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
Dom. 200 and had his approbation in his famous apology for Christians more then 1400 yeares old who Cap. 39. denies the Christians being a factious society as they were aspersed and shewes their manner We make saith he a Congregation by certaine knowledge all conspire in the service of the true God where we live united under one discipline c. We assemble together by Troops in our prayers to God in these assemblies we make Exhortations and Threatnings and Exercise Divine censure that banisheth sinners and excludes them from our communion c. That our Saviour in saying tell the Church should send his Disciples in case of scandal Suppose committed against Religion and his Law to those Courts to whom Religion it selfe was a scandal and offence is not by sober men to be imagined That he should allude to those Courts intending such like to be erected when the Jewish politie should be taken downe as it leaves the offended without remedy to day So the Rule impracticable till Christ be â—ead and risen again It is far more probable that as the Temple yet standing and the great Congregation meeting therein Pharisees Saduces Essenes c. Had their caetus proprios their distinct Assâ—mblies in which they did consult the peace and prosperity of their Order respectively and sensure and judge Offences committed against the Lawes and institutions thereof So Christ having gathered a company under him and made known his Law this company did meet together Acts 1. 21. where with reason we may conclude the concernments of Christianity were propounded and considered and offences heard and finally determined if this were the Church of which Christ Mat. 18. 17 doth speak it cleares our Argument but suppose the Rule were impracticable for the present yet he cannot so speak in the Jewes dialect as to assert that such Courts should â—e erected as were amongst them for the word Church is never used in Scripture for an Eldership but for a company of visible believers united to walk together in the same numerical Ordinances and it is plain that Christ would have the offence told to such an Assembly as he giveth the name of Church to And also Christs order here is quite different from that amongst the Jewes they after private admonition had not an institution for taking one or two private persons to admonish before bringing the matter to their Courts In the close of our discourse for the compleatnesse of a particular Church and against a Universal we minded this object viz. Though Churches meet not in all their members yet they may meet in their representatives which being met may be called a Classical Provincial or National Church To which we answered that such a Church is not a true Church Dr. Collings replyeth A Synod is a true Church or our definition is not true for a Synod is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in means of worship c. Answ To say a representative is a true Church is to speak contradictions If it be an image it is not a man if a shadow it s not a substance if the representative of a true it s truly a representative but not that which is represented in truth A Synod in Dr. C. sense differs from a Church by us described toto coelo 1 Saints as so are fit mater for a Church but saints as gifted are only fit matter for a Synod Saints qualified for Synodal debats and determinations 2. Saints as united are a Church or stand related unto it Saints or holy men delegated are a Synod or stand related to it 3. In a Church body members are united unto fellowship in meanes of instituted worship In a Synod unto council c. Here is differing matter differing form and differing ends But we now returne from walking the bounds of the Church to take a further view of the buildings thereof and of the precious stones therein we said of this particular company It is an Holy company a company of Saints This D. Collings grants Saâ—o sensu as he saith upon some arguments conclusive enough urged by us Mr. H. doth distinguish of Saints Some by dedication and consecration some by regeneration and supposeth we mean by visible Saints such as are so in the former sense Accordingly the Dr. not dealing with our arguments but going about another way doth deny that a visibility of saving Grace is needful to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it and Mr. H. saith we have no certain rule to judge of the regeneration of another In which discourse they do in effect speak thus unto us you do well to see that your Church members be Saints Holy persons but you have nothing to do to enquire about truth of Grace nor to conclude of Saintship and holynesse from the appearance or visibility thereof As if holinesse or saintship could under the Gosple be placed at the foot of any other account then that of the presence or appearance of Grace Special saving grace is indeed an invisible thing and of it we can make no true i. e. certain and infallible judgement yet we may and must make a Church judgement and a judgement of saving Grace in order to communion in the Lords Supper he doth allow though he saith a judgement of saving Grace is impossible what consistency there is in such expressions let him consider yea in the close of his Epistle he sits in judgement upon our hearts but how he should diserne our secrets that doth professe against inquiring about the inward work let the Reader judge The children of the members we regard as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. not barely from the parents profession but the manifestation of God saying he is their God and of Christ saying of such is the kingdome of Heaven they are partakers of that fulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as professors are which the Elect and called are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partakers of The Apostolical practice doth not evince Acts 2. Act. 4. That the thousands baptized were baptized upon a bare owning the Gospel without any respect to saving grace They which were baptized renouncing the Religion in which educated embracing the Gospel under persecution and contempt they were pricked in heart they gladly received the word Acts 2. 