Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	work_n	work_v	world_n	344	4	4.3733	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

understanding I will therefore tell them we know our Brethren are not to learn that Relations are of two sorts The first Logicians call Relata secundum esse real relations Such whose whole being as relations lye in their relation such are the Relations of Father and Son Husband and Wife Master and Servant The Father as a Father hath no other being but in his relation to a Son and so of the rest this is called Relatio praedicamentalis of these Relations their rule rightly understood is true 2. But secondly there are other Relations too called in Logick Relata secundum dici nominal relations yet such as have a reality of Relation but not such a one that all the being of the Relations as such is wrapt up in their relation this relation they call Relatio transcendentalis As now Scibile Scientia A thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing are relations and instanced in as such by most Logicians Yet neither the one nor the other of these relations have all their being in their relations Of these Relations we say and all say the Rule is false and reason will enforce it For example This 20th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclypse but the Eclypse which is the thing to be known is not existent The knowledge of the nature of thunder is existent But it doth not thunder So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a supposition that we say the office and the work are Relata secundum esse Relations of the first sort but we are not of that mind for we think the whole essence of office lyeth not in its Relation But in that authority wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it 2. In eodem entitalis gradu vel ut Ens in actu vel ut Ens in potestate Zabarel Secondly saith Zabarel the Rule is true that Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an Officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it The Mayor of Norwich is my Lord Protectors Officer for the Government of the City and none in their sober mind but will say he is Mayor and the government of the City are related each to other Suppose the Mayor now sick or in prison is he not an officer because at present he cannot execute his Office According to the first answer we deny the major and by vertue of the second we deny the minor And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion Hence Christian Reader thou mayest see our Brethren deal not kindly with thee when they tell thee As well may you affirm a man to be a Father who hath no Son nor child or a man to be an husband who hath no wife as you may affirm a man to be a Minister who hath no employment For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work A Father as he is a Father is a thing hath no being without a child and so cannot be but an officer if at present he hath no work yet hath as an officer an authority and power to do such a work when he hath opportunity I would fain know of our Brethren whether a man may not be in the office of a Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the government of them It is his Commission makes him an Officer and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment and execute his authority as soon as he hath opportunity Neither do we say a man can be no officer who hath no employment but we say a man may be an officer who at present may want opportunity to do what is his employment and he is by his office authorized unto And now I suppose every Reader will understand the weakness of our Brethrens first Argument which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Their second Argument is in sum this Relations and Correlations exist together but the office Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work because it is a means in order to the end Therefore the office of the Ministry and the work cannot be Correlates The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argument is the same Canon in Logick which was the foundation of the other Argument We grant that the office is a means in order to the work as its end and we say that the office must be before the work But we say these are no such relations as must necessarily be Simul Naturâ and exist together except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu and so sunt simul they are together though they do not exist together consider them as Entia in potestate they are Simul Natura and so it is not necessary that the means should be before the End In short the very same answer serveth as before Arg. 3 Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office that is the Correlate But the Gospel owns the Church not the work as Correlate to the office Ergo. The major we confess but say there wants a word in it That which alone the Gospel owns is the only Correlate The minor we deny we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry Acts 20.27 But we say it owns the work too Eph. 4.11 12. he gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers For the work of the Ministry and I hope Eph. 4. is as much Gospel as Acts 20.17 Our Brethren say here again That Officers are not related to the Employment of the Ministry Christian Reader it must surely offend thy Eares surely we would not much desire such Officers The truth is they do Dividere componenda which is a fallacy in Logick Officers are related to Church and work too and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logicians they would have acknowledged it with half this stir Arg. 4 Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form lyes thus If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture be such as proclume them relates to the Church not to the work then they are so related But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church are relates not officer and imployment Ergo. To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pastors Teachers c. 1. To all which we answer 1. That it is a feeble argumentation which is drawn from names and titles definitio nominis doth onely terminate the question quid nominis not the question quid rei the definition of a name is not alwayes adequate to the definition of a

