not the Office that is in thee So it would follow that either Timothy had the extraordinary gift when not the Office or the Office when not the gift that qualified for it It is a feeble Argument that cannot stand unless there be a receding from the usual signification of divers words and a plain sense of the Texts alleadged for it And himself can find their argument to amount but to an it may be and so we may retort upon him what he groundlesly saith to us pag. 126. all the answer it deserves is it may not be he should not onely have shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for Office and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but that they must be so taken here else their Argument is invalid We said one relate gives being to another Object It is true in esse constituto but consider relations in esse constituendo as they are to be constituted and so somewhat else gives being to them the husband gives being to the wife and the wife to the husband but there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation to wit the act of the Justice or Minister pag. 151. Answ Relata give being one to another in esse constituendo especially if they be voluntary Relations as this between Officer and a Church is thus a mutual Covenant or agreement constitutes one a master and another a servant and so for husband and wife the act of the Magistrate is not constitutive of the relation between man and wife but Declarative What he addeth about Titus was answered before he was not left in Crete to ordain only but to Preach and to perform other acts peculiar to his office CHAP. XIV Concerning the peoples power in some cases to Ordain THat in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers we proved by six Arguments Mr. Pool replyeth to three of them Argu. 1. Else Ordination were unattainable for there is not one precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over Ob. 1. There are divers practices lawfully used which yet we find no president for but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in as excommunication Mr. Pool p. 153. Answ If there be a precept for such practices as there was for excommunication Mat. 18. we do not require a president our Argument was from the want both of precept and president Ob. 2. It is against them if what they say be true then there is neither precept nor president for the ordaining of officers Mr. Pool pag. 153. Ans This is a great mistake also for we did not deny that an ordinary officer hath precept or president for acting in Ordination in the Church he is over but that any of the Texts alleadged for Ordination do warrant his ordaining out of the particular Church he is over this is it which we deny and so if a Church wanteth officers then those Texts warrant none in ordaining and other general Rules authorize no officers of other Churches to do it more then believers without office◠And this answereth also what he addeth pag. 153. 154. we grant that some acts of extraordinary officers are presidents for us but not such acts as are of an extraordinary nature or did flow from an extraordinary power In the act it self of ordaining the Apostles are presidents for us but if Ordination was upon the hands of Apostles Ministerially in every Church yet it doth not follow it ought to be so on the hand of every Minister in this the Apostles are not presidents because they were Elders in every Church so are not ordinary officers as we have proved That the proper Elders of every Church should carry on the work in their own Churches is according to the president but it reacheth no further Ob 3. For 1 Tim. 4. 14. we read nothing of them which was extraordinary Mr. Pool pag. 154. Answ 1. It s very probable it was an extraordinary Presbytery For there is not a word to evidence it to consist of ordinary persons Apostles were Presbyters 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. Joh. 1. and Paul one of the Presbytery 2 Tim. 1. 6. we proved before that no office was conveyed 1 Tim. 4. 14. and if it were onely an extraordinary gift no ordinary Presbytery could convey that himself saith the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary officers p. 150. he that will conclude it an ordinary Presbytery must argue a genere ad speciem affirmative and say it was a Presbytery Ergo it was an ordinary one 2. If it were an ordinary Presbytery which yet is not granted the Call to lay on hands was extraordinary by Prophesie as themselves confess Jus Div. Min. p. 167. and this is enough to our present Argument Ar. 2. Our second Argument is taken from believers acting in a Synod Act. 15. and other publick services Ob. 1. If there be Scripture precept or example for the one and not for the other then they may do the one and not the other Mr. Pool pag. 155. Answ Where hath he any Scripture precept or example for provincial National or oecumenical Synods invested with power of censures he must argue from a parity of reason which is no good plea in that case there being no institution for any such Assemblies if they were instituted their being warranted to do some services might by a parity of reason evidence them to be empowered for other services also and thus believers not in office have a warrant to act in other publick and more weighty services as Preaching c. Ergo they may act in this Ob. 2. I deny that the brethren acted in making the decrees thousands consent to acts of Parliament that have no hand in making them pag 155. Answ The acts themselves are ascribed to the brethren Act. 15. the whole Church is said to send ver 22. and the letters did run in their name ver 23. The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting c. All in whose name an act of Parliament runneth are not onely consenters but makers of the act so here As to what he saith pag. 156. to Numb 8. 10. we leave it to any unprejudiced Reader to judge whether their Arguments or our answers carry most evidence with them Ob. 1. This was an extraordinary case the Levites and Church officers were not yet instituted c. pag. 156. Ans Though the Levites were not instituted before yet there were other officers the Provincial Assembly tell us Jus Divin Min. pag. 188. Aaron and his sons were present and if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders Master Pool saith it is as if a man should argue gifted men may Preach where no Ministers are to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers
