their souls and so it is truely and may properly be called Preaching Surely if this be enough to denominate it properly Preaching then our description of Preaching is good and we may as well say to him as he doth to us p. 40. then we are all Preachers bond and free Male and Female for any of these or any gifted men that we plead for may make the salvation of souls the end of their speaking so that if he will blame us he must blame himself also He saith it is publike Preaching that they dispute against and it is that we dispute for and so we come to the main question Quest Whether some men who are not ordained Officers may Preach or whether persons who have Preaching gifts and graces or are apt to teach may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publike Assemblies though they be not ordained Officers Ans We answer affirmatively they may Preach Arg. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination The major of our Argument he saith is not beyond exception yet he doth not flatly deny it or reply any thing to our proofes of it or of the other proposition The minor he saith if true is for the tryal of gifts and that they dispute not about but whether out of a case of necessity c. Ans That our minor
15. and 2 Tim. 4. 2. And because a necessity is laid upon officers and woe is unto them if they preach not the Gospel in season and out of season because officers are to give themselves wholly to these things and not to leave the word of God to serve tables for any to say Ergo All preachers are under such obligations who seeth not the weakenesse of this argument If Paul or other Church-officers were not free from a necessity of preaching by being where they were not desired to preach or if they ought to do it were there but any that would hear them as he intimateth pag. 48 49. yet there may be other preachers not to obliged they having no flock or Church committed to their charge as officers have who may command their Church to hear but if a man hath no particular Church from whom can he command audience 3. There are cases wherein officers may allowably not preach and yet not sin though preaching be their duty and in such and we suppose in other cases also gifted men sin not in not preaching as for instance a Pastor going a long journy upon lawfull occasions may on diverse Lords dayes cease from preaching if he be in such places where Churches are supplyed with officers of their own denying their consent to his exercising among them without whose consent he cannot lawfully preach there Mr. Pool himselfe being judge pag. 6. Here no sin ariseth upon his not preaching or their not hearing This manifesteth that they who are by divine precept to preach may and must preach all due circumstances concurring not otherwise and therefore his Major pag. 47. is not universally true Nor his major pag. 49. for preaching is a duty which such a Pastor may lawfully do yet in such cases he is not bound to do it The like we may say for gifted men the Prophets 1 Corin. 14. were under an obligation by divine precept to Prophesie yet not onely upon the peoples refusing to heal but upon divers other accounts are commanded silence as 1. First in the want of an interpreter 1 Corin. 14. ver 28. 2. For giving away to others Prophesying 1. Cor. 14. ve 29. let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judge so ve 30. 31. There being many prophets in this Church and but two or three of them being permitted to speak at one time or in one day of meeting hence those Prophets and so gifted men in our dayes may without sin frequently or commonly forbear preaching Prophesying was their duty yet they were not constantly or in every meeting bound to do it and so Mr Pools argument pag. 47. 49. cannot be true And gifted men not preaching constantly may in many cases be warranted as well upon other accounts as the giving way to or not hindring of others exercising the same gifts His second and third difficulties pa. 49. that then women must preach and he that hath a gift to be a general Magistrate c. may undertake those places have been so fully answered that we wonder he is not ashamed to mention them any more Ob. 4. Every one is to exercise his gift but in his own Sphear publike persons publikely private persons privately and so did Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. c. Mr. Pool pag. 50. Ans 1. The act of Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. doth not in the least prove that such as have publick gifts go out of their Sphear if they without undertaking office exercise them publickly Church-Officers may give private advertisements and yet it doth not follow that they may not act publikely If Mr. Pool by hearing one eminently gifted should perceive him to be un-instructed in the way of the Lord and should instruct him in private would this be any proof that Mr. Pool should act out of his sphear if he preached in publick He saith pag. 50 it is not in the least intimated that they were not gifted to speak in publick Ans Nor is it intimated that they had publick gifts the excellency of them doth not prove it The weaknesse of this objection we have fully evidenced Preach Sent. pag. 41 42 43. 