he was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 and he is the only Preacher named 3. That those were members of the Church of Jerusalem some of the 8000. who were filled with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost and might speak the word with boldness Acts 4.31 If our brethren have any indued with gifts of that species God forbid we should deny them liberty but we conceive them ceased and with them the strength of this Argument too Now what say our brethren to take off these Answers I shall not meddle with what they say to the first it being an answer not to be rested upon and supernumerary As to the second they tell us p. 81. The consequence is feeble because one was an Officer Ergo all were It is an easie thing our brethren know to break a mans legs and then say he is lame This Argument was not brought as demonstrative Pag. 81. but as a good topick but the strength lay here Every one of them whom the Scripture names was an Officer and therefore it is not probable any preached but Officers and what ever Office Philip was ordained to Acts 6. certain it is he was an Officer and so our brethren grant As to the last Answer which alone is sufficient they have said nothing So then upon this enquiry our brethrens Argument lyes thus If Apollo who was soon after to be made an Officer of the Church at Corinth preached in order to Ordination and some scattered Members of the Church of Jerusalem who had received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost preached amongst whom we think there were some no Officers then private persons who have but very ordinary gifts and intend no such Ordination may preach too To which we must crave leave to answer Non sequitur But our Brethrens Argument is sick of more Non sequiturs than one To proceed therefore Secondly In case there were no parity in their acts then our Brethrens Argument is naught for I hope our brethren have no design to serve us with such a fallacy as this If the scattered Christians wherever they became in private houses commended the Gospel to people then gifted men may in the publick Assemblies of the Church or any people perform that Ordinance of Christ called preaching That were just such an Argument as this If John a Nokes may turn a servant out of communion with his Family then he may excommunicate him out of the Church Our Brethren in that Text Acts 8. have found the word preach but nothing to evidence it was in publick Assemblies nor will Gods blessing their labours prove it God may and oft doth bless private means when publick cannot be had The case was otherwise indeed concerning Apollo it is said he preached in the Synagogues but so might any one according to the corrupt state of the Jewish Church at that time and besides as I said before he was to be proved in order to office which our Brethren grant he afterward had But thirdly There must be a parity in the State of the Church too or else their Argument will not hold but this there is not 1. It was an infant state and is is a true observation of Didoclavius that many things may be lawfull in the infancy of a Church which are not to be imitated nor induced in a setled Church 2. It was a persecuted State This is indeed the best answer and therefore our Brethren spend most pains in trying to answer it pag. 85 86 87 88. Let us consider what they say 1. They grant that necessity may legitimate an action otherwise not lawfull 2. They say though they were necessitated to traevel yet they were not necessitated to preach What do our brethren think we mean by necessity or how comes necessity into the question which is whether it be not lawfull for private persons to do something in a persecuted State of the Church which is not lawfull in a setled state of it But to take our Brethren at their own rebound Necesse est quod nec esse aliter potest there is a natural necessity and there is a moral necessity We never thought this necessity was natural and yet against that our brethren argue There is an absolute necessity and an hypothetical necessity In short we say they might be under a manifold necessity 1. A necessity of the precept they were filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost and those extraordinary gifts might be attended with an extraordinary praeceptive impression Acts 4.31 2. There was necessit as medii there was no other ordinary means of salvation for those people where they came than that extraordinary course of theirs the Apostles being yet left at Jerusalem 3. Upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people it was necessary for there were no others in office to do it Thirdly Our Brethren question whether necessity can legitimate an action in it self unlawfull but grant it may legitimate an action unlawfull at this or that time Not to dispute the first which yet we might by our Saviours instance of the Shew-bread taken by David c. The later part granted is enough for us if our Brethren mean ingenuously We do not say it is against the light of nature to preach without Ordination But it is unlawfull at such a time when the Church hath plenty of Ministers and there is no need of their extraordinary actings being calm and setled Now that which is unlawfull at such and such a time our Brethren grant necessity may make lawfull we ask no more at their hands at this time 3. Our Brethren enquire when is there such a case of necessity and conclude when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way And they can finde no lawfull Ordination without a preceding election to a particular Church And therefore all Gifted men lye under such a necessity Let us put this loose discourse into form It must be thus If Gifted men may Preach in a case of necessity and it be a case of necessity when they cannot have Ordination in Gods way and this cannot be till they be chosen Officers to a particular Church then till that time their Preaching is justified by necessity But c. Ergo. But our brethren know that although they say they cannot yet we can see regular Ordination without a Call to a particular Church we are at a loss to know what election to a particular Church preceded the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas of Timothy of any one preaching Elder in Scripture Our Brethren go on They that preach in such cases of necessity are either officers or no officers If no officers then preaching is not a peculiar act of office then there is a difference betwixt Preaching by Office and by Gift If they be Officers then Ordination is not essential to office Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination then Baptism is valid without Ordination c.
To answer to all this Those who preach in such Cases of necessity where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear may be said to Preach by an extraordinary authority which the word of the Lord hath in such cases given them which may be called a Mission and they may be Officers as to that time and state yet it will not follow but in another state of the Church Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister that is to one who according to the Rule of Christ in ordinary cases ought to preach All this arguing is nothing to the purpose for our brethren are to prove that Gifted men may ordinarily preach in a tranquil and setled state of the Church where are Ministers Ordained enough to supply the place or at least to ordain and authorize them Their Argument à pari here is no Argument because of the disparity of the Churches State If our brethren can bring us any Texts out of the Epistles wrote to setled Churches requiring commanding or allowing such a practice for persons not in office nor furnished with extraordinary gifts to preach publickly and ordinarily they say something all this is no better than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or go round about the bush but never strike one blow at it I come therefore to their fifth Argument p. 88. All that are Prophets may publickly they should have put in ordinarily too preach But some men they should have said some such Gifted men as we have now who are not ordained Officers are Prophets Ergo. If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propositions I will deny the Conclusion because the question is not in it If they will allow my corrections I deny their Assumption and say No such Gifted men as now live for whom our Brethren must plead are Prophets They prove it p. 89. All that have the gifts of prophecie are Prophets But some such Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecie Ergo. The Major I grant The Minor I deny Three things our Brethren undertake to prove p. 90. 1. That prophecie is a Gift not an Office 2. That some have the gift of prophecie and that gift still continueth 3. That some persons not ordained have it I shall only premise this that I hope our Brethren understand by prophecie such prophecie as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians otherwise they deceive their Reader with an equivocal word and then I deny all three of their Positions and shall proceed to examine their proof of them 1. That prophecie is a gift not an office they prove 1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain prophets 2. Because they cannot be ordained till they be discerned to have the gift of prophecie 3. Because some have this gift who are no officers This last I deny they pretend to prove it hereafter As to the two first our Brethren dispute ex ignoratione Elenchi against what none deny who ever said those Prophets were ordinary Officers We say they were extraordinary Officers who were furnished with an extraordinary Gift either to foretell things to come or else to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit without the use of such means as we now must use and being thus furnished were made Officers at that time by an immediate Mission to which Ordination was not necessary So then two things we insist upon 1. That Prophets were extraordinary Officers 2. That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost The first is enough for this place That they were officers appears from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. Acts 13.1 2. And that they were extraordinary appears in that they are set before Evangelists Eph. 4.11 12. and from their extraordinary gifts Acts 11.27 28. 1 Cor. 12.9 10 11. and from 1 Cor. 14.26 from which text it is plain that they spake from revelation this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of London Jus Divinum pag. 97 98. Vindiciae ministeâ—ii p. 50 51 c. by my self Now for our Brethren to argue against this because they were not ordained is a pitifull Non sequitur for none ever said Ordination was necessary to the constitution of an Apostle or any extraordinary Officer But our Brethren judge that they can prove that prophecying was not an office but a gift p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments p. 91. c. Their first Argument in form is this If all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets then prophecie is a gift not an office But all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets Ergo. We deny the Consequence and say our Brethren have not proved it for this it all they say They must first have the gift before they can be made Prophets We deny that God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary Authority furnished them with an extraordinary gift So he did Jeremy Amos and all the Prophets of old I wonder which of them could be said to have the Gift of prophecie one moment before they were Prophets by Office too this is still a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi to extraordinary Officers no such thing was needfull Our brethrens second Argument is this That which ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in Corinth was a gift only not an office But Prophecying might so be coveted Ergo. Before I give a direct answer to the Argument I conceive prophecying to speak properly to be neither a gift nor office but an act by which either is exercised which act we say none could exercise but he who had the gift for it and also the extraordinary authority which impowred him to it and that prophecying is in no sense to be called a gift but as an office is a gift being constituted for the good of the Church and an honour to them that have it But to speak to their Argument In the first place I deny the Major That which ought in those times to be coveted and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth might be an extraordinary office But say our Brethren The Lord had no where promised to make every member of the Church of Corinth a Church officer therefore it could not be an office 1. Our Brethren did not consider that the same Argument will prove it was no gift except they can shew us where the Lord had promised to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecie 1 Cor. 12.29 Are all Prophets The Lord no where promised to give all Christians a power to work miracles or to speak with tongues yet surely they might covet it as it is plain from the next words where though prophecying be preferred before tongues yet that is left upon record as one of those gifts might be coveted 2. God hath no where promised that John a Stiles should recover of his sickness doth it