out of the World else the World would not hate them they are all gathered unto Christ Gen. 49. 10. The particular Church is a particular assembly or a Society of men assembling together for the Celebration of Ordinances according to Christs appointments not that their assembling thereunto constitutes them a Church but it is a main end of their union and the fruit issue and manifestation of their constitution by such union The meetings of the Jewish Church at appointed times were as extensive as the Church it selfe wherefore we yet conclude if no National meeting no National Church if no universal meeting no universal Church entrusted with the administration of ordiâ—ances according to the mind of Christ. 4. There are no distinct officers appointed for such a Church Ergo no such Church Exc. Dr. Col. No need of distinct Officers because the Officers of particular Congregations which as parts constitute the whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole The Church is one body and as it is una so it is unita in one common profession c. To the same purpose Mr. H. Every Minister hath an indefinite Office which is equivalent to a general Every Minister hath power in actu primo to dispense the word in any sacred convention and though not an actual Officer of the whole yet hath an habitual power c. Answ It cannot be denyed but in all civil policies our argument stands good no greater body is made up of lesser but it hath a greater authority distinct in Law and government from the lesser divers Townes united into one hundred divers hundreds into one County diverse Counties into one Common-wealth are in their several subordinations distinguished by several acts and Officers appointed unto them If diverse Churches were united into one Church surely it would be so also In the Jewish politie it was so besides the Ruler of the Synagogue besides the Priest and Levite through every Tribe disperced there was a greater authority distinct in Law and Government in order and ministration from them viz. the High Priest Who knowes not that a Church Catholick visible intrusted with the administration of Ordi nances bath been hotly contended for by the Papists as a fit body for the Pope their head But as earnestly contended against by the reformed They saw no truth in what Dr. C. affirmes viz. That a Church may be a universal visible yet have no Officer over it or Act performed in it but what is particular Nor will it salve the businesse to say every Minister is an indefinite Officer with habitual power c. An Officer actu primo to the Vniversal Church who as a Justice of peace may be commissioned for a County though exercising but in a part thereof For a Justice of Peace hath power by vertue of his commission to act in the whole County without any other Call fundamentum Exercitii which is Ans of the Assemb paâ— 10. denyed a Minister an Officer actu primo is furnished with all power needful unto and productive of a second act He that is general of an Army in actu primo hath power over the Army exercere cocrcere a particular Officer not so He that is a King actu primo hath power to governe a Kingdome a Mayor of a City not so When any thing is in the first act it is in a capacity for a second act in nature and extent like unto the first If a minister hath not the exercise of power in every Church if he hath not the foundation of the exercise in any but his particular Church to whom he stands related as their minister he is not a minister actu primo to every Church The case of an Officer definite to some viz. to a particular Church and indefinite to others viz. to a Catholick Church is a strange case instances sometimes given in Lawyers Physitians c. reach it not who as so are not officers over any nor have they office rule to paralel it There is no Church greater then that which hath power to hear and determine upon offences committed but that is particular Exc. Dr. C. This Argument is nothing to the Question which is not which is greater but whether there be any Catholick Church or no The particular Church hath not power of final determination Answ When a question is de toto made up of divers parts it being out of question that a whole is greater then its parts he that proves the preended whole not greater then the supposed parts pr ves that to be no whole and these to be no parts and so speakes to the Question and resolves it That power of final determination is in the particular Church we proved Mat. 18. 17. which Scripture either is no rule to bring the offence unto the Church particular at all or is a rule to end it there And if Christ hath placed power in the hand of seven we may not remove it to place it in the hand of seventy though more wise and juditious then the Exc. Mr. H. By the Church Christ doth mean the Elders The people never had any right of judicature among the Jewes but the Courts where appeales were from three Judges to 23. and from 23. to the Sanhedâ—im no Christian congregation was instituted when Christ spake Mat. 18. 