2. That Text 1 Peter 4. 10 11. commandeth everyman that hath the publick gift of Scripture-interpretation to exercise it and so determinethâ— it to belong to their place and calling to preach and proveth that they act not out of their Sphear in preaching and that publickly This we cleared in our former book by six particulars Mr. Pool granteth that they may do the work of preaching open and apply Scriptures exhort rebuke but not publickly pag. 51. So that the Reader may observe that a gifted man may lawfully preach many Sermons privately it is his publick preaching onely which Mr. Pool opposeth we prove that they mâ—y preach publickly first because a publick gift cannot be fully improved if it be not used publickly this we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 47 48. Mr. Pool replyeth not to the proofs of it but saith pag. 51. let them not inter-lope betwixt two callings and enquireth whether we will say that the Rule is true in general if so he would infer that women giâ—ted to teach and men gifted to Rule judge lead an Army c. ought publickly to exercise such gifts c. Answ The Rule is true in this particular case for this gift is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. and a general command annexed to exercise it But we say the Rule is true in all other cases unlesse where some particular exceptions do limit that geneneral Rule or where a gift cannot be exercised without assuming an office women are excepted ruling and judging gifts cannot authoritatively be exercised without assuming office but a preaching gift may as is clear in the case of Probationers Whether they may inter-lope betwixt two callings is an other question nothing to the present purpose Secondly because publicknesse doth not make an act to be an act of Office nor privatenesse hinder it from being so it neither maketh it preaching nor authoritative preaching c. Ob. Though bare publicknesse of speaking maketh it not preaching yet that is a property of authoritative preahing c. 1 Corin. 14. 34. and 1 Tim. 2. 11. 12. conclude beyond contradiction that to preach pubickly is an act of authority and inconsistent with a state of subjection c. Mr. Pool pag. 52 53. Ans 1. His disallowing gifted mens preaching publickly when yet he granteth pag. 53. that private men may speak publickly in divers cases as at Synods c. argueth him to be at he causlesly saith pag. 51 meerly in the defence of a pre-conceived opinion For he granteth publicknesse doth not make authoritative acts in other cases and yet in this particular case asserteth it to be a property of authoritative preaching But we proved before that it may be authoritative preaching though in private and as well it may be in publick and yet not be preaching office-wise 2. Those Texts do not
he must say it is a gift not an office and then the question is granted or that there is another order of ordinary Officers for the work of preaching besides Pastors and Teachers Our second argument was that which ought in duty and might in faith be covered by every man who was a member of the Church of Corinth that was a gift only not an office c. Ob. He denyeth the major 1. An Office might be covered as well as a gift 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2. Shew where God promised to every member of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts 3. If an extraordinary office might not be desired either it is because it is an office and that hinders not or because extraordinary and then extraordinary gifts might not be desired but they might 1. Corin. 14. 1. 4. It was impossible for all to be officers there in that Church but not to be officers in other places c. Mr. Pool p. 71 72. An. 1. The second and forth particulars are answered in our reply to Dr. Collings whether we refer the Reader The first and third particulars reach not the business for the question here is not whether it was an office either ordinary or extraordinary But whether every man who was a member of Corinth or other Churches might covet to be officers Every man in a Church may desire to have gifts that he may be the more usefull in the body to fellow-members but every man may not desire office for that were to desire to be over it and if this desire should be granted that all should become officers where would be the body the Church for them to be over in those daies if all the members of a Church desired extraordinary gifts and had this desire answered they might all find use for those gifts but there could not be roome for all to be officers And there is not the least intimation in any verse of the Chapter that the intendment of the Apostle in puting every man in the Church of Corinth upon coveting to prophesie was that they might remove their station and become officrs in other places but that they might be the more useful to one another in that Church 1. Corin. 14. ver 22 23 24. 