prophâ—â—s are mentioned with a note of singularity denying it to be a gift common to all 1 Cor. 12. 29 30. Are all prophets 3. That prophets in all the Old Testament and new too signified extraordinary officers who acted from immediate revelation 4. That prophecie is reckoned up as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had 1 Cor. 13.2 1 Cor. 14.16 preferred before Tongues 1 Cor. 14.1 2. Paul compared himself with them 1 Cor. 14.37 5. That it is distinguished from the word of wisdom and knowledge 6. That it is said prophecyes shall fail 1 Cor. 13.8 7. That prophecying is said not to serve for those that believe not 1 Cor. 14.22 To the first our Brethren answer that we left out the word doctrine 1 Cor. 14.26 The charge falls not on me but now it is put in let us see what our brethren get by it The sense of the text must be Either that every individual member of the Church of Corinth had all these and then they all had extraordinary gifts for surely the gift of composing Psalms and the gift of Revelation c. must be no ordinary gifts If this be the sense the prophecying in the Church of Corinth was by persons extraordinarily gifted infallibly inspired and so the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails because they argue à pari where is no parity in the species of Gifts Or else the sense must be one of you hath a doctrine another a Psalm another a Revelation c. If this be the sense how do our Brethren prove that the Doctrine belonged to the prophets Other Scriptures quoted by our Brethren 1 Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.9 make labouring in Doctrine the work of Pastors and Teachers if the Doctrine were the Pastors Teachers part either the Psalm or the Revelation must be the Prophets work for the interpretation clearly belonged â—o tongues or at least related to it 1 Cor. 14.13 1 Cron. â—hren take which they will the Gift was extraordinary Our Brethren say that Revelation is distinguished from Prophecy ver 6. but they did not consider that in the same words it is distinguished from Doctrine too What shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or by prophecying or by doctrine From whence we easily conclude that the prophecying meant 1 Cor. 14. was not speaking to people by doctrine and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren Object But say our brethren It may be meant of ordinary revelation Eph. 1.16 17 18. Answ Let what revelation will be meant It is not doctrine these Prophets spake not by Doctrine that was another thing ver 6. Now I think preaching is a speaking by Doctrine And that is it to justifie which we say no proof can be produced from this Text. Secondly We grant an ordinary revelation sano sensu that is That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people in the use of due means such a knowledge of his written word as is necessary for their salvation yea as may be for their consolation that they may as to their own souls know the hope of his Calling as in that text Eph. 1.16 17 18. quoted by our brethren and know their own grace and right unto glory 1 Cor. 2.9 10 11 12. Phil. 3.15 That they may be resolved in their doubts and come up to perfection in knowledge and holiness But all this as to their own private use Let our Brethren bring us any shadow of Scripture to prove that God hath promised ordinarily to reveal unto his people such a knowledge of the Scriptures as they may publikely and ordinarily communicate it in Church Assemblies Whereas we told them Prophets are mentioned with a note of singularity 1 Cor. 12.29 30. they tell us so was the gift of Teaching yet it is an ordinary office Every Reader will consider that it was enough for us to prove either that these Prophets were Officers or that they had an extraordinary gift It is true the note of singularity affixed or indeed the term of restriction affixed rather will not prove the gift was extraordinary but it will prove that either the Prophets were Officers or the gift was extraordinary for no others are there enumerated but extraordinary or ordinary officers or such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost To our third Allegation That the title Prophets and the term prophecying in all the Old Testament is peculiar to persons that were extraordinary Officers and extraordinarily gifted and generally so in the New Testament Our Brethren answer 1. That they have given many Arguments to prove that in 1 Cor. 14. neither Officers nor persons extraordinarily gifted are meant and that chapter speaking chiefly of Prophecie as the subject is most fit to interpret it But their several Reasons being answered no more need be added 2. It is questionable they say whether in some of the places mentioned the word prophecying be taken either for an act of Office or for an exercise of an extraordinary gift and to this purpose they mention Acts 13.1 Rev. 10.11 Mat. 7.22 Mat. 13.57 Luke 4.24 Mat. 10.41 Acts 15.32 To which I answer Indeed our Brethren of London p. 94. and my self from others p. 50. did say that we conceive where ever Prophets or Prophecie are mentioned in Scripture some extraordinary Gift or Office is understood It had been enough for us to have said that generally it is so But being the word is out let it go and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary 1. For that Text Matth. 7.22 Many shall say to me in that day Lord Lord we have prophesied in thy name and in thy name have we cast out devils and done many miracles We grant that it cannot be from hence demonstratively proved that the prophecying here mentioned was an extraordinary Gift because the other two things mentioned were but we appeal to all the world whether this be not a strong presumption on our side and such as our Brethren can never disprove For that text Acts 13.1 There were certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch These were such Prophets as were joyned with Teachers 2. Preferred before them according to the order also used 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. 3. Such as the Spirit called to ordain Paul and Barnabas Let any reasonably judge whether these can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church for Rev. 10.11 John in a vision took a little Book from the Angel and did eat it And then the Angel said to him Thou mayest prophesie again c. Was this by vertue of ordinary gift think we Their next is Matth. 13.57 A prophet is not without honour but in his own Country this Rule they say is true of all faithfull Teachers Saint Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 commands Timothy to watch in all things to endure afflictions to do the work
it was given to them as their concernment it says not It saith Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly the crowd of names present was an hundred and twenty the word signifies a company of persons a multitude Mat. 4.25 Matth. 5.1.7.28 By Disciples ver 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant who are very often in Scripture distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multitude as Matth. 13.34 Matth. 9.36 37. and in many other Texts Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles and said to them in the hearing of the multitude I know the term disciple is sometimes taken in a larger notion but it seems to be here distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure I am our Brethren can give no sufficient reason to shew that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles not exclusively to others but emphatically and more eminently than others called Disciples as in many other Texts and if this sense be allowed they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two verse 25. according to our Brethrens own Argument 3. But lastly It is a plain case God here chose for two stood forth or were set forth when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle till God made the choice Hence it is plain that from this Text nothing can be concluded 1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor 2. It doth not say any chose them But they stood 3. If any did choose probably they were only the Apostles called Disciples by way of emphatical distinction 4. The truth is it was God who made choice If therefore our Brethren could prove that the Brethren set these two before the Apostles and as they say in doing that did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer yet this was just nothing for nothing was needfull from them in that Case Their second Scripture is that Act. 6. v. 1 2 3 4 5 6. where it is expresly said that the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples and said Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report c. In the former Argument our Brethren argued thus If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer then they ought to choose the less Here now they argue quite contrary If they ought to choose the less then they ought to choose the greater Surely both these Arguments cannot hold being both made affirmatively But as to the present Argument stated thus If the Church mentioned Act. 6. v. 3 4. c. ought to choose Deacons then a particular Church now ought to choose her Pastors But the Church Acts 6. chose her Deacons Ergo. 1. We deny the consequence 2. We deny the Assumption I will offer Reasons for both 1. For the denial of the Consequence 1. It is plain that Church Acts 6. was the universal Church as well as a particular Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all mankinde nor is this nonsense for by universal Church I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth in which were Catholick Officers it was furnished with twelve Apostles 2. It is plain that the persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning Spirits Act. 2. Act. 4.31 No particular Church now can pretend to any such thing 3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative from the lesser to the greater particularly it will not hold in this Case That in most cases it will not hold is evident none can argue thus if a man can carry a thousand weight much more an hundred thousand If my Friend will give me a nights lodging he will much more give me his house and land or a lodging in his house as long as I live On the other side it is true in some cases it will hold But not to run into a Logical dispute The present Question is How far it is lawfull to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another Our Brethren will grant that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God Now as to this I say 1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawfull to choose the greater and yet unlawfull to choose the less as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choose Parliament men and yet not Lawfull for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace and so again to choose the less and not the greater as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choose a Constable of a Parish and yet not lawfull for them to choose a Colonel of an Army or a Justice of the Peace so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law but the Law of God must justifie the Consequence so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is 2. It is probable that the Lord who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage Our Brethren must say no more than it is probable And then we answer 1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scripture is not a certain Rule for us to walk by 2. We say it is not probable because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon than of a Pastor 2. Because this Church was more able to judge â—f both than any Church is now Our Brethren see what they are come to 1. They â—rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church to other Churches the least members of the universal Church not in the least measure so gifted from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight 2. When all is done they argue it but probable â—nd this probable hath a great improbability attending â—t too 3. From a choice limited as to the persons to be chosen Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose yet the Argument is a lamentable Non sequitur But to their Minor Are our Brethren sure that either the whole or the major part of the Church here made the choice Our Brethren have to prove it ver 2. The twelve called the multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude in the Original all the multitude