17. It s to be taken therefore in the Jewes Dialect c. Answ That the eldership of a Church is by a Synechdochâ— called a Church in Scripture cannot be clearly evinced from one Text nor is it suitable to Mr. H. his principle to attribute that denomination to Officers either in congregational or classical or higher assemblies For he saith vindic p. 126. The body of Officers is a governing body But the whole Church whether general or particular is not a governing body Ergo Say we the body of officers is not the Church general or particular again every Church saith he is a similar part of the Catholick obtayning its denomination upon that account pag. 123. and else-where whence this is clear that the Eldership of lesser or greater Congregations is not a Church Such a body indeed is a body of Organs not an Organical body though it should be supposed a part of the Catholick yet could it not be said to be a singular part so that upon the account of similarity it should though a particular bear the name of the universal and be stiled a Church That offences among the Jewes were never brought before the people to be judged and sensured but before Officers meeting apart from them we believe not mos suit Hebraeis rem ultimo loco ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. eorum qui eadem instituta sectarentur producers cujus tamen multitudinis juditia seniores tar quam presides moderabantur Grot. in Mat. 18. 17. and this was the custome of Christians in Tertullians time who was converted to the faith Anâ—o
they ought to exercise their power every where if it were to his purpose but the Scriptures frequently witnesse and himselfe confesseth that they may not exercise that power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers 2. That any unblameable Officers of Christ should be iustly hindred from the exercise of all Office-power or have none that they can in Christs order exercise it upon whilst the Office-power continueth upon them in a strange paradox For all that have Office-power are actually and immediately under a command of Christ to do office-work as those Scriptures which speak of the duty of Officers do abundantly testifie and so Christ should command the same persons at the same time to do and yet not to do Office-work and then Christs commands should clash one with an other Now suppose such an Officer hath no particular flock and all Churches and Rulers deny their consent either from their being full of Officers or upon other lawful accounts in this case he will be justly hindred from the exercise of all office-power and hath none that he can exercise it upon for Mr. Poole confesseth p. 6. he may not exercise the power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers We might shew many other inconveniencies that the asserting officrs to have a habitual power over a universal Church draw along with it but we forbear saying onely this It doth not looke like the order of Christ that a Ministers power should extend to the Catholike Church when it is impossible that he should ever exercise that power it may be to the thousand part of that Church nay when he is by divine right fixed in a particular Church the residing in which forbiddeth his traveling to do acts of Office to the universal Premis 2. He premiseth pag. 7. that a general respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church This he illustrateth by an instance of a vast number of sheep which twenty shepherds are chosen to look unto and by the German Empire c. Ans 1. We deny that there is such a whole Church as he supposeth for which denyal we have given reasons else where And let the Reader take notice once for all that when ever we speak as if there were such a whole Church or Catholike Church we onely suppose it but do not grant it in his sense 2. Suppose there were such a Church we denie that any institution of Christ hath determined ordinary officers to have a general respect as Officers to the whole Church and so his infrances of a vast number of sheep and the Empire come to nothing 3 A peculiar respect to some one Church is inconsistent with the same relation to an other for nothing is peculiar but that which is appropriated Israel was Gods peculiar people that is his onely As to his instance about sheep we say If the Master of the sheep chooseth the twenty shepherds and committeth the whole number of sheep to them then the actual care of every sheep is upon every one and if but one sheep be lost every shepherd will fall under blame neither will the distributing the sheep into twenty parcels though some be careful of their parcels excuse any from blame the distribution or division being the act of the Shepherds according to his infrance not the Act of the Master If the catholike Church were thus committed to officers then every Officer would be blameable for the wandrings of any one member of that Church though their habitations were thousands of miles distant each from other But Christ hath committed onely a particular Church or flock of his sheep to the charge of any one of his officers and if others not of a mans own flock do miscarry his not seeking their reducement to the utmost of his ability and opportunity is a sin against charity but not against his office according to any Gosple rule that yet we can find The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is not rebaked for the miscarriages of the Church of Smyrna nor is the Angel of the Church of Smyrna reproved for the sins of Pergamus or Thyatira or Sardis Revel 2 and 3. but every Angel is reproved for the sins of that particular