26. c. He saith they were to desire other extraordinary gifts ver 1. and if those were onely to render them more servicable in that Church with what shadow of reason can Prophesie be singled out and be concluded to be coveted in order to Office in other Churches Or doth Mr. Pool think in his heart that this was it the Apostle did drive at And how could all the men in that Church become officers in other places without a dissolution of the Church in this place which certainly was far from the Apostles designe As for their being enumerated amongst officers and before Evangelists we have answered it in our reply to Dr. Collings and also in our former book p. 93. In that Judas and Silas as Prophets did exhort Acts 15. 32. as himselfe confesseth pag. 74. and yet there were others whose work as Prophets was to foretel future events Acts 11. ver 27 28. hence it is not so improbable as he would seem to make it that there should be two sorts of New Testament Prophets especially our reasons from 1 Corin. 14. being considered but that answer was added ex abundanti the objection being sufficiently answered before and so was no subterfuge he may say if he please that one sort were Prophets by an extraordinary gift of prediction the other were Prophets by an ordinary gift of Scripture-interpretation As for the selfe-contradiction which pag. 75 76. he telleth us we boldly charge them with Indeed there being like titles given to both the books Jus Divin the habitations of the Authors of both being in and about London and the Authors of Jus Divin Regim p. 123. promising a book upon the very subject of the other we were induced to think that they had the same Authors but least they should have different Authors we onely laid it down by way of supposition not by way of charge our words are and here we cannot but observe how the the Lord hath left them to a self-contradiction If the sundry Ministers of London publishing the first book be of the Province of London which published the second c. Preacher Sent. page 97. By which any man may see that if the publishers of the first book be not of the province of London there is no charge for self-contradiction And though they be not of the Provincial Assembly yet it is very remarkable that they should contradict one an other about such a weighty matter For if the Prophets be ordinary persons as the Authors of the first book affirme that is sufficient saith Mr. Pool pag. 75. and what he addeth pag. 76. is far from proving it no contradiction viz. That these Prophets were extraordinary officers in respect of their gift and yet the ordinary pastors of Corinth in regard of their office and relation It is a new contradiction to say that the same persons at the sametime should be ordinary yet extraordinary Officers as much as to say they are ordinary and yet not ordinary Officers And office being a relation hence if they be extraordinary officers at all it must be in respect of their relation and therefore what he saith is very improper as if they could be extraordinary Officers not in respect of their relation And because they well knew there might be many extraordinary Officers in a Church yet that would not prove that there were more congregations then one in it therefore surely they intended to deny them to be extraordinary officers and their complying with Mr. Rutherford speaketh as much see more of this in our answer to Dr. Collings Prop. 2. That prophesying is still continuing His reply to our first argument about therepeal of it pag. 75. is also answered to Dr. Collings The prophesying was ordinary as we prove by diverse arguments to which he replyeth pag. 77 78. we answer If the Rules agree to extraordinary Officers and the work be such as they performed yet seeing the Chapter is spent chiefly in the regulating of prophsying and nothing extraordinary is predicated thereof who can rationally conclude them to be extraordinary Prophets Neither do those Rules agree to extraordinary officers as such nor is it their worke as such and therefore it is nothing to the purpose If he could find a whole Chapter spent in the regulating Apostles or such extraordinary officers in the exercise of their Office and yet nothing should be mentioned that agreeth to them as Apostles or as extraordinary officers this would run Paralel but no such instance is found Arg. 3. We say one great end of extraordinary Prophesying is denyed to this viz. to be a signe Ob. 1. They had an other extraordinary gift to wit a gift of infallable teaching by immediate revelation Divers of the