that a Church must be an united company if you had told us in what sense you understand united we could better have told you our minds at least I could have better told you mine concerning it People may be united by cohabitation by common profession by mutual consent this you seem to understand this again may be either explicitly by Covenant or implicitly by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell this being premised Brethren I conceive 1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company either as to an union of judgement or practice the rout Acts 19. called by this name were not 2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ called by this name in Scripture were united but neither by cohabitation nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this 3. There is no need that every particular Church if not organized and under the exercise of Discipline should be united by consent as to practice in the same numerical Administrations every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent you often read of the Church in a particular house Col. 4.15 Rom. 16.5 Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved 4. Indeed it seems reasonable that a particular Church organized and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administred should be a company united by consent for my own part I can allow you this though I know some of my Brethren will not 5. That this Vnion must needs be by an explicite Covenant or consent is neither to be proved by one Text nor yet by one sound reason and to impose this as necessary is a meer humane invention and not to be indured because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it But lastly we heartily wish that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such as seeing no command of God for it shall not think fit to submit to it Thus far I can yield our Brethren that a particular Church is an united Company And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches not as some would ridiculously fasten upon us because they live within such local limits but because they are societies of baptized persons who by a tacit and implicit consent have united themselves waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship And this Vnion holding we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches although as the Church of Corinth corrupted in some of their members and therefore not to be separated from nor disowned as no Churches but to be purged and the old leaven put out that they may be a new lump 5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ and this for the glory of God c. I freely grant nay it may be I will grant more viz. that they must be a people who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren if I tell them I have almost made my head ake with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle save one and do what I can I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse or is brought in upon any easier terms then they say The Fellow brought in Hercules viz. by head and shoulders for undoubtedly if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason it would never have come there The passage is this But we shall say no more of this Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this The Scripture doth hold forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government May be they would have said must be had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it I must profess my self dear Brethren to be so ignorant that I can neither understand the sense of this passage either copulatively or disjunctively will you give me leave to sift it a little possibly though it all looks like chaff some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it But we shall say no more of this you say Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth Of this of what You had before been speaking of the Papists making their Decrees and humane inventions equal with the ten Commandments and told us you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased and that Christ hath ceased from his work c. Now you tell us you shall say no more of this your Brethren viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven what 's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with Gods word Do any of us make them so Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books Doth the same truth relate only to what follows that we are not all of a minde as to the Divine Right of Church-Government what needed our Brethren have added this in this place or what is the meaning of those words But we shall say no more of this and then adding the other as a reason But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven They are fouly to blame then for I should think Popery as to Government better than Presbyterie if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven But it is yet more wonderfull Brethren which you tell us that the Assembly did not so believe yea expressed as much for they only say Many particular Congregations may be united and you note they would have said must be if they had so judged Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be but they have also in the same place proved that it was so both in the Church of Jerusalem and also in the