must be distinct from prayer and fasting Act. 14.23 and when they had ordained or ordaining them Elders and had prayed with fasting That imposition of hands in ordination is distinct from praying and fasting we grant But that praying and fasting is without it ordination we deny the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All our Brethrens strength lies in the English Translation In the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both the same tense and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equally applicable to both According to our Brethrens principle the nomination of the person and prayer and fasting and then executing by suffrage are distinct acts yet all make but that one act of constituting an Officer Neither is it said that the praying and fasting here at all related to the constitution of the Elders it might relate to their taking their leave of them mentioned in the next words and I am very apt to believe it did I am sure our Brethren cannot prove the contrary so that it is but gratis dictum a thing said which our Brethren must ask us leave to believe that the prayer and fasting here spoken of was any thing relating to Ordination 4. In the last place our Brethren because they cannot prove fairly beg the question p. 233. Because the power of Election is no where given to Officers but to the people I think this Text should have proved this thing that it is given to the people On the contrary we say our Brethren neither have proved nor can prove that the Scripture hath given the power of choosing Pastors to the people The Texts produced as we have heard will prove no more than a may be hardly so much And this Text it seems must have those to help it or it will not prove Thus Reader thou seest how easie it is to assert what is found hard to prove Read and judge whether from Scripture it can be positively concluded that it is Gods will that every particular Church should choose all its own Officers and this choice be all thaâ— is necessary by Gods word to make them Officers See if either in the Epistles to Timothy or Titus which of all other Scriptures are most to be eyed as our Rule about Church Government because there are given directions for the setling of ordinary Churches in a permanent state see if there be one word in them for the peoples choice though Titus was left on purpose in Crete to ordain Officers Tit. 1.5 and several Rules be given in those Epistles for the setling of Gospel Churches In the mean time we grant to our Brethren 1. That there is nothing in Scripture forbidding their election 2. That in many cases yea in all it is very convenient and by no means to be neglected if they will choose such a one as is fit for a Pastor But that it is necessary to the making of a Minister in Office by any rule of Scripture or that in no case the election of a Pastor in the strictest notion by a particular Church may be denied or over-ruled this we deny because we say every particular Church is not able to judge of the abilities of a Minister and often doth make apparent errours in Judgement Our Brethren p. 236. Assert the abilities of a particular Church to judge of the abilities required in a Minister they say they are able to judgeâ— if he be blameless the husband of one wife vigilant sober of good behaviour given to hospitality We grant this in some measure but there are some other qualifications too He must be one 1. That holds fast the faithfull word 2. Able by sound Doctrine to exhort 3. Able to convince gain-sayers Titus 1.9 4. Apt to Teach Now we deny that every particular Church even of our Brethren is able to judge of these things According to our Brethrens principles any seven visible Saints may make a Church we say seven real Saints may not be able to judge of these things How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince a gain-saying Socinian or Arminian or Papist who know not what any of them hold And how many hundred private Christians are there who are ignorant of these things I dare assume that in no Church our Brethren have in this County there are seven men know what the Socinians hold much less do the major part know yet they are doubtless able to judge whether a Minister be able to convince them Is any one so sensless as to think any seven private Christians is able to judge whether a Minister holds the faithfull word Our Brethren know two sevens of their Brethren have judged that the Quakers and Anabaptists hold the faithfull word which I speak not to create an odium upon them for some of ours have done so too It doth not follow that because a good Christian must be sound in the Faith in things necessary to Salvation therefore he is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister who is to exhort by sound Doctrine for a Minister is to preach more sound Doctrine than what is absolutely necessary to salvation Object Oh! But say our Brethren The sheep of Christ know his voice and they will not follow a stranger this importeth their having ability and liberty to judge what Teachers they should elect Answ Doth it so What belongs to Christ sheep as Christs sheep belongs to every sheep But this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ Ergo. The Major is undoubtedly true the Text saith my sheep not my fold what is here made to belong to sheep belongs to every sheep I hope our Brethren will not say this belongs to the Women yet are they Christs sheep too nor will it serve the turn to say they must not speak in the Church for we are now speaking of choosing and judging lifting up of the hand is enough But surely our Brethren will not say that every man hath ability if they do and will give us leave we will â—ick them out twenty out of every hundred they shall bring us if not four times twenty whose knowledge concerning sound Doctrine and ability to convince gain-sayers they shall be ashamed to own as sufficient â—o judge of the abilities of a Minister The truth is every sheep of Christ that is so truly and really i. e. every Elect soul so far refuseth the vâ—ice of strangers as though he may for a time follow them yet he shall first or last reject them again Our Brethren know that some both of their and our Brethren within these seven years last past have followed Strangers and such Strangers too as the Christian World never heard of before yet we should be loth to say they are none of Christs sheep because they are gone astray The Lord in mercy make them to return 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. consisting of all the Jews and Gentiles to be converted and that some of them are able so to judge or that all of them will not follow strangers we grant But this is nothing to our Brethrens purpose to prove that every individual sheep or every particular Church hath this ability FINIS
we grant but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny I shall have liberty to enter my dissent in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description First You say it is a company that we grant Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church Secondly You say it is a particular Company and that there never was nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ any other than a particular company I must confess to my dear Brethren that I cannot fathom their notion of particular we use to say particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis An universal theme in Logick is that as our Brethren know which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many I think Church is such a Theme Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant that their Congregations at London Norwich Yarmouth may each of them be called a Church Now the Question is whether all these Churches may not be considered together and called a Church Or if you will Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth may not by an universal notion be called a Church or is not called a Church in Scripture You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company but not an universal Church that is as I suppose you mean a body capable of Officers otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons who are visible Saints should be called a Church Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad p. 40. and seven hundred should not If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches Acts 8.3 Gal. 1.13 Acts 26.11 Acts 9.31 compared together Acts 12.1 Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 All these Texts will prove that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called But you will say This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it Brethren have you read what Mr. Hudson saith to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholick Do they not when they Baptize admit into the Catholick Church Pag. 232 why else are not your Members baptized again when they are translated from the particular Church into which according to this principle alone they were Baptized Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church Or will our Brethren say that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion Were the Apostles think our Brethren Officers only to a particular Church If to the Vniversal then there was an universal Church once existing capable of Officers Nor is that irrefragable Text 1 Cor. 12.28 as our Brethren say prest to the service of the Catholick Church No it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth You say Brethren that what it is written ver 18. of that chapter God hath set the Members every one in the body doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body as God hath set some in the Church proves a Catholick Vniversal Church I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body together with ver 12. and all the members of that one body being many are one body will prove that the body is Totum integrale So also saith the Apostle is Christ i. e. the Church of Christ If our Brethren will but grant us this That the Church is a Totum integrale you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum If you say there is no other Totum called a Church but only the particular Church I have proved the contrary that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church If you say this Church hath no Officers that Text 1 Cor. 12.28 confutes you neither will your consequence follow that because an universal body is not proved from ver 18. therefore an Vniversal Church is not proved from ver 28. viz. from the whole verse If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body but would serve any other particular bodies as he doth of Church Officers ver 28. I hope it would have proved an Vniversal body You tell us Brethren you renounce the name and thing of an Vniversal or Catholick Church you must then renounce the Holy Scripture witness the Texts before mentioned and renounce right reason and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren who generally acknowledge both the name and thing only deny it to be Organical But you think you have five Arguments will prove that a particular Church cannot be a part but a Totum 1. You say first every part is in power incompleat But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church And may act in all Church work not as a part but as a whole I must deny your Minor Brethren I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod and to consult at least a piece of Church work to which Gods word gives a power Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod We say the like for Ordination except in cases of absolute necessity and for excommunication where the Church is very small there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited 2. You tell us next that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is you know not This is Brethren such a fallacy as scarce deserveth an answer the body of a man is a whole all his members are parts now when you have found out where that body is which is really distinct from all the members and wherefore it is you will have answered your selves The Nation of England is a whole every Parish is a part finde us where that Nation is which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together We use to make this a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis unitis That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united 3. In the next place you tell us there can be no visible universal Church because