it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquisivit comparavit he got procured took Twelve into his family c. pag. 89. 90. Answ He cannot be ignorant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to constitute or make and this very often as Mat. 4. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will make you fishers of men Mark 10. 16. Mat. 19. 4. male and female 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made he them Acts 17. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hath made of one blood all Nations c. Hebr. 1. 2. and so Mar. 3. 14. he made Twelve c. as for taking them into his family to fit them c. it is his meer conjecture with out ground As to pag. 90 91. we say Acts 6. and Acts 13. hold forth something about ordination but that this is mission they say not A call to office we do not make superfluous but that mission is that call we find not Let it be proved that it belongeth to a presbytery to give an authoritative mission if that cannot be done his out-cries of paradoxes and absurdities will come to nothing Arg. 2. Their second argument is taken from Heb. 5. v. 4 5. We expressely granted a call to be necessary unto Office or that none may assume Office without a call and therefore Mr. Pool is mistaken if he thinketh we aimed at the shaking that assertion But he that shall read our book without prejudice will find that the provincial assemblies conclusions from that Text are still shaken That Gospel Ministers are a Superiour or equal order to the high Priest is not proved they may be preferred before them in respect of many new Testament privelidges which neither Iohn Baptist nor any Old Testament officers did injoy but that the order or Office is superiour to the high Priest who typified Christ not as Bulls and Goats c but as our High-Priest this we see no proof for And because Christ was called to the Highest Office therefore none may undertake any office without a call though we deny not the need of a call yet we cannot see the force of this consequence But these arguments he saith are not directly levied against us and so we shall procâ—ed to their other arguments CHAP. XI Answering what Mr. Pool saith in defence of the Provincial Assemblies eight arguments against doing the work of the Ministry without Ordination THe Provincial assembly urged eight Arguments to prove that none may do the work of the Ministry without ordination Arg. 1. Their first argument is that work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his neither ought nor may be done by any others c. We answer prayer distribution of wordly goods exhorting and rebuking are such works yet others may performe them Ob. 1. Prayer he denyeth to be a worke for which the Office of the Ministry was designed The Deacons work is the distribution of the Churchs Goods which none but Deacons may do The work of reproving and exhorting they may do but privately not publickly Mr. Pool page 96. Answ 1. That prayer is a work for which the Office of the Ministry was designed is strongly intimated Acts 6. v. 4. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is appled to prayer as well as the Ministry of the word and it is a word very significant it denoteth a mans making it his work and businesse and that constantly his attending bending and applying himself to it and being instant in it to which his instance about hospitality 1 Tim. 3. 1. runneth not paralel In the Bishops daies when liberty of praying was almost denyed Preachers then it was accounted their work and if it be not private men may pray publickly as well as perform other acts 2. Exhorting and Rebuking are the works of Pastors and distribution of wordly goods is the work of Deacons and this is enough to shew the invalidity of their argument for hence a proposition directly opposite to theirs is true viz. That some works for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his owne ought or may be performed by some that are not designed unto those Offices and so their argument is false That they are the Churches goods which Deacons distribute onely sheweth that none but Deacons can act under that Office relation and so we grant none may preach under the relation of a pastor but he that is an officer Therefore Mr. Pool runneth to the manner of acting They may exhort and 〈◊〉 buke but privately not publickly We tell him if an officer exhorteth or rebuketh in private it may be an act of office Ob. 2 That no act but a publick act is an act of office we afirme not an Officers private rebuke is an act of office Answ 1. Hence it followeth that publicknesse is not an inseparable property of Office or is not that which maketh an act to be an act of Office and therefore men cannot be charged with assuming or invading office barely for their exhorting in publick 2. This â—overturneth their argument for private exhorting and rebuking being as he granteth acts of office are works for the doing of which God hath designed special officers of his own yet they may be performed by some that are not designed unto those Offices Their exhorting and rebuking in private might as well be called a usurping Office as their doing it publickly To prove their argument they bring the examples of Saul and Vzzah We tell them 1. Either these instances are impertinent or none out of Office may preach in cases of necessity Ob 3. The case is not paralel nor is the necessity alike Preaching is absolutely necessary to salvation so is not sacrificing pag. 97. Answ 1. Preaching is necessary but not absolutely necessary to salvation it is one but not the onely means for parental and other private instructions may be useful to that end 2. To prove