Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	drink_v	eat_v	let_v	15,915	5	5.9494	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80164	Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici revindicatæ: or The preacher (pretendedly) sent, sent back again, to bring a better account who sent him, and learn his errand: by way of reply, to a late book (in the defence of gifted brethrens preaching) published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk, Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk, Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk: so far as any thing in their book pretends to answer a book published, 1651. called Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici; with a reply also to the epistle prefixed to the said book, called, The preacher sent. By John Collinges B.D. and pastor of the church in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1658 (1658)	Wing C5348; Thomason E946_4; ESTC R207611	103,260	172

less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren

there is no universal visible meeting and that the Greek word translated Church in all Civil and Sacred usage signifies a meeting in fieri or facto esse But you began to think that the invisible Church are never like to have such a meeting and therefore to salve it you heal this wound in your Argument in my opinion very slightly when you say it doth meet invisibly in Spirit If you will but grant us that Brethren that the name of Church in Scripture is given to those that never locally meet but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit you have by an unhappy heel kicked down all that good milk which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it it speaks of the Church of the first-born There is an universal meeting of the Catholick visible Church at the throne of Grace before their great Pastor and in Spirit as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first you have quitted your plea for the visibility to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick visible from any hurt by this Argument 4. You go on Brethren and tell us There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church Ergo there is no such Church If you had expressed the Major Proposition I should have denied it the assertion of a Church Catholick visible though we add Organical doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches which as parts constitute that whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole I am not willing but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren that this is no fair play to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholick Church and to mention only the Antichristian and Prelatical Notion of it Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication p. 129 130 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head and Arch-Bishops Bishops c. for his derivatives But this we say that the whole Church all the particular Churches in the world make but one body of Christ and as it is one una so it is unita united in a Common Profession of the Gospel as there is this union and communion of members so there is a communion of some Officers particularly Ministers who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors by vertue of Office any where and may any where Baptize and Administer the Lords Supper upon occasion and we say our Brethren in practice grant this for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those to whom he is not in Office as his particular Church and this is a Common practice with our Brethren how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches they do but blinde the Common People with a dark notion that signifies nothing What mean they by a Communion of Churches if they do not mean this that by the word of God one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another If they have so there must be a Communion of Offices as well as Gifts for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office If that it be not the will of God in his Word that the Officer of one Church should do an act of Office in another Church or to a Member of another Church it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches If this be his will it is as much as we ask for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church and the members of it but also to any particular Churches in the world or to any of their Members We ask no more This is the Catholick Organical Church we plead for Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol and pretend to abhor it in the notion they do not in practice bow down to it and commit Sacrilege 5. You tell us in the last place Brethren That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine and hear offences Mat. 18.17 But that is a particular Church Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae and you have taken as good care as you could to strengthen it by saying it cannot be meant of both and to exclude the Congregational Church is unscriptural irrational absurd But I must crave leave to tell you 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question for it is not whether be greater the Church Catholik or the Church particular but whether there be any Church Catholick or no greater or less Object But you will say if there be any it must be greater Answ Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality If in respect of quantity number c. the Major is apparently false If in respect of quality as you seem to hint by the term having power then your Argument is this There is no Church hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches But the particular Church hath that power Mat. 18.17 Ergo. I will give you Brethren such another Argument judge you whether it be good or no and if it be not you must prove your own better There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences Ergo that is as great a Court as the Court of Common Pleas. You must therefore put in finally determine and all offences in any part of the Church or else your Major is false when you have mended that we will deny your Minor and tell you that admit that Text Mat. 18.17 should be meant of a particular Church yet it proves no such power either finally to determine or all offences as well those betwixt Church and Church as those betwixt party and party or party and Church Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text according to the nature of the offence nor do I think your saying that to exclude the Congregational Church viz. some Congregational Churches is unscriptural irrational absurd amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case I think it is far more rational and far