37. 41. a bare profession where that also is a carnal ingagement is not so signal in the hundred part His easy answer to our question concerning tryal of Grace in order to Communion in the supper and not to Church Communion is indeed as he calleth it an easy answer we no where find saith he let a man Examine himselfe and so come into the fellowship of the Church he thinks the 3000. and the 5000. had scarce any leasure before their admission to do it throughly Answ Commendable was that fear Acts 5. 11. not onely the fear of the Church but of others also ne laederent hunc caetum nec contemnerent nec
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-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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
gifts there is in 1 Cor. 1. 12. ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem 2. Aquila and Priscilla excelled him in knowledge Ergo It is improbable that he had extraordinary gifts Object Those Prophets 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others The Apostles had extraordinary gifts when Christ lived yet were ignorant of his death c. Mr. Pool pag. 62. Ans We deny not that Apollo was such an ordinary Prophet as those 1 Corin. 14. or that he was to learn of others but that he was extraordinarily gifted the Apostles were unacquainted with some particular truths before the clear Revelation of them yet neither they nor any others who were extraordinarily gifted are said to be so defective in knowledge of the way of the Lord after a clear Revelation of it and to be our-stripped by private persons as Apollo was 3. The people at Ephesus where he preached after his departure were ignorant of those extraordinary gifts Act. 18. 24. and 19. 1. 2. Object He might have them and yet neither they nor Apollo might distinctly know them pag. 62. Answ That one may be converted and not know it we grant but that one may be extraordinarily gifted and yet not distinctly know what such gifts are or that neither he nor those among whom he exerciseth them should know he hath them is a thing as without proof so without any probability of truth 4. Apollo knew only the Baptism of John Act. 18. 25. Ergo had not those extraordinary gifts which appertained to the Baptism of Christ Object 2. Apollo might have Commission from John Answ 1. This is answered in our former Book to which we refer the Reader 2. It is denyed that John gave Commission to any to Preach and therefore we had reason to desire proof of it that we might not have the endless work of answering groundless conjectures yet withall we gave grounds against it Obj. 3. There is a far greater necessity of gifted mens preaching where Ministers are not then in a Church where they are We do not find Apollo's Preaching in a Christian Church but disputing in a Jewish Assembly a liberty which we as readily allowed to gifted men as to write in defence of the truth Mr. Pool pag. 63. Answ 1. It was the warrantableness of it not the necessity that we spake of but if necessity will warrant gifted mens Preaching where no Ministers or Churches are their ordinary preaching must be allowed 2. Let it be observed that they allow unto gifted men the exercise of other gifts in publick Assemblies they will allow them to dispute publickly in a Jewish Assembly and therefore it savoureth of a being wedded to an opinion to deny them liberty in this particular case to use a preaching gift in publick Assemblies We ask him whether they will allow women and ungifted men thus to dispute publickly if not this might satisfie him if he were candid that there is reason against womens and ungifted mens preaching publickly which will not forbid gifted mens doing of it and so might silence this trifling objection which is a dish we have been served with usque ad nauseam 3. Apollo was not onely disputing but preaching and that publikely Act. 18. ver 25. he spake and taught diligently ver 26. in the Synagogues so ver 28. And this being in a Jewish Synagogue it s a full proof that gifted men may warrantably preach in publick Assemblies of unbelievers as our Argument from the prophesie 1 Cor. 14. doth prove that they may preach in a Christian Church Our second instance is in the scattered Saints Act. 8. who went every where preaching ver 4. with Divine allowance Act. 11. ver 19. 20. 