that such as are onely mala quia prohibita may be done in a case of necessity himselfe pag. 65. â—lledgeth Davids eating the Shew-bread yet that did not make such a case of necessity as there is of preaching unto salvation and so our argument is as strong as his 3. This is a meer fallacy for he speaketh of the work of preaching being more necessary then the work of Sacrificing whereas we speak of the necessity that persons are under to performe those works And if the necessity of preaching unto salvation will justifie the preaching of men out of office they can never want a case of necessity What he addeth about sacrifices and Sacraments is not against our objection but seemeth to intimate that Sacraments are more limited and confined to office then preaching though they be not so necessary to Salvation and so proveth their fourth argument to be false 2. We tell him that these acts of Saul Vzzah and Vzziah were expresly forbidden and some of them threatened with death Numb 4. 15 and 16. 40. c. Ob. 4.
this Mr. Pool again would answer with necessity but that in any case they may preach but may not administer the Sacrament it speaketh their Argument invalid We tell him Mat. 28. is no commission authorizing them to preach and baptize and so their being joyned together there is no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize Object 1 Mr. Pool thinketh that they were not Apostles nor had their Commission as Apostles till Mat 28. 19. 20. this he saith is probable by these three considerations 1. That an Apostle was a new Testament Officer and the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ 2 They had not Apostolical gifts before the death of Christ 3. They wanted Vniversality of jurisdiction c. Mr. Pool pag. 105. Ans 1. When we urged Mat. 28. 19 20. he taketh it for a mission that doth not authorize to a work p. 87. else his answer cometh to nothing and yet here would have it be the Apostles Office-making Commission how he is consistent with himself herein we see not one of these replies must be naught 2. Long before the death of Christ its said Luke 6. ver 12. 13. He continued all night in prayer to God and when it was day be called unto him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom also he named Apostles We prove that they were Apostles before Mat. 28. 19. 20. by these considerations 1. Christ imposed the name of Apostles upon them Luke 6. 13. before Mat. 28. Ergo They had the Office of Apostles upon them before For surely Christ would not put the name of an Office upon them if they had not the Office that answered that name The seventy were sent out to preach yet had no such title put upon them but the name of Apostles was constantly given to the Twelve before the death of Christ Luke 17. 5. Luke 22. ver 14. Mat. 10. 2. and therefore Mr. Pool is too bold with Scripture to put other names upon them as Prophets or extradinary Teachers when the Gospel never knoweth them by these names but by the name of Apostles 2. Christ chose them before Mat 28. the name of Apostles being at the same time put upon them hence they were chosen to be Apostles Luke 6. 13. and this was after solemn prayer Ergo They were Apostles before for Election is the constitutive act of their office 3. They had Apostolical gifts though not in so full measure before the death Christ Mat. 10. ver 1. He gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease And this answereth his second consideration 4. Matthias was put into the same Office that Judas was in before the death of Christ for it s said Act. 1. ver 25. He is to take part of this ministry and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell Now Matthias undeniably was an Apostle Ergo so was Judas and the eleven before the death of Christ Yea this Text calleth the Office both of Judas and Mathias an Apostleship and to be sure Judas was not an Apostle after the death of Christ for he did not onely betray his Master but also hanged himself 3. To his first consideration we answer The new Testament if taken for the doctrine of the Gospel as 2 Corin. 3. of which they were Ministers was begun long before the death of Christ Luke 1. 78. and 2. v. 10. as also in other acceptations of it but suppose the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ Baptisme is a new Testament Ordinance and this he cannot deny seeing he maketh it the onely door of admission into the new Testament or Gospel Church p. 25. and it is easie to prove it upon truer and better grounds Yet baptisme was administred by the twelve long before the death of Christ Job 4. ver â— 2. and to multitudes by John the Baptist And the first constitution of Apostles new Testament Officers might as well be before the death of Christ as the first administration of Baptisme a new Testament Ordinance might be before it If after the new Testament began Apostles became officers and Baptisme an Ordinance thereof yet as it was the same Baptism so they were the same officers viz. Apostles before and after And this also may answer his third consideration If those that were Baptized