there is no universal visible meeting and that the Greek word translated Church in all Civil and Sacred usage signifies a meeting in fieri or facto esse But you began to think that the invisible Church are never like to have such a meeting and therefore to salve it you heal this wound in your Argument in my opinion very slightly when you say it doth meet invisibly in Spirit If you will but grant us that Brethren that the name of Church in Scripture is given to those that never locally meet but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit you have by an unhappy heel kicked down all that good milk which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it it speaks of the Church of the first-born There is an universal meeting of the Catholick visible Church at the throne of Grace before their great Pastor and in Spirit as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first you have quitted your plea for the visibility to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick visible from any hurt by this Argument 4. You go on Brethren and tell us There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church Ergo there is no such Church If you had expressed the Major Proposition I should have denied it the assertion of a Church Catholick visible though we add Organical doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches which as parts constitute that whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole I am not willing but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren that this is no fair play to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholick Church and to mention only the Antichristian and Prelatical Notion of it Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication p. 129 130 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head and Arch-Bishops Bishops c. for his derivatives But this we say that the whole Church all the particular Churches in the world make but one body of Christ and as it is one una so it is unita united in a Common Profession of the Gospel as there is this union and communion of members so there is a communion of some Officers particularly Ministers who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors by vertue of Office any where and may any where Baptize and Administer the Lords Supper upon occasion and we say our Brethren in practice grant this for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those to whom he is not in Office as his particular Church and this is a Common practice with our Brethren how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches they do but blinde the Common People with a dark notion that signifies nothing What mean they by a Communion of Churches if they do not mean this that by the word of God one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another If they have so there must be a Communion of Offices as well as Gifts for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office If that it be not the will of God in his Word that the Officer of one Church should do an act of Office in another Church or to a Member of another Church it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches If this be his will it is as much as we ask for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church and the members of it but also to any particular Churches in the world or to any of their Members We ask no more This is the Catholick Organical Church we plead for Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol and pretend to abhor it in the notion they do not in practice bow down to it and commit Sacrilege 5. You tell us in the last place Brethren That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine and hear offences Mat. 18.17 But that is a particular Church Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae and you have taken as good care as you could to strengthen it by saying it cannot be meant of both and to exclude the Congregational Church is unscriptural irrational absurd But I must crave leave to tell you 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question for it is not whether be greater the Church Catholik or the Church particular but whether there be any Church Catholick or no greater or less Object But you will say if there be any it must be greater Answ Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality If in respect of quantity number c. the Major is apparently false If in respect of quality as you seem to hint by the term having power then your Argument is this There is no Church hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches But the particular Church hath that power Mat. 18.17 Ergo. I will give you Brethren such another Argument judge you whether it be good or no and if it be not you must prove your own better There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences Ergo that is as great a Court as the Court of Common Pleas. You must therefore put in finally determine and all offences in any part of the Church or else your Major is false when you have mended that we will deny your Minor and tell you that admit that Text Mat. 18.17 should be meant of a particular Church yet it proves no such power either finally to determine or all offences as well those betwixt Church and Church as those betwixt party and party or party and Church Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text according to the nature of the offence nor do I think your saying that to exclude the Congregational Church viz. some Congregational Churches is unscriptural irrational absurd amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case I think it is far more rational and far
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most restrained word of the three both in civil and also in sacred writ yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate Rom. 13.6 To the Minister of the Gospel Rom. 15.16 to a publick Person but ministring in a private manner Phil. 2.25 To Angels Heb. 1.7.14 To Christ himself Heb. 8.2 Some note that it is alwayes a title of publick performance but Philip. 2.25 It is otherwise used Yet there are that think that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office and in that ministration to Paul so acted if any credit may be given to civil Authors for the proper usage of this word it signifieth both a publick office and a sacred Service So Suidas and Scapula assure me and the Etymology of the word as much It is true in civil Authors it is sometimes used otherwise but Suidas saith it is abusively I think we may say there is this difference betwixt this word and the other that whereas other words primarily signifie ordinary private civil Service this word ptimarily signifies sacred publick Service and in all holy writ is not applied to a private person Sure I am that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as publick persons in sacred Services 5. But though both Minister in the Latine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Minister in our English tongue are equivocal terms Yet we must cum vulgo loqui speak according to vulgar usage not according to equivocal notions of the word Gifted men cannot in propriety of Speech be called Ministers We will grant to our Brethren that the persons they plead for may be called Ministers if they do but wait at their Masters Table or be but under-Commissioners to the State or the like though they should never Preach according to the signification of the words but as the Church of God hath in all late ages used the term Minister we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be called a Minister we do not deny but that every General of an army may be called Imperator and was so but as the term hath lately been used and is used we deny he can be called an Emperour we do not deny but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer we do not say but our Brethren though not ordained may be such Ministers as you read of Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5 but not such as you read of 1 Cor. 4.1 Acts 26.16 And by vulgar usage such only for a long time have been so called to distinguish persons in office from such as only do acts of Service Civil or Sacted I must confess I must commend people for keeping that term still as distinctive if every one should be called Sir John or Sir Thomas such a one in time there would be no difference betwixt a Knight and a begger and names are given for distinction sake If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench should say there sit a dozen Ministers people would not understand what they said and according to vulgar speech it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment yet if our Brethrens Argument were good that gifted men should be called Ministers because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would justifie that new dialect in other things as well as this For Magistrates are called Ministers and Magistrates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am much against this removing of the Antient Land-Marks which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with and think it a very ill design which would produce nothing but confusion Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture where a gifted man not ordained is called a Minister of the Gospel a Minister of Christ c. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much Preaching without ordination p. 3. Nor will a general course of acting as they would hint entitle them to that name It is true constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker for neither of them are titles of office But suppose now a Rebell should overcome his Prince and for seven years together exercise the Acts of his place he would not yet by bare acting be entituled to the name of a Prince or King The Conclusion is that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense according to later ages restriction and constant usage of the word Minister be called Ministers they may be called Speakers if you please Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister and of the Greek words so translated Second Term Ministry let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry imports And this also we shall find Homonymous 1. Every one will conclude that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie their service or ministration and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to express that in Scripture which we translate Ministry I mean two of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first onely in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple the latter very often Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 c. And indeed I think this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture to signifie the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers Acts 1.17 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18 Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Gospel perform in Preaching administring Sacraments c. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church who more strictly are called Deacons Rom. 12.7 1 Cor. 16.15 though there be some question upon that Text So Christs execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry And the old service of the Priests and Levites is called a Ministry Heb. 9.21 But in this sense I take not Ministry in the Question yet if our Brethren contend for words I can state the question so viz. Whether that work of the Ministry which the Scripture mentioneth eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel be the work of persons meerly gifted 2. But there is another usage of the word which use at least hath procured it according to which we call the Ministry A certain order of persons set apart according to the will of God for the dispensing out of Publick Gospel Ordinances In Analogy to the description of the High Priest described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the description thus The Minister is one taken from amongst men and ordained for men in things pertaining to God for the dispensation of Publick