21. Many batteries the provincial Assembly raised against this but we shewed that it remained like a brazen wall unshaken Mr. Poole waveth their defence in many objections which we fully answered yet saith p. 63. they might easily be vindicated from our exceptions we might answer all his book in as few words Obj. 1. He saith the true state of the argument is here because the scattered Disciples in a persecuted state of the Church in a time when all Church order was broke Preached and taught Jesus Christ to heathens and unbelieving Jewes occasionally therefore now unordained persons may preach publikely and solemnly to a Christian Church setled and constituted c. Mr. Pool pag 64. Ans 1. This objection is answered in our reply to Dr. Collings in chap. 74. of our Book to which we refer the Reader 2. Way doth he say they taught occasionally if there be not some that preach seldom yet such occasional preachers he could not find pag. 47. 3. That its being a time wherein Church order was broken or their being in a persecuted state was that which made their preaching warrantable which otherwise would have been unlawful is a meer conjecture without the least Scripture evidence surely he will not say that nothing may lawfully be done in a setled state of the Church which these Christians did in a persecuted seattered state Doubtless they performed many private duties then they did not omit prayer meditation self-examination mortification of corruption c. yet these duties are to be come up unto in the most prosperous state of the Church and as well may the other unless it can be proved not onely that it was in a time of persecution but that the persecution was it that made the Preaching lawful and if Mr. Pool will assert this he must contradict the provincial Assembly whose case he pleadeth for they though groundlessly and contrary to the very Grammatical construction of the words as we shewed Preach Sent. p. 75. restrain the scattering unto officers surely officers might have preached lawfully though they had not bin persecuted so that Mr. Pool must either clash with them or else grant that their persecuted state did not warrant their preaching then his objecton vanisheth We as much wonder that he can rest in his answers as he doth that we can be sanctisfied in ours We say persecution laid no necessity upon them to preach Object Yes it laid a necessity upon them i. e. in order to Gods glory and the salvation of souls which could not be had without preaching Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way Mr. Pool pag. 64. Answ 1. This necessity was in those places before the persecution preaching had been as necessary in order to the glory of God and the salvation of souls though the persecution never had been neither did that hinder their having preaching in an ordinary way in these places they lost no preachers by it and therefore it was not the persecution that laid them under a necessity of preaching Necessity can be no plea in this case for the utmost that the persecution did towards their preaching in these places was to put them upon travelling thither and this onely gave them opportunity but did not put any necessity upon
them of preaching If travels where they are without preaching can make such a necessity gifted men shall not need want work 2. Preaching might now have been had in an ordinary way viz. by the Apostles and doubtless would rather then positive precepts should be broken see more of this in our answer to Dr. Collings who useth a like objection And by this it may appear that Mr. Pools instance of the shew-bread pag. 65. can lend him no help because here is no case of necessity to make the preaching of the scattered Saints lawfull which otherwise had been unlawful as there was for the eating of the shew-bread to make that lawful If preaching be an act of natural worship gifted men cannot be denyed liberty to preach Iâ— it be amongst those things that are required by positive precepts then Ordination being according to Mr. Pool essential to the constituting of a preacher we ask how it can be proved that there can be any such case of necessity of a mans preaching when he cannot have that which is Essential thereunto when two positive precepts are so coupled together as one is Essential to the other we suppose if one that is Essential cannot be had a man is not under a necessity to come up to the other If a man could not have what was Essential to the investing him with the Priestly Office then he was not necessitated to do the work of that Office and therefore his case of necessity must be understood with restrictions and limitations even when it is about such as are onely mala quia prohibita And though the shew-bread in a case of necessity might be eaten out of Gods way and when Election or ordination cannot be had in every circumstance in Gods way they must be had as they may yet when they cannot be had in Gods way in that which is Essential they are not to be taken up at all and Ordination being but an Adjunct to Office having dependence upon a precedent-Election as we have proved hence it cannot be had without it He saith p. 65. if neither Election nor Ordination can be had in Gods way there is no necessity of their Preaching in a Church constituted But he doth not tell us when there is such a case of necessity as will warrant their preaching or what necessity he speaketh of It was a natural necessity that made the eating of the shew-bread and the violation Mat. 12. of the sabbath rest lawful and unless his instances speak of one kind of necessity and his application of another he must intend that and such a natural necessity indeed they are not under to