before the death of Christ were Church-members then there was a Church which the Apostles might have jurisdiction over if they were not why might not they be Apostles without jurisdiction as well as persons be baptized without Church-membership if Baptisme be as he would have it a door of admission into the Church Officers he saith they were and to be Officers without any jurisdiction as he saith these were is as strange as to be Apostles without Universality of jurisdiction And if all this were not enough the extraordinariness of their Call or that time might better be alleadged in this case then it is in many against us Object 2. It must needs be granted that it is a renewing confirming and enlarging of their former Commission and this double work being equally imposed upon them must by like reason be equally restrained to them unless better grounds can be shewn to the contrary c. Mr. Pool pag. 14. Answ 1. Any impartial Reader may see enough in our former book Preacher Sent pag. 168. 169. to take off this reply It was an enlargement of the Apostles Commission to the Gentiles making them capable of being preached to and baptized but it s no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize If it should be said to Elders and Deacons Go teach Rule and distribute to the Church in such a place would the joyning of these together in an exhortation prove that every one who may Rule may Teach or that none may distribute but he that may Teach Surely no. Thus Mat. 28. 19. 20. It s said to Preachers and Baptizers Go Preach and baptize all Nations yet this cannot prove that none may preach but those who may baptize it onely sheweth that such as had power to Preach might now lawfully Preach to the Gentiles and such as had power to baptize might now administer baptism to the Gentiles which before they might not He imposeth the works on those that had power for them doth not restrain the power to perform the one unto them that had power to perform the other The intendment of this Text is not that it can be proved to shew that all who may Preach may Baptize but to warrant such as may do those works in their Preaching to and Baptizing the Gentiles 2. Let it be observed what their Argument is come to it should prove that none may Preach but those who may adminster the Sacraments and at last it is unless we can shew reason to the contrary the works are equally strained we have given reasons enough to the contrary and so
that Gal. 1. ver 16 17. 2. The Holy Ghost saying seperate me Barnabas and Saul c. was a command to men to ordain and so though the call were immediate yet men were as properly ordainers as they are in these daies Acts 8. ver 29. The spirit said unto Philip go near and joyne thy selfe to this Charet He may as well say that properly it was not Philip but God that did go near and Joyned to the Charet because the spirit said go c. or as Acts 10. 19. he might say it was God that was to arise go down not Peter properly because the spirit said arise c. as he may say That properly God was theordainer of Paul because the holy Ghost said seperate me c. Arg. 3. Our third argument is taken from the nature of Ordination it consists in prayer c. Ob. 1. If the essence of the call did consist in Election and prayer be used before Election how can they pray in faith c. pag 135. Answ Prayer before Election is for the Churches direction into a right choice and so may be in faith though it be uncertain whether the person shall be chosen or not but prayer in ordination is for a blessing upon a man in a work Acts 13. 2 3. and so a knowledge that a man is called to it which presupposeth his having the Essence of a call is necessary unto praying in faith there Ob. 2. In such cases our prayers have ae facit condition that God would blesse him in the work if he shall be set apart for it pag. 135. Answ Prayer in ordination is the very act by which a person is set apart and therefore there can be no such facit condition admitted of here If he shall be set apart implyeth uncertainety whether he shall or no whereas in due Ordination it is alwaies certaine for the setting apart is by prayer Ob. 3. Ordination consists not in fasting nor prayer nor laying on of hands but in the designation of fit persons by officers unto the work signified by imposition of hands and introduced with fasting and prayer p. 135. Ans 1. That there is a separation of an officer to his work in ordination we granted preacher Sent. p. 258. but the Essential act by which that separation is made is prayer himselfe saith pag. 135. imposition of hands is such as ordination is not null without it and he will say as much for fasting and then prayer is the essentiall act or nothing 2. No Scripture doth evidence that the essence of Ordination consisteth in any designation to work which is a constitutive office-making act neither hath prayer or any other thing which belongs to ordination a tendency to produce such an effect as our argument proved He useth one argument to prove that the essence of the call doth not lye in the Election of the people