Ordinances and ministerium is but a collective term as we call the company of Magistates the Magistracy of a Nation So we call the company of Ministers the Ministry So Aretius Bucanus Vrsin c. So Martinius ministerium est ipse quoque minister So Ravanella Munus vel functio vocatur ministerium for which he quotes many Texts of Scripture and so interpreteth many of those I before cited the 2 Cor. 6.3 and that in 1 Tim. 12. seem very inclinable to this interpretation And here again our Brethren seem to play with an equivocall term when they tell us that the speaking of gifted Brethren may be called Ministry for there is ministration in their service so there is too in their Servants waiting upon them at their Tables yet I hope they will allow common people not to call the work of their Servants waiting at their Trenchers the Work of the Ministry which yet follows by the same argument If our Brethren say that the gifted persons minister unto the Church so doth he that sweeps the Church yet his work is not the work of the Ministry as we have learned to speak If they say they minister unto Christ Sub judice lis est That question is yet to dispute upon the Apostles maxim His Servants you are whom you obey and it is still to be argued betwixt them and us whether in their ministration they obey the commands of Jesus Christ yea or no. Third Term. The third and last term is that of Office A term as ambiguous as any other it comes from the Latine word Officium Hee that will look that word in Martinius his Lexicon Philologicum will find at least eight significations of it Our Brethren of London in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici p. 3. have given us a description of it so far as to limit it from homonymie and to give the sense of it in the present question which description our other dissenting Brethren have faithfully transcribed thus The Office of the Ministry is a spirtual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a person qualified founded upon a speciall and regular call Our Brethren p. 3. apprehend this to be faulty and they declare their dissent and the grounds of it because as they rightly apprehend much of the controversie hangs upon this hinge They grant that Office is a relation with respect to an employment as its end But that it is a relation to the employment of the Ministry as its Correlate they deny the Church they say is the Correlate and they say the London Ministers confess this p. 151. where they say the Minister hath a relation to the Catholick as well as to the particu-Church so that they seem to contradict themselves This is the substance of what they say p. 4. Whence they propound to speak to two questions 1. Whether Office be a relation to the work of the Ministry or to the Church 2. Whether Office hath relation to the Church universal or to the particular Church They are both of them very important questions To the first of them our Brethren speak Chap. 1. where they undertake to prove That the Office of the Ministry is not a Correlate to the work of the Ministry But to the Church and this they endeavour by four Arguments That the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the persons towards whom it is to be executed is most freely on our parts confessed But that it should be no correlate to the work is I confess such an absurdity in my ears as will offer too much injury I think to common sense Officium est relatio personae ad certi operis necessariam effectionem Martinii Lex Philol. ad verbum Officium Learned Martinius if this be an errour is in the same mistake with our Brethren in London he sayes in terminis that an Office is the relation of a person to the doing of a certain work If I remember my Logick right those things are Relations which either have their whole being in their respect to another or any other way referred to it this I learned out of Aristotle Burgefdecius c. now Cui convenit definitio ei convenit definitum if the definition of Relations will agree to the Office of the Ministry and the work they must be Relations or else we understand not our Brethrens meaning I then thus argue for our Brethren of London to maintain their skill in Logick Arg. 1 If the Office of the Ministry either hath its whole being in relation to the work or be any other way referred to the work Then the Office and employment according to Logick are relations But the Office and work of the Ministry have at least one of these references each to another Ergo. If our Brethren deny the Major they deny the Logical description of Relations and so can build no arguments from the Canons of Logicians about them If they say the Office neither hath its whole being in the work nor is any other way related to it I think they deny common sense Arg. 2 Again The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the Office of the Ministry is terminated in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate If our Brethren deny the Major they again deny all Logick If they deny the minor it is that which every one apprehends and it is all one as to deny the Sun shineth at noon day But our Brethren having brought us four Arguments it is fit we should examine them For the first they say the work cannot be a Correlate to the Office Because Relations cannot be separated they are simul naturâ take away one and you must take away the other but the work of the Ministry by the sickness death imprisonment or rejection of the Minister may cease and yet according to our principles the office doth not cease a man is a Minister in office though he cannot do the work Hence they observe that whereas our Brethren of London thought that by fixing the relation between the work and the office because a Minister may be separated from his Church they had secured the permanency of the office These Brethren think that they have deeply fallen into the same pit because the work may cease This is the substance of p. 5. which in form is thus Relations and Correlations exist and perish together But according to your principle so do not the office and work of the Ministry Therefore they are no relations The major they say is the Certain rule of Relations in Logick The minor they prove because we will not say the office of the Ministry in a man ceaseth when he is kept from doing his work by sickness imprisonment banishment rejection c. I answer 1. They call the major the Certain rule of Relations But neither tell us of what Relations nor in what sense Logicians understand that rule and reason will enforce for the
he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. That they may do acts of office and authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him
who preacheth is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty This is so rational that none can deny it for sin is the transgression of a law and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural divine positive or humane now this is certain that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse or reads a chapter he must be specially authorized to preach or I shall not be specially obliged to hear 2. The second principle is this That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer I think that none in their right wits will deny this hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow from this principle 1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed let who will preach none are bound to come to hear but they may all stay at home and read a good book if they please for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach and so none under an obligation to hear 2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait upon any publike Ordinance which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls than reading a chapter at home doth The reason is because no particular Churches are formed and there can be none in office It is not the place or company but the person administring who makes the ordinance publike 3. Where there is a particular Church formed it is true the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer but for all others if they do stay at home and read a chapter or a good book they sin not for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them than they have to preach at home one to another 4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach if he be not a member of his particular Church he cannot come in faith believing upon the account of any precept or promise that the word heard shall profit him any more than if he had staid at home and heard his servant read a chapter for he that preacheth stands in no office is clothed with no more authority toward him No he is only in office to the members of his own Church 5. If any pastor of any particular Church at any time uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person who is not an actual member of his Church he sinneth against God doing an act of office to a person to whom he is in no office and hath no authority And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to consider to what Atheiâ—m and confusion this one principle improved would in a short time bring us And I am verily perswaded that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion are of another mind from these three in this point for so wise and learned men can never surely think that when at any time they preach in any place or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches they preach but as gifted brethren so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom is under as much appointment of Gods for the salvation of souls as theirs is yet this is a true conclusion from this principle up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be performed by an officer which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world As for their third chapter I might spare my pains in answering of it for it is but a conclusion from their premises in the first and second chapter and it is too much to deny the premises and conclusion too In this third chapter they give us the description of office then indeavour to prove it and lastly draw two conclusions from it their description is this Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified Preaching without Ordination p. 14. founded upon a special and regular call 1 This definition offends two logick rules say we which are these Aristot l. 6. top cap. 5. That all definitions should be adequate That is nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel as I proved before yet that is put into the definition secondly Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified or in the notion of a regular call which I suppose our brethren will not grant Arist top l. 6. a p 1. 2. A second rule is this That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species The ministerial office is a Genus here defined but there are diverss ministers say we that have no such particular Church for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo without a title to a place was no divine order but prudential to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministery and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense doth relate to a particular Church but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense and as it is used in Scripture both in Jeremy 3.15 Eph. 4.13 Our Brethren expound their description For the Genus we allow what they say Office is a Relation Their terms of relation we deny we say the particular Church is not the only correlate but the Vniversal Church is also a correlate to the office yea and the work yea God himself and all Nations of which before Here 's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered besides that term Angel of the Church used Rev. 2.1.8 c. To which I answer that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est it is very disputable whether a single person or the Presbytery be meant by that term 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church But not the flock as our Brethren say The Apostles ordained the Deacons not the flock It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy Acts. 6. and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete As to the formal cause