Because as a Church member he may admonish and exhort severally and then why not when they are met together 2. Because a publike Gift cannot be fully improved in a private way A man in such a case hideth his talent 3. Publike actings are not peculiar to Office they say 4. Charity binds men s●metimes to go out of their callings to help others Therefore our Brethren may sometimes step out of their Calling to Preach 5. A man may lawfully choose it for his calling to preach And then he goeth not out of his Calling 6. They have a Divine allowance Heb. 10.25 therefore they go not out of their Callings This is the summ of what they say to the first à p. 46. ad p. 56. To all which I answer 1. We will not contend with our Brethren that it is unlawfull for a private gifted person to speak in the publike Assemblies of the Church provided it be not on the Lords day which ought to be spent in peoples attendance upon publike Ordinances of which nature their Preaching cannot be but we deny that any are bound to hear them or that any can come to hear them as unto that Ordinance of Preaching which lyes under the great appointment of God to save peoples souls And we say the Church of God hath had no such custom As to the Second We do not understand our Brethrens notion of a publick Gift it may be taken in a double sense 1. For a Gift which God hath given to men willing them to use it publikely 2. For a Gift which if used publikely might be of publike service If our Brethren understand it in the first sense we deny any not ordained have any such publike Gift if as they must they understand it in the latter sense we say it may be so far improved as to free men from sin in not improving it without publike exercise How many hundred men in England have gifts for the Magistracy that might be of publike use were they so employed yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text to prove that they ought to administer Judgement publikely Why Because God hath required another Order and a special regular Call for the exercise of those publike Gifts and we say the like for the Ministry To the Third We grant that all publike a●●ings are not peculiar to Office but we say the administration of publike Ordinances is peculiar to publike Officers and t is scarce sense to say a private person may administer ● publike Ordinance To the Fourth we say That we grant that Charity may binde men to go out of their Callings to help another and so Charity may binde a gifted man to Preach in case of necessity but this is not Ordinary preaching of which the question is stated To the Fifth We grant a private person may choose preaching for his Calling but his choosing of it doth not make that his Calling the Church say our Brethren must choose him too he must be ordained say we To the Sixth Our Brethren say they have a divine allowance Heb. 10.25 But to do what Is it said to Preach publikely and ordinarily But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to meer Gifted men they indeed must not forsake assembling together but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort however our brethren make that Text a warrant for private meetings and then it is nothing to the question But to the Second whereas we have told our Brethren that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probably is meant Office as in Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 2 Tim. 1. They think it cannot be so taken here for these Reasons 1. Because the Context cannot be so restrained the Apostle exhorteth to sobriety watchfulness unto prayer ver 7. to charity ver 8. to hospitality ver 9. These exhortations concern private Christians and the persons spoken to verse 10. are the same 2. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely a gift now indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals they say 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not restrain it unto Office because it is oft used otherwise nor doth the term Stewards limit it nor the terms exhorting and ministring 4. The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter ver 2 3. To all which I again answer 1. We do not peremptorily determine that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Office there it is enough for us to say it may be so for our Brethren must prove it cannot or else they can prove no precept to their purpose from hence 2. That by the term Office cannot be understood here is not proved by any thing our Brethren have said The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations think Office is meant ver 11. Why may not the Apostle after he had dispatched his exhortations to some common duties subjoyn this to Officers he doth so Rom. 12. and 2 Tim. 5. and what if he gives exhortations to Elders in the next chapter Can it therefore be concluded that none of the exhortations in this chapter belong to them How do our Brethren prove that the persons spoken to ver 9. and spoken to ver 11. ●elthe same individuals and why may not the gift then be the same too and so neither office nor gifts of this nature meant 3. Our brethren must not tell us that indefinite propositions are most usually equipollent to universals because it is no Logick Their Logical Rule is this Indefinitae proposititiones interdum aequipollent universalibus interdum particularibus Keckerman Syst Log. c. 5. illis quide in materiâ necessariâ his vero in contingenti nay with that restriction saith Keckerman it will not always hold true A living creature is not a man turn this into an universal negative No living creature is a man and it is false Because therefore the Apostle speaks indefinitely as every one hath received a gift so let him minister it doth not follow he must understand every gift for what will our Brethren say to gifts of wisdom for Government of Nations Armies c. or to abilities to Baptize and administer the Lords Supper But to come to an issue I am very inclinable to understand the Text in the latitude and to think this the sense As any man hath received any communicable gift so let him minister it unto others in that due way and order and upon that regular Call which God in his word hath required for those to exercise gifts that have them If it be a gift of Government when God hath called him to Magistracy let him use his gift if it be a gift for opening and applying Scripture for administring Baptism or the Lords Supper let him first be duly ordained and set apart for the work of the Ministry and so let him use his Gift When our Brethren have said their utmost this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utterance may forthwith Preach than it