Ob. The people neither are nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry for 1. They have no authority 2. They have not ability to judge of a mans fitness c. Mr. Pool pag. 136. to 141. Answ The people are in a capacity to give the essence of the call 1. The people have as much authority as is necessary to their giving the essence of the call for nothing is required thereunto but a putting themselves into subjection to a person duely qualified it being a voluntary not a natural relation and this is done by election with acception for we proved before that these do set a man over a Church He saith they have no authority because in a state of subjection pag. 139. but he answereth himselfe by his instance pag. 138. For in Democratical governement the people are in subjection civilly unto those very officers to whom they give a call yet have authority to call them are lesser and yet greater then their Officers though women were present Acts 1. yet it followeth not that they did give their suffrage they will allow women to be present at an Ordination when they act not 2. The people have ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry it cannot be denyed that Iohn did write to the people 1 Ioh. 2. ver 12. I writ unto you little children so they are called little children v. 13. 18 28. and 1 Ioh. 3. ver 7. and yet these little children are commanded to try the spirits 1 Ioh. 4. ver 1. Beloved believe not every spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the world This necessarily supposeth them in a capacity to judge whether they were false Prophets or not for it had been in vain to bid them try if they could not draw up a judgement upon the tryal If they be not fit to judge unto a choice they are not fit to judge of the doctrine of him that is chosen and so must take all upon implicit faith and still the same persons are written to ver 4. and both that appellation and also the matter of the Epistle is such as concerneth all believers and so cannot be restrained to Officers Also the people have sometimes judged right when the Rulers have condemned them for it and taken a contrary part undervaluing and contemning their judgement Iohn 7. ver 48. 49. They grant that the peoples election maketh a man their Minister we ask whether they see with their own eyes therein It is evident that many insufficient ones are ordained It is not a careless people we plead for but Bereans and all that are godly that are believers fit to be admitted Church members are fit with the rest of the Church to judge of a Ministers abilities which answereth what he saith p. 141. about its being a necessary qualification in every Church-member If one Church-member could not judge of it yet all together have ability Some arguments against election as giving the essence of the call he seeketh to vindicate Ob. 1. As to Acts 6. the Apostles are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chusing and appointing are distinguished from and opposed to one another and the act of appointing is ascribed to the superiours c. Mr. Pool pag. 142. Answ 1. Chusing and appointing are not there opposed Chusing is unto office appointing is unto work Acts 6. ver 3. whom we may appoint but to what it is not said unto this office but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this businesse And himselfe supposeth pag. 132. that there may be ordination to a work and yet the essence of a call not consist therein its evident that ordination to a work is subsequent to and sodoth not give the essence of a call to office Acts 13. 2. so neither of these places can prove in the least their position 2. It is not clear that we hath reference to the Apostles seorsim as if it were their work only but conjunctim with the
correlate of the Pastoral office ib. 3. He saith of an excomunicate person that while he repents not he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person or as an heathen yet when he doth repent he needs no new baptism forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former baptism pa. 27. 4. He saith that the difference between Apostolical and pastoral power lyes not in the extent of their relation pa. 36. 5. He saith Vzzah was punished not principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his heads but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders pag. 99. which is against 1 Chron. 13. 10. 6. He is not positive in it but giveth it as his opinion that Apostles had not their commission as Apostles till Mat. 28. pag. 105 106. 2. Self-contradicting passages 1. That a man is made a member of the Church by baptism is none of our Assertion pag. 23. 1. What a monstrous Paradox is this baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church p. 28. In Scripture there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission p. 25. 2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church eject him out of all other Churches or he is juridically ejected out of other Churches and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce c. pag. 24. 