Church which he was set over As to his instance of the German Empire page 8. we say it hath a vast disparity in it to the case in hand For there are no acts to be performed in the Church to make a double relation necessary answerable to those in the Empire If no Emperours were to be chosen or acts of general concernement to the whole Empire as such to be exerted those Princes or Electors would not sustain any such general relation to the whole Empire and there being no universal Church-officer to be chosen or any acts of instituted worship to be performed which are peculiar to a universal Church as such hence the cases are vastly different and also it is very improbable that such an order should be of Christs appointment They have not one by Systeme of Lawes neither are these Electors or Princes intrusted with a joint-power for the ordinary government of the whole but every free Prince hath power to make what Lawes he will and if he will allow every congregational Church as entire a power within it selfe as every of those Princes hath within his own Territories we suppose no power beyond that will belong to any but Christ himselfe Ob. The Apostles were Pastors of the whole Church yet the work was divided among them and they undertook aspeciall relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jewes and Paul to the Gentiles James to Jerusalem c. Mr. Poole pag 8. Ans 1. The Apostles were extraordinary officers our question is onely about ordinary officers 2. The Apostles had immediate directions from the Lord where to labour in the work of their office Act. 13. 4. Act. 16. 9. Act. 10. ver 19. 20. yea that committing of the Jewes to Peter and of the Gentiles to Paul seemeth to be by immediate ducture from the spirit Gal 2. ver 7. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles The Lords making such a division if it were one was sufficient to give them a dispensation for acting in Office-work elsewhere until fresh instructions came But ordinary Officers have no such directions from the Lord or any thing equivalent to them and so are obliged to perform acts of Office to all Churches in the world and sin if they do not according to him for they have no dispensation from the Lord for acting in any and without that they must act to the utmost bounds of their relation 3. Apostles were not so limited and confined in their Office unto those which especially were committed to them as ordinary Officers are to their particular Churches the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul and the Gospel
Ordinance appointed for his good is according to Mr. Poole a Church-member But he who is excommunicate for blasphemy denying Christ c. is under a Church-Ordinance for his good Ergo According to Mr. Pool he who is excomunicate for blasphemy denying Christ c. is a Church-member And that the same ordinance of excommunication doth passe upon some and cut them off from Church-membership and passe upon others and leave them members still let him prove 4. Neither they in their Jus Divin Min. nor we in our former book do speak of the ceasing of baptism as to the actual priveledges of it or as to mens account onely or chiefly but about the ceasing of the water baptism it selfe And therefore what Mr. Pool sâ—ith p. 27. is altogether besides the question Neither doth his instance of circumcision help him for if any turned heathen or Idolater and renounced his circumcision yet he remained a circumcised person and his circumcision might be a witnesse against him though he were to be reputed as a heathen while such And so we apprehend though a baptized person ceaseth by excommunication to be a member of any visible Church yet this baptism ceaseth not but if it did really cease as they say it doth rebaptizing would necessarily be inferred 5. If baptisme it selfe about which the question is did cease upon the cessation of membership in the visible Church that upon the persons Repentance the Lord should impute his former baptism to him is such a notion as to use his own phrase in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any such thing 6. If a man ceasing to be a member of a particular Church should make his baptism cease upon its being the door of admission into that as they assert then a pari a mans ceasing to be a member of the catholick Church by excomunication or otherwise would make his baptism ceasesupon its being the door of admission into that so rebaptizing must follow upon re-admission so that this falleth heavie upon their principles But it toucheth not us because we deny baptism to be the door of admission into anâ— Church and this answereth what he saith pag. 27. He saith pag. 28. we grant that baptism was a sign of a mans admission to the Church Reply He much mistaketh us for we do not grant that its Sacramental use is to be a signe of admission into the Church But in regard Church-member-ship is pre-required unto baptism hence as things consequential are signes of what is antecedent and fruit a signe of a tree so baptism if orderly administred is a sign of admission into a Church We grant it to be a signe of ones being ingaged for the profession of the Name of Christ He asketh pag. 28. what is a Church but a company of men professing the name of Christ Reply 1. We speak onely of a subsequent sign which presupposech his being admitted into the Church and being engaged for the name of Christ and so is not the door of admission 2. A company of unbaptized persons may profess the name of Christ Ergo According to Mr. Pool they are a Church and then baptism cannot be the door of admission into the Church We said baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church by which we intend onely this that baptism doth not admit a man into any Church Mr. Pool pag. 28 calleth this a monstrous paradox which should not have been dictated without any proof c. Reply We have not meerly dictated it but have given clear proof for it Preacher Sent pag. 284. 