of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. Containing a Vindication of all my Arguments brought in my Vindiciae against the ordinary preaching of Persons meerly gifted from whatsoever our Brethren have said to infringe them either in the seventh or in the tenth Chapters of their Book OUr Brethren in their tenth Chapter pretend to Answer my Arguments against the licentious presumption of the ordinary Preaching of private persons My first Argument I laid thus Not to observe Gospel-order in acts of instituted worship is sinfull But for private Christians how well gifted soever to preach ordinarily i. e. to open and apply Scriptures in publike Church-Assemblies is for them in acts of instituted worship not to observe Gospel-Order Ergo I presumed our Brethren would only deny the Minor which I thus proved To adventure upon an administration of a Gospel-Ordinance without such a Mission as Gospel-precepts require and Gospel-Presidents hold forth such should have as so administer is not to observe Gospel-Order in Gospel-Worship But for such to open and apply Scriptures is to do so Ergo. I proved the Minor because all the precepts we have for the constitution of Elders in Churches constituting or constituted required that besides their gifts they should likewise be set apart by Ordination and all the Presidents we have of persons Preaching in a setled state of the Church ordinarily were of persons so set apart by Ordination Now what say our Brethren to all this 1. They doubt whether I would have my Major Proposition understood universally Pag. 194. 2. But anon they suppose it and they deny my Minor and say that neither do Gospel-Precepts require nor Gospel-Presidents hold forth that all those that preach the Gospel should be solemnly set apart to the work Then they review the Texts quoted by me as to the Text Titus 1.5 they say it only concerns Elders The same they answer to Acts 14.23 Acts 13.3 4 5. only as to 1 Tim. 5.22 they doubt whether by laying on of hands be not meant conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost because laying on of hands was used in that case too and Timothy was an Evangelist and as for Paul and Barnabas Acts 13.3 they were officers and preachers before this is all they have pag. 193 194 195. as to my first Argument I answer 1. That according to our Brethrens Logick delivered to us before That indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals Our Brethren needed not have doubted but that I understood the Proposition universally However I do not love to trouble my Readers with such fallacies as arguing from particulars to generals but I still maintain that no precept no president in the Gospel allows the ordinary publike preaching of persons meerly gifted in a setled state of the Church unless they were such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost or such as according to Scripture-direction preached only probationis Ergo. Secondly this being a negative I had no way to make a strict proof unless we had come to an argument vivâ voce then our Brethren know I should have argued thus If the Gospel-hath any Precepts or Presidents they must be found in the Gospels Epistles Acts or Revelations And so have followed on the Argument till I had brought them to assign the Place or the President If they had instanced in the scattered Christians Acts 9.11 all would have seen it had been nothing to the purpose for they were some of those upon whom the Holy Ghost fell and the Church was under persecution If they had instanced in Apollo he was either an officer or at least a probationer if they had told us of the Prophets at Corinth if they were not ordinary officers as Mr. Rutherford thinks yet it is plain they had extraordinary gifts as I have proved if they had brought that general Text 1 Pet. 4.10 I had told them what I have now said that if they will understand that Text in the general of any gift to be exercised without any more ado then the gifted men may command States and Armies and administer Sacraments if they restrain it we have as much warrant to restrain it to Hospitality executed in the distribution of the gifts of Providence So that considering the nature of my Argument it was enough for me till they had assigned precepts or presidents to instance in such precepts and presidents as the Scripture afforded laying most stress upon what I found in Timothy and Titus those Epistles containing the standing Rules for the Government of the Churches planted and setled Thirdly It was enough for me who knew no other ordinary Preachers than teaching Elders besides extraordinary officers that the Scripture owns to prove they were ordained they are those only that were to labour in the word and Doctrine that was their work 1 Tim. 5.17 and they have their denomination from it from feeding called Pastors and from Teaching called Teachers and if every one might ordinarily and publickly feed and teach I know not for what use their names served which usually are given to persons and things to distinguish them from others Fourthly as to what they say that 1 Tim. 5.22 may be meant of conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost They should first have proved that Timothy had any such power his being an Evangelist proves no such thing but only that he was left at Ephesus to put the newly planted Churches into order the Apostles in regard of their travelling not being able to stay so long nor do I finde any thing to perswade me Timothy himself had received those extraordinary gifts however the caution had bin needless for it is plain there was no long trial of any who received those gifts Act. 2.4.4.31 Act. 8.17 Neither do I believe those gifts were by the Apostles hands conveyed to any but upon extraordinary revelation made first to them directing upon whom they should lay their hands Hence they prayed Acts 8.15 That the people might receive the Holy Ghost and yet laid no hands on Simon though he believed and was baptized Acts 8.13 Besides I hope our Brethren will not say the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 was the conferring those Gifts Fifthly As to that instance Acts 13.3 I made no further use of than to conclude the great honour God put upon this Ordinance I granted Paul was an extraordinary Officer and Preacher before yet that the Lord may let us know his everlasting will concerning such as should be mediately sent out by the Church Paul and Barnabas though extraordinarily Commissionated yet being to be sent out by the Church are to shew what all Churches should do sent out by solemn fasting and prayer and laying on of hands how much more should others who can pretend no such extraordinary gifts or office And this is I think enough to set my first Argument on its legs again My second Argument I stated thus Vindiciae pag. 33. For any who