2. It may be said that an excomunicate person ordinarily is a member a Church-member though diseased p. 26 3. If a Religious General in speaking to his Army principally aimes at the salvation of their Souls yet this is not preaching though his end in speaking be their salvation pag. 41. 3. Speaking of Paul he saith the end of the actor or speaker is purely solely the salvation of their souls so it is trâ—ly and may properly be called preaching p. 41 42. 4. The lesse is called of the greater pag. 138. we never find ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. 4. He saith it is not any prejudice to the extraordinarines of Timothies Office that it was conâ—ered by ordinary officers pag. 149. what more ordinary both in state and Church then for a person to have an office conveyed to him viz. Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him p. 149. 3 Repugnancies to the Provincial Assembly and Dr. Collings 1. Every Minister by excomunication ejecteth members out of the Church Catholick visi ble Jus. Divin Min. pag. 139. 1. It may be said an excommunicate person ordinarily is a member a Churchmember though diseased Mr Pool pag. 26. 2. They i. e. Apostles and Evangilists were virtually Pastors and Teachers they differed nothing from them but the extent of their power Dr. Collings pag. 105 2. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation Mr. Pool p. 36.  And he maketh Pastors power as extensive as as he supposeth their relations to be pag. 6. Questions discussed Pr. S. noteth the Preacher sent Vind. noteth the preceding treatise The number directeth to the page in either of the Treatises where the question is resolved 1. Whether there be a universal political visible Church Or whether there be a Church of churches a visible Catholick Church formed unto fellowshiâ—p in new Testament ordinances Negat Epist to Pr. S. p. 4. 5. Vind. of Epist 2. Whether visible Saints be the onely fit matter for a visible Church Aff. Epist. to Pr. S. p. 6. 3. Who are visible Saints Epist to Pr. S. p. 7. 4. Whether a union by covenant consent or agreement be necessary unto member-hood in a visible Church Aff. Epist to Pr. S. pag. 9. 5. Who may be stiled Ministers Pr. S. pag. 2 Vind. p. 1. 6. Whether Office be a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as is correlate or to a Church Preach Sent. 4. Vindicat. pag. 2. c. 7. Whether Office be a relation secundum esse or secundum dici Vindicat. p. 4. 5. 8. Whether Officers stand in relation as Officers to a universal Church Neg. Whether to a particular Church onely Aff Whether to Heathens and such as are of no Church Neg. Pre. S. 288. Vind. p. 12 13. c. p. 86. c. 9. What is office Pr. S. 14. 10 Whether there be a difference between Preaching ex Officio and ex Dono Aff Preach S. 18. 11. Whether unbelievers may come into Churchmâ—â—â—ings to hear the word Aff. Pr. S. 18. 12. What is preaching Pr. S. 20. 13. Whether it be Preaching when in private Aff Pr. 8. 21. 14. Whether it be preaching when it is not in a sacred assembly Aff. Pr. S. p. 22 23. 15. What is authoritative preaching Preach S. 25. to 28. 16. Whether persons who have preaching gifts and Graces may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publick assemblies though they be not ordained Officers Affirm Preach S. 29. to 216. Vind. pag. 21. c. 125. c. 17. Whether Election ought to precede ordination Aff. Pr. S. 30. 18. What call is sufficient to the exercise of preaching gifts Pr. S. 37. Vind. 26. 19. Whether from gifted mens preaching it will follow that gifted women may preach or that men gifted for any civil or military imployment may Act therein without any further call Neg. Pr. S. 38 39. Vind. 29. 20. Whether it belongeth to the Sphâ—re place and calling of gifted men to preach Affirm Preach S. 40. 21. Whether the Baptism of Iohn and the Baptism of Christ be distinguished and how Pr. S. 69. 70. Vind. 66. to 71. 22. Whether Teaching and preaching be in scripture phrase the same Aff. p. 79. Pr. S. 23. Whether necessity be a good plea against the Argument from Acts 8 And whether the supposed necessity maketh officers or no Pr. S. 86. to 88. Vind. 33 34 35. 141. 24. Whether the prophesying 1 Corin. 14. be a gift or an Office Preach Sent. 90. Vind. 37. 145. Whether it be a gift still continuing Aff. P. S. 96. Vindicat. p. 41. 148. Whether those Prophets speak by extraordinary Revelation Neg. Preach S. 104 105. Vind. 46 151 152 153. 25. What is not and what is the mission or sending Rom. 15. Preach Sent. 121 to 138. Whether mission be ordination Neg Pr. S. 123. Vindic. 63 64. Whether mission authorizeth or giveth a Call to be an Officer or to preach Neg Pr. S. 121. Vindicat 156. 159 160. 26. Whether the examples of Sauls offering sacrifice or Vzzahs touching the Ark do forbid gifted mens preaching Neg. Pr. S. 154 155. Vindicat 164 165. 27. Whether gifted mens preaching doth mak Officers void or un-necessary as to that act Neg. Pr S. 156. vindicat 55 56 57. 28 Whether if gifted men may preach will it follow that they may administer the Sacraments Neg. Pr. S. 165 Vind. 169. 170. 29. Whether gifted