Preach in a Church constituted but a moral necessity they are under both of precept and means in order to Gods glory and the promoting of the salvation of souls We put them upon it to determine whether these that preach in such extraordinary cases be Officers or no Officers and we shewed what miserable inconveniences will attend the determining either way Preacher Sent. pag. 87. but Mr. Pool saw it to be his best way to wave that question Object He would make use of our Argument against us They who were scattered abroad they preached but many ungifted persons were scattered abroad Therefore such preached Mr. Pool pag. 66. Answ His Argument carryeth with it a reason against the truth of it viz. their being ungifted for the work of preaching is such as it cannot be performed with Divine allowance as here it was or to edification but by persons gifted Those that had not ability could not do it so that his Argument hath enough in it for the confutation of it self But the Argument as urged by us hath nothing in the bowels of it that doth deny but much that doth evidence the truth of iâ— For it was the Church that was scattered abroad Act. 8. ver 1. and the scattering abroad is the very Character which the holy Ghost doth set out these preachers by v. 4. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word which plainly argueth that very many or the generality of those that were scattered did preach As to what is added pag. 67. that officers might teach publikely the rest privately the Officers constantly the others occasionally We answer ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum There is not a sylliblein the text of any such difference in their preaching But of all of them in general it s said they went every where preaching the word ver 4. and they did it constantly Acts 11. v. 19 20 21. Nâ—ither had the phrase been proper if onely officers had preached If it had been said all Israel was scattered and they that were scattered did such or such a thing it would have been grosly improper as well as untrue to say that onely the officers of the congregation did it and so here Arg. 5. Our fift argument is taken from Gospel Rules about prophesying 1. Corin. 14. Our first Syllogisme hath the very question for its conclusion yet Mr. Pool saith pag. 68. it may be granted let him take it in its true meaning and according to our explications of it in our stating the question and the controversie will quickly be at an end if it be granted And let it be observed that neither our premises nor conclusions speak of what was formerly but of what is at present Our minor which he excepteh against affirmes not onely that there were but that there are i. e. in these dayes some Prophets who are not ordained Officers and therefore his exceptions from the Apostles and the extraordinarinesse of gifts are vain seeing himselfe will not say that there are Apostles or persons extraordinarily gifted in these daies and our minor speaketh not of what were but what are So that it is he that stumbleth at the threshold rather then we Our argument in the urging of it is full enough for we prove 1. That these Prophets were not ordained Indeed there is not a syllable in the Gospel about the ordination of Prophets neither doth Mr. Pool affirm that they were ordained but rather concludeth them to be extraordinary officers which needed no ordination and therefore we shall not wast time in replying to his exceptions against what we said about that especially they having so little weight in them 2. That prophesie is a gift not an office 3. That it is a gift still continuing Pro. 1. That Prophesie is a gift not an Office Our first argument is all who have the gift of prophesie are prophets and if these prophets were ordalned person he denyeth this but he medleth not with our proofs of it Preacher Sent. p. 89. If they were extraordinary persons then he denyeth the other proposition because such a gift makes them extraordinary officers For answer to this we refer him unto our reply to Dr. Collings and to our proofs that it is an ordinary gift and if he wil grant them to be ordinary persons either
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
Ordinance appointed for his good is according to Mr. Poole a Church-member But he who is excommunicate for blasphemy denying Christ c. is under a Church-Ordinance for his good Ergo According to Mr. Pool he who is excomunicate for blasphemy denying Christ c. is a Church-member And that the same ordinance of excommunication doth passe upon some and cut them off from Church-membership and passe upon others and leave them members still let him prove 4. Neither they in their Jus Divin Min. nor we in our former book do speak of the ceasing of baptism as to the actual priveledges of it or as to mens account onely or chiefly but about the ceasing of the water baptism it selfe And therefore what Mr. Pool sâ—ith p. 27. is altogether besides the question Neither doth his instance of circumcision help him for if any turned heathen or Idolater and renounced his circumcision yet he remained a circumcised person and his circumcision might be a witnesse against him though he were to be reputed as a heathen while such And so we apprehend though a baptized person ceaseth by excommunication to be a member of any visible Church yet this baptism ceaseth not but if it did really cease as they say it doth rebaptizing