we cannot agree with our brethren that a special regular call is it in the sense they understand all we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External and the Apostle proveth it How shall they preach except they be sent that is they cannot Rom 10.10 Now Forma dat esse Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5 where they argue thus If the Church should chuse a Deacon much more their pastor Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis from the lesser to the greater and they argue affirmatively See more as to these texts in â—â—y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer then they ought to chuse the greater But this is false Logick our brethren will easily see it in other things will these things follow If a man can carry an hundred pound weight then much more a thousand If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant then much more a Colonel Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching Besides did the peoples choice there make them officers surely the text sayes no such thing the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves ver 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained not chose as our Brethren do The word signifies to stretch out the hand and by that sign to chuse 2 Cor. 8.19 but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here Not alwayes witness Acts 10.41 Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining and so it signifies saith Stephen when it governs an accusative case But allow it to signify chuse they were Paul and Barnabas that chose not the Church in our brethrens sense Let any one one compare v. 20 21 22 23 and ell me of whom that word is predicated So that both â—ur Brethrens texts fail with all that is built upon them in their book As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general That the work of the Ministry is the End and so far allow their proof Eph. 4.11 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant I am sure the text sayes no such thing nor any thing like it except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries or inferences First That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church The second is this That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono by office and by gift is founded on Scripture 2 Conc. As to the first I have already proved the contrary for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the worke but to the Church Nor to the Vniversal Church but to the particular Church which foundations I think I have shaken so that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure As to the second we allow it in two cases first for Trial sake for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons 1 Tim 3.10 and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I mean ordinary officers for Apostles c. were not the same species of officers 2. In cases of Necessity In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had which was the case Acts 9. Necessity we say hath no law In such a case as I said before the Levites killed the sacrifice at Hezekiahs passeover which else they ought not to have done We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono by vertue of gifts only Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say by way of Limitation or Explication of the question is summed up their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed and stated IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject and the Predicate For the Subject they tell us it is not every Christian but every one that hath gifts 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts but who really hath and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no according to Acts 6.3 but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach especially in some cases without such approbation As to the Predicate By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to be it in publike or in private to a Christian or to an idolatrous assembly thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify Lu. 16.16 1 Cor. 9.16 Acts 13.32 Rom. 20.15 Acts. 5.42 Acts. 8.35 Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching Jus divinum p. 77. much they say to them who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively they say authority is taken for a right and lawfull power Lu. 20.2 Secondly for majesty and gravity Mar. 1.22 Tit. 2 15. Thirdly for office-power In the last sense they grant it in the two first they say gifted men may preach authoritatively this is the substance of what they say in many words To all which I answer 1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question if I mistake not it amounts to no more than this Every private Christian may not preach but every one that can or will may for what should hinder him who shall be judges of his aptness to teach shall the Church but by what rule Secondly suppose he will not submit shall the gifted man sin no say our Brethren It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents but for ought we know it is lawfull So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak Our Brethren tell us the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was
a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 â—te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone◠〈◊〉 â—is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the
will prove that by the authority of this Text he who hath a gift of wisdom may use it in the Magistratical service or that he who hath a gift of knowledge or zeal may administer the two Sacraments meerly by authority of his gifts without any more ado And this is enough for their Fifth Chapter CHAP. IV. Containing a short Answer to the three latter Arguments brought by our Brethren for Gifted mens Preaching in their Sixth Chapter from a pretended promise annexed to it The preaching of Apollo and the scattered Saints and the prophecying and Prophets mentioned in 1 Cor. ch 12. ch 14. OUR Brethren in their Sixth Chapter produce three Arguments to prove the Lawfulness of persons Preaching if Gifted though not Ordained Their first is this The Preacher sent chap. 6. That practice which hath a Gospel Promise annexed is warrantable But the Preaching of some such hath a Gospel Promise annexed Ergo. The Major we grant the Minor we deny They prove it from Mat. 25.29 For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance Let us put it into Form What the Gospel promiseth unto him that hath a talent i. e. that improves it That it promiseth to Gifted mens Preaching without Ordination Here 's enough Let me have the same Liberty and our Brethren will quickly see the vanity of this Argument What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talent i. e. that improves his talent that it promiseth to every one that will having a gift of wisdom and justice execute justice though not any other way called to it than by his gifts But the Gospel promiseth c. Or thus What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talent or ability i. e. that by practice improves it that it promiseth to gifted persons that have ability to baptize and administer the Supper and will do it without any other authority than what their gifts give them Therefore gifted men not Commissionated for the Magistracy nor ordained to the Ministry may execute justice and administer Sacraments I believe my Lord Protector will hardly allow the first and I think our brethren will not allow the latter and when our Brethren have found out a distinction to help themselves we hope it will help us Our Brethren pag. 63. say plainly they restrain not the Text to preaching Gifts But they must do it or else our Arguments from it are as good as theirs and if they do restrain it we shall hardly rest in their sense without good reason to justifie their restriction And this is enough for their third Argument to which the same answer may be applied which was given before to that drawn from 1 Pet. 4.10 Let us see if they be more happy at a fourth Their fourth Argument is drawn from Gospel Presidents thus formed The Preacher sent or preaching without Ordination p. 66. What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents with Divine allowance may be practised But the ordinary exercise of preaching Gifts in publick Assemblies c. Is so holden forth Ergo. I can neither allow the Major nor the Minor I cannot allow the Major in the terms our Brethren have put it for they might as well assume But Apostleship or an universal inspection and government of all Churches is holden forth by Gospel Presidents Paul and Peter Therefore we may have Popes Archbishops and Bishops Or thus But the Holy kiss and anointing with oyl are held forth by Gospel Presidents with divine allowance Ergo Mr. Tilham and Mr. Pooly are in the right If our Brethren understand the Major thus I shal◠allow it What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents to be in ordinary Cases a standing practice may be lawfully practised Then we deny the Assumption viz. That the preaching of Gifted persons in the sense before expressed is by any Gospel Presidents held forth as a standing practice to be continued in the Church of Christ Our Brethren prove it 1. By the instance of Apollo upon which they descant à p. 66. ad p. 73. 2. By the instance of the scattered Saints Acts 8. 11. upon which they descant ad p. 88. It must be granted that the Scriptures say that Apollo spake and taught diligently Acts 11.24 25. and that some of the scattered brethren preached But to answer all in short Every understanding Reader will grant the Argument being ab exemplo pari If these examples prove not paria matches the Argument falls to the ground If either there were not a parity of species in their gifts or in their acts or not a parity in the state of the Church at that time with that which is the present state of it now we say that in some if not in all these their argument from hence halteth First I say there must be a parity in the species of their gifts for I hope our brethren have no design to put this fallacy upon their Readers if those who were furnished with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost suited to the first plantation of the Church might preach then those who have but very ordinary gifts according to the size of these times and the opportunities of that little leisure they could get from their Trades may do the like this were just such an Argument as if one should conclude that because one who had the gifts of healing might go to a sick person and anoint him with oyl and lay hands on him and pray and by a faith of miracles believe he should upon this recover therefore one may do so now So that if it appear that Apollo or those Acts 8. or 11. had gifts of another species either Office or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which all grant to be now ceased our brethrens Argument sinks Now let us examine the instances by this rule According to which our brethren have been told concerning Apollo 1. That he is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1.12 called a Minister 1 Cor. 3.5 2. That it is very probable his gifts were of another species from that which our gifted men now adays have it is said he was mighty in the Scriptures Our brethren say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it but as I take it they assert and should prove however we have proved that he is called a Minister and ranked with Paul and Peter But say our brethren this was afterward A very little time it seems for the Text saith he went soon into Achaia and in the first verse of the next chapter he is reported in Corinth So that it is plain that he preached only in order to Office that he might be proved in which case our brethren know we allow preaching ex dono But Secondly for the scattered Christians they have been told 1. That it is the opinion of some these were some of the 70. whose Office-gift was of another species being an extraordinary Mission 2. That the Sctipture saith expresly of one of these Philip
therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith We use to teach our People that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will and the prayer is in Faith while he that prays believes God will do that which is most good for him so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift that he might be able to prophesie but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will and wisdom of God and doing so he might pray in faith though there were no such particular promise Object But say our Brethren this was impossible to be obtained 1 Cor. 12.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be If I should tell our Brethren here To God nothing is impossible they would think I equivocated with them yet it is the coyn they have much used in payment to me but where lyes the impossibility in respect of Gods revealed will they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be That Text indeed proves that all the Members of a particular Church cannot be officers to that Church and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word ears to hear and heads to govern whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage But surely it will not follow but that all those who are members in this particular Church may yet be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea and they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides universal holiness our Brethren know may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained We allow also that Text to prove that all the Members of the universal Church should not be ordinary Officers But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers Much less doth any thing they have said prove that all Christians in that Church might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office when God should set them in such relations Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound which our Brethren hint pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts as if God pleased so to imploy him he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an unerring Spirit and speak with tongues or be able to heal the sick provided his End were right in desiring For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by Joel and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for them they might pray for but 1 Cor. 14.5 I would that you all spake with tongues They proceed to the proof of the Minor viz. That the prophecying spoken of ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth this they prove from the terms ye and all v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer 1. Having denyed the Major and made good our denial of it I need not trouble my self with denying this 2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not include every individual always Are all Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29 Let us hear what they say to our Arguments to prove that these prophets were Officers 1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. Where they stand distinguished from the people and enumerated amongst officers placed before Evangelists and next to the Apostles To this they answer p. 93 94 95. 1. That priority of order is no infallible Argument 2. That some not Officers are enumerated 1 Cor. 12.28 and prophecie is called a gift Rom. 12.6 3. Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Prophets such as Acts 11.27 28. To all which I shall give a short answer 1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argumen where there is any other Scripture or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men to express the Order but we say our brethren have no such Text nor reason neither and that the Apostle in that Text Eph. 4.11 12. seems to rank Preaching Officers according to their dignity beginning with Apostles then reckoning Evangelists Thirdly Prophets Fourthly Pastors Fifthly Teachers And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints and the common Members of the Body of Christ 2. We say there are none but Officers mentioned Eph. 4.11 12. Nor any 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But such as were either officers or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost from whence we conclude That Prophets were either extraordinary officers or ordinary officers or gifted with extraordinary gifts peculiar to that state of the Church Now it is indifferent to us as to the present controversie of which it be understood So our Brethren will grant that one of them must be meant and so much that Text will evince If Gifted men be meant I wonder who are the Church in which they are set ver 29. Our Brethren say prophecie is called a Gift Rom. 12.6 but there is nothing plainer than that by gift is meant office to him that readeth ver 7.8 3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets Pag. 96. we take them at their word and say it is all we have been contending for only then it lies upon our brethren to prove that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church 1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it So say the Prelates for Arch-bishops and Bishops where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches and committing government to them was enough and the cessation of their extraordinary Mission was enough So we say for these Prophets the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experience is a demonstration to us that prophecie is ceased where is there any now that can without study and meditation infallibly give the sense of Scriptures from revelation or can foretell things to come we have pitifull experience every day 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 though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for prove they cannot do the later As we say to the Prelatical party so we say to our Brethren St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased Secondly Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift and therefore it continues the gift of tongues and healing in those days were ordinary yet
vindication of this Argument My fifth Argument was this Whosoever may lawfully Preach may lawfully require a maintenance of the Church to which they preach 1 Tim. 5.18 Mat. 10.10 Gal. 6.6 But all the Gifted Members of a Church cannot require a Maintenance of the Church wherein they are Ergo. Our Brethren deny the Major and say The Scriptures alledged speak of a constant preaching they say it but they do not prove it neither doth Matth. 10.10 nor Gal. 6.6 hint the least of such a thing the Scripture saith he that laboureth he that teacheth our Brethren add constantly by what authority I cannot tell But our Brethren have much fault to finde with my Minor it is neither true in matter nor form A little matter will make it true in both It is true by a slip of my Pen instead of the Church to which they Preach I put in the Church in which they are but it is the same thing for admit that they may prophesie I proved before from 1 Cor. 14.23 that they had no warrant to go out of their Church to do it If unbelieves come in thither well and good but they have no rule to go out to them Our Brethren here spend many words not to prove but to speak the same thing over again viz. That for occasional Preaching wages or maintenance cannot be required But where nothing is proved nothing need be answered and all that our Brethren preach upon this subject is both beside the Texts quoted by me and without a Text produced by them My sixth Argument was from Rom. 10.15 This they say they answered before indeed their whole Seventh chapter was spent in an endeavour to that purpose It is too large to describe for it reacheth from pag. 116. to pag. 138. of their Book I will therefore only lay before my Reader the Sum of my Argument and then give a summary of what they answer I argued thus Vindiciae Ministerii Pag. 43 44. What none may ordinarily do but those that are sent that persons meerly gifted may not do But none may ordinarily Preach but those who are sent Rom. 10.15 Ergo. I proved the Major thus What none may do but those who are sent that none may do who are not sent But persons meerly gifted are not sent Ergo. The proof of the Minor brought me to examine what it was to be sent Reason told me Sending was the Act of another or others none can send himself Those who send are either God Angels or Men to the second none pretends of the first the Text must be understood Gods sends either immediatly or mediately immediately by a voice from heaven of this the Text cannot be meant for then farewell preaching yea and believing too according to the force of that Text. God sends mediatly by his Church either by his Church electing or ordaining Let it be which way it will meer gifts will not serve the turn This was the substance of what I said Now let us hear what our Brethren say 1. They grant Mission is of ordinary Teachers pag. 118. 2 That it continues in all Ages but deny it essential to the constitution of a Minister by that Text but say it is necessary to the Act of preaching p. 119. 3. They deny the major of my first Syllogism and the minor of my second and say gifted persons are sent 4. They say the sending there is not an act constituting an Officer 1. Because some who were Officers before had Mission afterwards Matth. 28.19 2. Because it may be repeated without losing the office Matth. 10.5 6.7 Chap. 28. v 19. 3. Because some had Mission who were no officers Luk. 10.1 Because all that are instrumental to Conversion would then be judged Officers Rom. 10.14 5. They say Mission is not ordination 1. Because no Scripture saith it 2. Because then Deacons are sent Acts 6.6 3. Because Mission may be iterated but not ordination Matth. 10.5.28.19 4. Because a Church may Ordain its own Minister but cannot send to it self 6. They grant bare gifting is not sending Matth. 10.1.56.7 Sending doth not make but suppose them Preachers 7. Sending they say is Christs commanding by his word or assigning Preachers to go and publish the Gospel 2. Or a providential disposing them to this or that people Upon this they Comment largely that this is sending they prove p. 129. by Isa 6.8 9. Jer. 14.14 15 23 21. Matth. 10.5 8. They judge the sense of the Text to be a providential sending p. 136. except they be ordered by Providence to go to such a people I never love to throw a needle into a bottle of Hay it is so hard to find it again in these 22. pages our little Argument is almost lost in short the Question is this whether gifted men as gifted be sent or no if they be not they cannot actually at least Preach Let it be naturally or Morally impossible They cannot preach except sent Our Brethren must say they are sent and so deny the Minor of my second Syllogism I proceed If they be sent it must either be by Christ or by Antichrist But we say they are not sent by Christ I hope our Brethren will say they are not sent by Antichrist Ergo not at all We prove the Minor If they be sent by Christ it is either immediately or mediately But neither immediately nor mediatly Ergo not at all Our Brethren must deny the Minor and say they are sent immediately for if they be sent mediately it must be by his Church commanding electing or ordaining which soever of these it is it is more than gifted The last our Brethren deny the second is non-sense viz. to say the Church sends by electing choosing and sending are two things as to the first our Brethren judge it not necessary though convenient If their Mission be immediate We always thought it must have been by Christs own voice as he sent the 70. and the 12. or by a sign from heaven of his will as in the case of Matthias or by extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost inabling them to which was added a power of miracles to confirm their Mission and give them credit in the world But our Brethren have found out two other ways 1. By his revealed will in his word 2. By his Providence 1. As to the first our Breâ—hren have not proved it by one Text for all their Texts quoted concerning such Missions as were made or should have been made by an extraordinary voice either from God in heaven in a Prophetical vision Isaiah 6.8 9. Jer. 14.14 15. Jer. 23.21 Or from God incarnate on the earth Mat. 10.5 6. But that Gods revealed will in his word is called sending as his word is now written is not proved nor can be proved God commands men in his written word to believe repent to do good to all and to distribute but we no where find that this is called sending and we should think this strange language to