286. 292 293. himselfe granteth that both infants and otners are Church-members inchoate before baptism pag. 24. Church-membership is a relation and as it were grossely improper to say that a man is a Father or Master c. inchoate but not a compleat Father or Master so its improper to say that one is enchoate only a Church-member and therefore they are admitted not by but before baptism But that baptisme doth not make men members of the Church is largely proved in the answer of New-England Elders to the 32. Questions pag. 12 to 20. Ob. 1. We are all baptized into one body 1 Corin. 12. 13. By which it is most evident that baptism gives a man relation to some body c. Mr. Pool pag. 28. Ans The whole stresse of this Argument dependeth upon translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into whereas it is frequently used to signifie in is Mat. 2. ver 23. He came and dwelt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a city c. So 1 Peter 5. 12. Acts 2. 27. Luke 11. 7. Mark 1. v. 9. were baptized of Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jordan and hence v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the River Jordan That which is expressed by iâ— in one verse is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other All which clearly sheweth that no argument can be grounded upon its signifying into and if it be rendred in as often it is in other Texts then his argument commeth to nothing whether it be the visible or invisible Church that is there intended for it runneth thus by one spirit we are all baptized in one body then they are first in that body baptized after so baptism is not the door of admission or doth not give relation to that body 2. An Antecedent enterance into a relation is usually expressed by a subsequent adjunct of that relation as an enterance into Kingly government is expressed by Coronation and Gen. 45. 10. The Scepter shall not depart c. i. c. there shall be one to bear the Scepter There becoming governours is denoted by a Scepter which is a subsequent signe of Governement so if 〈◊〉 be rendred into yet it may be onely an adjunct priviledge of Church-membership and not that which maketh to stand in relation to any body or Church 3. There are different gifts and graces in the members of the mystical body of Christ and therefore these cannot prove it an Organical political body yet what doth the Apostle say more of this one body But whatever the body be the relation thereto is not proved to be by baptism as Mr. Cartwright observeth on Gal. 3. 27. where we are said to put on Christ by baptism it is the usual phrase of the Scripture which giveth that unto the Sarcrament which is due unto the thing whereof it is a Sacrament So here Ob. 2. That which makes a man visibly stand in relation to Christ that makes him visibly to stand in relation to the Church but baptisme makes a man visibly to stand in relation to Christ Ergo Answ Both Propositions are false 1. His major is untrue because a visible relation to Christ must precede or goe before a visible relation to the Church for none but visible Saints or believers are to be admitted into Church relation Acts 2. v. 47. They were saved ones i. e.
brethren as we shewed Preacher sent p. 326. As to what he saith pag. 142 to Tit. 1. 5. we answer We do not call ordination an unnecessary adjunct The Apostles paines might have been very usefull in other places when yet the Lord would have them abide at Jerusalem and so Titus at Crete The setting in order things that were wanting is expresly and firstly mentioned as the cause of Titus his staying at Crete and as that concerned but the wel-being of the Church no more did ordaining of Elders in every City for Churches have a being before Officers Acts 14. 23. and if Titus himselfe had acted in neither of these works but onely had taken the over-sight of those Churches and directed them therein yet it would have been necessary enough especially in that Infant state of the Church that Titus should a bide at Crete but doubtlesse he had preaching work enough there which was greater then his ordaining Elders Ob. 2. From the Nature of Election Deu. 1. 13. look what Moses was to the Jewes that are Ministers unto the Church c. Here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers onely the one is civil the other Ecclesiastical Mr. Pool p. 143. Answ 1. The Commonwealth of the Jews was a Thearchy in respect of the Legislative part of Government but it was a Monarchy in respect of the executive part and Moses the Monarch thereof the spiritual Commonwealth or Ministers not so 2. The power of Moses was Supream all other powers subordinate unto him the power of spiritual officers not so 3. Moses had power to appoint Officers of a new species under him Exod. 18. ver 24. Ministers not so 4. Christ is compared with Moses Heb. 3. not so with Ministers of the Gospel 5. Moses was over Babes and such as were under Tutors and Governours Ministers over a free people 6. Yet Moses gave to the people those that they gave to him so Christ the King D. 1. v. 13. 