would necessarily be inferred 5. If baptisme it selfe about which the question is did cease upon the cessation of membership in the visible Church that upon the persons Repentance the Lord should impute his former baptism to him is such a notion as to use his own phrase in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any such thing 6. If a man ceasing to be a member of a particular Church should make his baptism cease upon its being the door of admission into that as they assert then a pari a mans ceasing to be a member of the catholick Church by excomunication or otherwise would make his baptism ceasesupon its being the door of admission into that so rebaptizing must follow upon re-admission so that this falleth heavie upon their principles But it toucheth not us because we deny baptism to be the door of admission into anâ— Church and this answereth what he saith pag. 27. He saith pag. 28. we grant that baptism was a sign of a mans admission to the Church Reply He much mistaketh us for we do not grant that its Sacramental use is to be a signe of admission into the Church But in regard Church-member-ship is pre-required unto baptism hence as things consequential are signes of what is antecedent and fruit a signe of a tree so baptism if orderly administred is a sign of admission into a Church We grant it to be a signe of ones being ingaged for the profession of the Name of Christ He asketh pag. 28. what is a Church but a company of men professing the name of Christ Reply 1. We speak onely of a subsequent sign which presupposech his being admitted into the Church and being engaged for the name of Christ and so is not the door of admission 2. A company of unbaptized persons may profess the name of Christ Ergo According to Mr. Pool they are a Church and then baptism cannot be the door of admission into the Church We said baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church by which we intend onely this that baptism doth not admit a man into any Church Mr. Pool pag. 28 calleth this a monstrous paradox which should not have been dictated without any proof c. Reply We have not meerly dictated it but have given clear proof for it Preacher Sent pag. 284. 286. 292 293. himselfe granteth that both infants and otners are Church-members inchoate before baptism pag. 24. Church-membership is a relation and as it were grossely improper to say that a man is a Father or Master c. inchoate but not a compleat Father or Master so its improper to say that one is enchoate only a Church-member and therefore they are admitted not by but before baptism But that baptisme doth not make men members of the Church is largely proved in the answer of New-England Elders to the 32. Questions pag. 12 to 20. Ob. 1. We are all baptized into one body 1 Corin. 12. 13. By which it is most evident that baptism gives a man relation to some body c. Mr. Pool pag. 28. Ans The whole stresse of this Argument dependeth upon translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into whereas it is frequently used to signifie in is Mat. 2. ver 23. He came and dwelt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a city c. So 1 Peter 5. 12. Acts 2. 27. Luke 11. 7. Mark 1. v. 9. were baptized of Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jordan and hence v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the River Jordan That which is expressed by iâ— in one verse is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other All which clearly sheweth that no argument can be grounded upon its signifying into and if it be rendred in as often it is in other Texts then his argument commeth to nothing whether it be the visible or invisible Church that is there intended for it runneth thus by one spirit we are all baptized in one body then they are first in that body baptized after so baptism is not the door of admission or doth not give relation to that body 2. An Antecedent enterance into a relation is usually expressed by a subsequent adjunct of that relation as an enterance into Kingly government is expressed by Coronation and Gen. 45. 10. The Scepter shall not depart c. i. c. there shall be one to bear the Scepter There becoming governours is denoted by a Scepter which is a subsequent signe of Governement so if 〈◊〉 be rendred into yet it may be onely an adjunct priviledge of Church-membership and not that which maketh to stand in relation to any body or Church 3. There are different gifts and graces in the members of the mystical body of Christ and therefore these cannot prove it an Organical political body yet what doth the Apostle say more of this one body But whatever the body be the relation thereto is not proved to be by baptism as Mr. Cartwright observeth on Gal. 3. 27. where we are said to put on Christ by baptism it is the usual phrase of the Scripture which giveth that unto the Sarcrament which is due unto the thing whereof it is a Sacrament So here Ob. 2. That which makes a man visibly stand in relation to Christ that makes him visibly to stand in relation to the Church but baptisme makes a man visibly to stand in relation to Christ Ergo Answ Both Propositions are false 1. His major is untrue because a visible relation to Christ must precede or goe before a visible relation to the Church for none but visible Saints or believers are to be admitted into Church relation Acts 2. v. 47. They were saved ones i. e.