thing Notatio saepe est inadaequata modo latior modo angusti●r saith the Logician But 2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally viz. All the titles and all the names we conceive their Argument very faulty for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City it doth not follow but that his title of Justice of the Peace hath the keeping of the Peace and the Statutes concerning Justices for the Correlate or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate 3. If our Brethren do say that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate we shall desire by the next to know whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers in the following Texts have the Church only for their Correlate 1 Tim. 2.7 2 Tim. 1.11 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14 Philip. 1.15 Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn to say that if the Question be asked To whom are they Officers the answer must be to the Church * 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked what is their office for what work is the office ordained The answer must be for the Preaching of the Gospel for the work of the Ministry The truth is The work is objectum quod the Church is objectum cui Both the Church and the imployment are the Correlates to this Relation the Church are the Correlated persons the work of the Ministry is the Correlated thing So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London for both the Church and the Employment are Correlates Nay under favour not the Church alone but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry as to Preaching The office of the Ministry was instituted as well for the gathering of the Saints as for the edifying of them as well for the perfecting of their number as for the perfecting of their graces Till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. Eph. 4.11 12 13. We can never believe that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother but as an officer of the Gospel Nay more God himself is the Correlate to this office and therefore they are called the Ministers of God the Ministers of Christ not Elders of the Church only or Ministers of the Church they are Gods Ministers in the Church and the Ministers of the Gospel in and for the Church and world too Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of the Church We can shew them many where they are called the Ministers of Christ of righteousness of the Gospel of Christ Now it is a rule Relata reciprocantur a Father is called the Father of such a Son and the Son is called the Son of such a Father But I say our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase when they call Ministers i. e. Preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church they are the Ministers of God and his Gospel in such a Church and they have some relation to the Church but not a more relation than they have to the work they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel is called their Gospel My Gospel saith Paul twice here is a plain reciprocation let them shew us the like if they can for their assertion otherwise we hope our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern And I earnestly beseech our Brethren that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies which have not as you see the least foundation either in Scripture reason or usage of any approved Authors In the mean time we will grant them that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office But if we would grant our Brethren that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate not to the work but to the Church I perceive this would not give them satisfaction unless we would also yield them that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church In opposition not only to the Church Catholick invisible viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad But to the Church Catholick visible in any notion The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion but we can by no meanes bow down unto it And therefore that 's the next thing we must bring to trial Only before we do it Give me leave to inform our Brethren in our notion of a Church though I shall better do it when I shall return to answer their Epistle The word which we translate Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetus evocatus voce praeconis of which our Brethren can make no advantage either from the Etymologie or from the usage of it in Scripture according to the first it signifies no more than a company called out it is both used by the Seventy interpreters to express the congregation of evil doers Psal 26.5 And by the Evangelist Luke to express a rout neither lawfully assembled nor yet united Acts 19.32 This word in it self as unhallowed as any other the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers company or Companies of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel Eph. 4.11 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvelous light Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into Invisible Visible The invisible Church is either Triumphant in heaven or Militant here upon the Earth The Visible Church is either Universal or Particular By the Church universal quatenus visible we mean The whole number of people over the face of the Earth called out of the Paganish world to the owning of the gospel of Christ which being an integral Body cons sting of homogeneous members or parts each part beareth the denomination of the whole hence that part of this body which is in a Nation Province parish c. is properly called the Church of God in such a Region Nation Province parish c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1.13 that is all that ownned the gospel whether in Jerusalem or in Damascus or the strange Cities Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11 all that called on Christs name whom

of an Evangelist and to make proof of his Ministry these things are the duties also of Ordinary Ministers doth it therefore follow that Evangelists were no extraordinary officers For their two other Texts both to the same sense Luke 4.24 Matth. 10.41 He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward What though the promise here by analogy concerneth all such as shall entertain Ministers c. So doth the promise made to Joshuah Josh 1.5 I will never leave thee nor forsake thee witness the Apostle Heb. 13.6 belong to all Christians yet it will not follow that therefore Joshuah was no extraordinary person but a meer private person nor yet that the promise did not primarily concern Joshuah as to his extraordinary service in subduing the Canaanites For the Text Acts 15.32 Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves exhorted the brethren and with many words confirmed them Hence our Brethren conclude the work of Prophets was exhorting and say they exhorted because they were Prophets Page 109. Two things or three must here be enquired 1. Whether Judas and Silas were not furnished with extraordinary gifts or clothed with an extraordinary office or authority 2. Whether they preached or no. 3. Whether what they did was done by them as Prophets 1. As to the first it is plain from ver 22. that both Judas and Silas were no ordinary persons there the Holy Ghost calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we translate it chief men amongst the Brethren The word signifies men in some office amongst their Brethren compare the usage of it in other texts Matth. 