say God sends men tâ— relieve the poor But be it so at present We say the written word commands none to Preach but such as are ordained Our Brethren only say gifted men are allowed and they may do it occasionally no more therefore say they they are not to be maintained 2. Besides sending makes them Officers who ever I send is my Officer the Kings Ambassador is his Officer and so by this Rule they are all Gods Officers no man can send another but he is in office as to that whereabout he is sent nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary If a man be an Officer before another Mission makes him still an Officer those sent Luke 10.1 were Officers by their Mission though Mission may be repealed and yet the Office not lost yet Mission makes an Officer My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer as to that business and if I send him a second time my second sending makes him my Officer too I see no contradiction in that when the work is enlarged as in those instances Matth. 10.5 6 7. Matth. 28.19 Nor will it follow that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers because it is said How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard or how can they hear without a Preacher c. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases else a man may believe without hearing suppose a man be deaf and hear without a Preacher too c. 3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Providential sending and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach if God doth not by his providence direct or permit them to Preach if God doth not give them legs to stand and a tongue to speak Hence it follows That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is denied as if a man should say How can a man see if his eyes be out And this our Brethren own pag. 137. for they say all the other interrogations deny a natural possibility Christian Reader doest not thou think this had been a great Gospel-Mysterie worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans none could preach if they had no tongue to speak or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where But to evince this to be a vanity 1. If this notion of sending be true then none can run before they are sent for all motions are under the providence of God But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent 2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned 1 Tim. 3.6 were sent for they could never creep into houses but by divine providence Object But say our Brethren Gods command in his word must concur with his providence Answ What command is that 1 Pet. 4.10 say our Brethren As every one hath received the gift let him minister But say these men we have received the gift therefore we are sent who shall judge now Not the Presbyterie say our Brethren nor is it necessary the Church should say they Ergo t is enough they say they have and you ought to believe them and look upon them as sent till the great day comes which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order can any one think which Jesus Christ hath taken for his Church But I need not multiply words here our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending unless the Person â—o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word and they can shew no command conclusive in the case but for such as are otherwise sent then meerly gifted and providentially disposed Only I must examine their reasons why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended though we only contend it to be the ordinary Mission and that alone which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased as our Brethren easily will grant they be They say 1. They no where finde Ordination called Mission But this falls as heavily on our Brethren for they cannot finde us any Text where the Command of God in his written word is called sending 2. We find Acts 13.3 Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas They fasted and prayed and laid their hands on thâ—m and sent them away if the last words be not exegetical of the former our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth in sending them that is called by that name 2. Because our Brethren finde Deacons were ordained but they do not finde they were sent It doth not follow that because the Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending on the Churches part therefore no Ordination is or may where the persons are ordained Officers to more then those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them 3. Because Mission may be repealed but not Ordination According to our Brethrens principles Ordination also may But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned Matth. 10.5 6 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission we do not say Ordination is so There was a new work to do but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do which shall need require a new ordination 4. Our Brethren say None can send to themselves But a Church which hath a Presbyterie may Ordain its own Officers Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers no more will I if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Churches have excepting onely Cases of necessity but although a Church cannot send to its self yet it may send one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member a Citizen of Norwich may properly enough send a Message to the Corporation though himself be a Member of that Corporation and the person thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholick Church to all which he is sent And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15 My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a topick From the contrary practise and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches and all Reformed Churches Our Brethren make light of this But in cases where the Scripture speaks at best but so darkly on our Brethrens side and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty we think it very much if we can say with the Apostle If any list to be contentious we have no such custom neither we nor the Churches of Christ And in cases which are dark we follow the guidance of Christ while we walk by the footsteps of the flock and feed our kidds by the shepherds tents Cant. 1.8 CHAP. VI. Containing a review of some passages in our Brethrens Book and in my answer where is examined whether the Baptism of Christ and John are according to our Brethrens sense to be distinguished Our Brethrens three Texts for Election by a particular Church arâ—
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all To which I answer 1. Our Brethren know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in Scripture always signifie either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of nor yet the Major part How many times in Scripture is Christ said to have died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all yet Christ neither Died for every individual man nor for the Major part of men Mat. 3.5 6. It is said That all the Region round about Jordan went to hear John and were Baptized of him confessing their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region nor yet the major part did either go to hear or were baptized or confessed their sins Christ tells the Pharisees they tythed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—very herb yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees or any other Jews Gardens so that this word will not conclude especially considering what reason we have to believe the contrary viz. that neither the whole nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls 120. were in it Acts 1.15 3000. more were added Acts 2.41 5000. more added Acts 4.4 here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls Now let any one in reason judge 1. What one place in Ierusalem could well contain them except the Temple and whether it be probable that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither enough to have made a good Army the major part of these must be above four thousand 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too for Acts 6.1 there was a murmuring about the poor between the Grecians and the Heâ—rews we therefore think it more probable that the Apostles spake to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them and if our Brethren talk till Dooms-day they can prove no more from this Text. And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in reference to this Text and enough to shew it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake viz. That the whole Church or Major part of it must of divine right choose its own Officers I come to their third Text. Acts 14.23 I will transcribe ver 21.22 Ver. 21. And when they that is Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel in that City and had taught many they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch Ver. 22. Confirming the souls of the Disciples and exhorting them to continue in the Faith and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God Ver. 23. And having ordained or chosen it is no matter which as to our Brethrens purpose them Elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed 1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said something to it before but I would fain know of any one that understands sense whether those that ordained or chose were not those that confirmed and exhorted v. 22. those that preached and returned again to Lystra c. ver 20. If they were it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men 2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what other Syntax of the words according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured Object But the Disciples are twice mentioned v. 22. Answ T is very true but not as the persons confirming and exhorting but as the persons confirmed and exhorted so they are mentioned here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the dative case the other the nominative Our Brethren say that Dr. Ames saith it may include the Disciples too or they might go before the Disciples I answer what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove that the people ought to choose not that it may be they may choose But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing or ordaining here was such as could not be performed onely by Paul and Barnabas 1. They say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in Scripture for laying on of hands This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here I hope our Brethren know there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case where it signifies the people choice The word is indeed used but twice more in the New Testament once for choosing by suffrages once otherwise for Gods destination and appointment Acts 10.41 Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes c. should so use it But if they mean that in Civil Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for the constituting of a person in Office without the peoples suffrage if they look Stephen or Hesychius or Budeus they will better inform them Hesychius saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is nothing to the present purpose we say if it signifies choosing here yet Paul and Barnabas chose 2. Our Brethren say this could not be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choose by suffrages now Paul and Barnabas could not make suffrages All this is a riddle to me for if I understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— signifies the hand not the tongue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to stretch out not to speak the word no otherwise signifies a choosing by suffrage than the lifting up of the hand did testifie the suffrage But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages Surely they made two and that is the plural number sure The truth is the primary signification of the word was to choose by lifting up of the hand in token of their consent to a person named for an office now in regard this made vulgar Officers the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office whether there were an hand lifted up or no thus it is used in Scripture too Acts 10.41 chosen or appointed before of God yet I hope our Brethren will not say that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage and if two persons according to our Brethrens Grammar cannot make suffrages surely one indivisible God could not 3. But say our Brethren the thing intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