preach but such as are really gifted 4. If there be Scripture-Warrant for gifted mens Preaching it is needfull whether we can see it or no. 5. The Preaching of Apostles and Evangelists did not make the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless nor è contra because every Church-member may distribute to the poor it will not follow the Office of Deacon was needless This is the sum of what our Brethren say pag. 203 204 205 206 207 208 209. in many more words To all which I shall give a short answer 1. As to the present debate I have nothing to do with arguing the needlesness of Officers as to the Government of the Church of Officers if others besides such Officers may act with them Acts of Jurisdiction in the Church were never by Christ committed to the single hand of any person nor yet to any single Office I think neither the Minister alone nor the Ruling Elders alone nor the multitude alone are the Church to which offences should be told or who can singly act in any formal censure except in a very high Case of Necessity The work of Preaching is of another nature it is by Christs Order to be performed by this or that single hand It will not therefore follow that because there is a need of a Pastor though ruling Elders as we say and the multitude as our Brethren say ought to concur with them in acts of Censure and Discipline ●herefore there is a need of Teaching Elders though others may teach as well as they for the work of teaching may be as I said before performed by single hands without a concurrence to the act of any others whether Officers or Members so may not acts of Government 2. As to what our Brethren say That Pastors and Teachers act under another relation as set over people in the Lord this amounts to no more than a notion and makes no real difference Let us examine what this signifies Will our Brethren say these Preach as appointed by Christ others not so pag. 209. No say our Brethren the gifted men are also by Divine appointment to preach so their authority is the same Christ appointeth both the one and the other they say What then do they not do the same material acts That they do our Brethren told us p. 200. they had found that in Scripture What then Is not the end the same to convince convert exhort edifie Our Brethren told us pag. 112. They knew not wherefore they should prophesie if there were no hope of such effects So then our Brethren say that gifted men have the same authority to preach that teaching Elders and teach the same things to the same end Now I wonder what this different relation which they here tell us of signifies more then an empty notion let us see if their similitudes will help us A man they say provideth for his children as a father for the poor under another notion But the quest is quite another thing viz. Whether it would be necessary that there should be a special order of persons called fathers to provide for the poor if every one were bound to provide for them and to do the same acts in the same order and to the same end that they should do A Christian Friend they say occasionaelly gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance so doth the parents of those children yet the manner is different the one is under a standing Obligation the other not If this similitude runs on four feet our Brethrens sense is this That there is a need of Pastors and Teachers though gifted men may Preach because gifted men are not under a standing Obligation to preach only may do it occasionally So then the sense is this gifted men may Preach shall not need except they list they may preach they may let it alone but Pastors and Teachers they must do it That they may let it aelone I most freely grant But that they may either do it or let it alone I can never grant All the precepts our Brethren pretended to for this Preaching of gifted men do not only if they were to their purpose assert their Liberty but enjoyn it as their duty See 1 Pet. 4.10 He that hath received the gift is commanded to Minister he that hath the gift of Prophecy must Prophecy Our Brethren say they preach by Divine appointment pag. 209. Now those that are appointed to Preach are not at their liberty whether they will Preach or no. This pretence is therefore exceeding vain besides it gives the gifted man a superiority over the Officer for Greater is he that sitteth at the Table and may choose whether he will serve or no than he who serveth and must serve For our Brethrens other instance viz. that Bayliffs in a Corporation may be usefull though the Common Councell may act with them it concerns not the present case it may have something in it to prove that although the Members of the Church have a joynt power with the Officers of the Church as to the executing some act of censure yet there is a need of them as to other acts and that is all it will do too in that Case but here it signifies nothing because Preaching is an act which may be done by a single person and we argue that there is no need of a special order of single persons to be in Commission for a work for which all were commissioned and in which others may act 3. It is true that our Brethren say we do allow such an Office as we say hath no act peculiar to it viz. that of Ruling Elders their work is rule and in that work they are joynt Commissioners with the Teaching Elders But the question is whether we allow such as are not Officers to act in it We say the office of ruling is a partible Office divided betwixt the Teaching and Ruleing Elder who as to that work make but one office to the execution of which a double Species of Officers is ordinarily necessary These two as heretofore the King Lords and Commons of England made up the three Estates all necessary to enact a Law do make up the two States as it were in the Church without whom an act of Rule cannot be put forth in ordinary cases But the case is quite another as to the work of Preaching which may be performed by a single person If indeed we had said that the Ruling Elder might alone without the Teaching Elder have in ordinary cases exercised acts of Rule Our Brethren had said something and we should have thought the Pastors Commission as to ruling needless and so è contra we should have thought the ruling Elder needless and should so judge it if we could see that the Pastor in ordinary case without them might rule which is the thing our Brethren plead for the Preaching of Gifted men Fourthly Our Brethren say they do not say all may preach only those who are gifted