2.6 A Governour Luke 22.26 Where it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that serveth Acts 7.10 Heb. 13.7 24. Those that have the rule over you But this is not all if it were the same Judas mentioned Acts 1.13 he was one of the Apostles and yet might have the gift of prophecie too we read of no other Judas but he that was the Traitor For Silas Acts 15.40 he was Pauls fellow labourer and acting in equal work with him Acts 16.29 they were undoubtedly two of the hundred and twenty who were all filled with the holy Ghost Acts 2.4 2. But another question is Whether this text proves they preached the text says they exhorted but all exhorting is not preaching The truth is they were sent with the Synods Letters and perswaded them to an unity in obedience to them 3. But yet thirdly Suppose they being Prophets preached how doth it prove that this act was performed by them as Prophets we may say Stephen being a Deacon preached yet it will not follow preaching is an act of the Deacons office Pag. 109. Our Brethren add to the Scripture when they say their exhorting is said to be because they were Prophets The text says no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie because The mention of their being Prophets 1. distinguished them from ordinary Brethren 2. It was made to let us know the dignity of the persons sent as Messengers from the Synod they were no ordinaty persons no they were Prophets For their last Text Rev. 11.8 concerning the prophesying of the two witnesses Our brethren grant that they cannot determine what act is meant by it No more can we only I observe there were to be but two of them so that the gift or office was no ordinary gift or office and that is enough for us We do not say but to some single Christian since the Apostles times yea even in our times God may have given to know and foretell things to come Our brethren know there are several rare instances in several Ages to prove it For our Brethrens last instance 2 Pet. 1.19 20. We have also a more sure word of prophecie ver 20. No prophecie of the Scripture is of private interpretation I cannot conceive the force of any thing in that Text That the Scripture is partly a word of Prophecie every one knows and our Brethren hnow the whole is oft denominated from the name of the part by an easie trope We think that text rather fights against our Brethren than for them for it says no prophecie of the Scripture i. e. which is found in the Scripture is of private interpretation 4. As to our fourth presumption that prophecie was no ordinary but extraordinary Gift because it is reckoned among the rarest gifts of the Apostles Our Brethren answer 1 Cor. 14.20 Pag. 111. that the reason why it is preferred before tongues is expressed there because it is of more publike use for edification We say that was one reason but according to the Apostle in case he that spake with tongues did interpret that reason failed 1 Cor. 14.5 and then another must be found And as to this reason though the Prophet were greater in one respect yet he was less in another for he could shew no sign for the confirmation of the truths he spake 5. We had told our Brethren that the formal effect of publike edifying comforting edifying convincing converting souls are ascribed to these Prophets 1 Cor. 14. and therefore some thought they were officers To this our Brethren answer Pastors and Teachers are ordinary Officers and their gifts ordinary yet they are usefull to these ends What doth this prove Ergo If Prophets be officers their gifts also may be so usefull I think that is all If these Prophets were any species of officers it is enough for our turn 6. We told our brethren prophecying is distinguished from the word of wisdom and from the word of knowledge 1 Cor. 12.8 9 10 11. To this our brethren answer three things 1 So exhortation is distinguished from prophecy Rom. 12.6 7 8. yet the Prophets exhorted 1 Cor. 14.3 Acts 15.32 2. It is hard to determine the special reason why the Apostles sometimes distinguished those things each from other which in themselves seem alike as 1 Cor. 14.6 3. If because prophecying is distinguished from the word of knowledge and the word of wisdom we will conclude that by prophecying must be meant foretelling things to come then we must conclude two sorts of Prophets one whose proper work should be to foretell things to come Another whose proper distinctive act should be to exhort convince and comfort 1 Corinth 14. To all which I Reply 1. That there is nothing more clear than that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. is speaking of a diversity of Gifts divided as he saith ver 11. to every man severally from whence it will follow that prophecy is neither the word of wisdom nor knowledge nor faith nor the gift of healing nor the gift of working miracles nor the gift of discerning spirits nor the gift of tongues nor the interpretation of tongues but the formal gift of prophecy must be some ninth thing distinct from all these But Secondly it will not follow but some persons might have more than one of these

are no Officers to take upon them to do Acts of office is sinfull But for persons meerly gifted to preach ordinarily in publike Assemblies in the setled state of the Church is for persons who are no officers to take upon them to do Acts of office Not to multiply words needlesly by Acts of Office I meant Acts peculiar to office then say our Brethren they deny my assumption Preaching they say is not an act peculiar to office I foresaw this and therefore laid in some proof for it The proper acts of Pastors and Teachers c. are acts peculiar to office But ordinary preaching in publike Church-Assemblies in a setled state of the Church is the proper act of Pastors and Teachers c. By proper Acts our Brethren might have concluded that I meant proper quarto modo such as are peculiar to them Then they tell me they deny the Minor and Reader this is it that they affirm That preaching is not the peculiar work of a preaching Elder teaching the truth is not the peculiar work of a Teacher but although Pastors and Teachers be standing Officers in the Church of Christ who must and ought to Preach yet others may preach as well as they Our Brethren do allow that Pastors and Teachers are needfull to feed the flock of Christ but yet that this flock may feed it self that Christ hath appointed some whose ordinary work should be to teach and whose office it should be to the performance of which they must be set apart but yet there are others who may do the same thing without being set apart this is clearly our Brethrens sense but how consistent with reason let the Reader judge As to the making of my Argument good 2. My former discourse will make it appear that i● will lye upon our Brethren to give an instance of any one in Scripture except extraordinary persons in respect of extraordinary gifts and offices who not in order to Ordination in a setled state of the Church did ordinarily preach or any precept to warrant such for the future We have proof enough in Scripture that the Elders and Officers of the Church did it I can yield it our Brethren that the name Teacher is to distinguish from him that exhorteth but the name of Teacher and Pastor too must have teaching and exhorting as their proper acts by the force of the same Text Rom. 12.7 8. That work upon which the Officer of the Church is to wait that is his peculiar work but preaching is that work upon which Pastors and Teachers are to wait Rom. 12.7 8. That by Gods appointment it should be the work and charge of some to wait upon the performance of an action which any others may do as well and as ordinarily as they is a strange piece of sense Pag. 199. Our Brethren p. 199. argue fallaciously when they say Distribution is an act of the Deacons office and yet every one may distribute Distribution of the Churches stock is indeed an act of the Deacons Office and this none but they may distribute They might as well have said speaking is the act of a man Ergo Preaching the word is not peculiar to office He that breaks Bread and gives it to another doth materially in our Brethrens sense the Acts of him that administreth the Lords Supper Yet our Brethren will grant that the Sacramental breaking of Bread is an act of Office Distribution to the poor is not materially an act of the Deacons Office but distribution of the Churches stock is and that none may do if the Church have Deacons but they I proceeded to prove Preaching an Act of Office thus If Baptizing be an act peculiar to office then is preaching such But baptizing is Ergo. I proved the consequence 1. Because they are both in the same Commission 2. The Apostle makes preaching the greater Act 2 Cor. 1.17 Our Brethren of London had used the same Argument and brought the same Text in justification of it to which these Brethren endeavoured an answer ch 9. pag. 165 166 c. To which here they refer me yet withall pag. 200. they give me a repetition I will fairly sum up what they say in both places First Our Brethren say 1. That the Argument falleth as heavy upon us for we will allow Probationers to preach yet not to Baptize Secondly Some they say think the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is given to the Apostles as Officers and that there is another Commission for gifted men But Thirdly they tell us it is a mistake for the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is not that which impowereth men to preach It was only an enlarging of a former Commission and a making the Gentiles capable of being preached unto For the Apostles preached and baptized before Mark 10. ver 5 6 7. The Apostles they say received as much power by this Commission as any others their Successors could but they received no Office-power by it It can they say only be concluded from hence that those who were in office before might go and preach to the Gentiles Hence they deny that the joyning those two acts together in that Commission doth conclude that all who may do the one may do the other Fourthly they say some deny that preaching is a greater work than baptizing Here they quote a great Friend of theirs Dr. Homes Fifthly page 170. they suppose preaching the greater work else where our Brethren ingenuously grant they think it is pag. 233. yet it doth not follow that those who do the greater may do the less because the less may be more limited Sixtly and lastly They finde that men out of Office are allowed to perform the same acts which have the denomination of preaching and for the same end Preaching without Ordination p. 165 c. Matth. 18.15 Heb. 3.13 Heb. 10.25 Now they cannot finde the Gospel allowing men out of Office to perform that act called Baptizing and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of Baptism is instituted for This is the sum of all said in many more words page 165 166 167 168 169 170 199 200. Now let us examine what there is in all this to prove That those who may preach may not baptize when as Christ with the same breath said Go preach and baptize and Saint Paul saith he was not sent to baptize i. e. that was not his main act but to preach I shall shortly answer to all our Brethren say 1. Under favour our Brethren are mistaken in the fall of the Argument from this Text upon us who allow Probationers to preach For 1. They were excepted out of the question as being by a special rule in Gods word dispensed with Our Brethren can shew no such Rule for their gifted men 2. Neither do we allow them to preach ordinarily 2. As to the second thing they say to make their assertion good they must bring forth that same other Commission for gifted men before we shall believe it if it