15. of Saints giveth unto his Churches those that according to his directions they chuse That freemen in a Corporation give the Essentials of a Call to their Officers c. is enough to shew that such as have no Office-power yet frequently do make Officers which answereth the Provinc Ass especially seeing they ground their objection upon a general Rule nihil dat quod non habet c. That Christs free-people may have office-power eminently in them as well as those instanced in is enough for us here we being in the defensive part But whereas he calleth p. 144. for Divine institution we reply 1. Many like instances lie giveth and we have as good reason to Call for a Divine institution there as when he telleth us pag. 7. of a vaste number of sheep committed to twenty Shepherds c and p. 8. of a general relation to the whole Empire a special respect to their own Territories we crave a Divine institution for any such order in the Church and so for his instances pag. 131. 132 about a presentation and the Archbishop and a D◠of Physick and 137. 138. of a Corporation a Court of Aldermen c. let him shew a Divine institution that it is so in the Church and why doth he require of us and not give it himself The use of such examples is to clear some general rule to illustrate and to shew that there are cases paralel and ours go thus far 2. We gave an institution in our Arguments to prove that Election giveth the Essence of the Call As to Ministers being before the Church we sufficiently disproved it in our former book pag. 303 304. It is evident that Churches were before Elders Act. 14. 23. it concerneth him to prove that any ordinary Elders were before a Church and that they act as officers to such as are no Church else he saith nothing to the purpose that Churches to are be gathered and baptized by them 〈◊〉 answered in the place even now quoted To prove that the Essence of the Cal I doth consist in Ordination they used five arguments he pleadeth for two of them The former is taken from 2 Tim. 1. 6. stir up the gift of God which is in thee 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee c. Object He saith 1. It was an ordinary Presbytery 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for Office as well as gift 3. That a man may be said to stir up his Office and office may be said to be in a man 4. That an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary officers who were inferiour to him 5. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the gift 2 Tim. 1. 6. and of the office 1 Tim. 4. 14. Mr. Pool from pag. 146. to 151. Answ 1. That it was an ordinary Presbytery is not proved extraordinary Officers were Presbyters 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly signifieth an absolute gift its questionable whether it be used any where for office 3. It is a stirring up as fire and it s very improper to say that office is so stirred up especially seeing the gift is said to be in him which is not true of office Though a man may be said to be in that which is in him as being swallowed up or overcome thereby as a man in sin in bear or drink in joy c. Yet it cannot with any propriety of speech be said that is in a man which is but upon him office is onely adherent to a man not inherent or in him it were very improper to say to a Major Bayliffe Justice Constable c. stir up the Office that is in you 4. If an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary Officers which is not proved yet their Argument is of no force unless he can prove that it was done here what he addeth pag. 149 of its being ordinary in state and Church for a Person to have an Office conveyed to him Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him c. doth plainly contradict what himself said p. 138. 160. That the less is called of the greater and by this Rule though the people be inferiour to their Officers yet they may convey their Office to them His instance of a King whose Office is conveyed by some of his Subjects if true proveth that those who are placed in a state of subjection yet may have authority enough to give the Essence to their Officers and so answereth what he saith pag. 139. 5. It is seldom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there is no evidence that it must be so taken here 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for gift 2 Tim. 1. 6. and for Office 1 Tim. 4. 14. is altogether without proof or probility of truth For as the phrase were improper neglect
how these arguings agree we know not Object 2. No doubt they were the first-born that did lay hands on the Levites Ans This is fully answered Preacher Sent pag. 344. most that he saith from pag. 157 to 161. is either inconsiderable or answrable or answered before Object 1. We hear not a syllable of the peoples concurrence in ordination c. p. 158. Paul in all his Epistles to the Churches speaks not a word about ordination surely the Scriptures silence is Argumentative p. 159. Ans If this will stand many of his principles must fall for we hear not a syllable in holy writ of the subordination of a Church of Christ in point of Government unto Assemblies made up of the officers of other Churches nor of the subordination of Synods one to another nor of its being an ordinary Presbytery which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. Nay there is not a word in Scripture for an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over upon an ordinary Call and so the Scriptures silence is as much argumentative in case a Church hath no officers in it against Ordination by officers of other Churches our officers as against Ordination by the people Object 2. There is the same reason for the Apostles being a president for Ministers baptizing and not the people and for their ordaining and not the people pag. 158. Ans We have reasons against the peoples baptizing which are not fetched from the president of the Apostles baptizing and which speak not against the peoples acting in ordination when a Church is without officers as for baptisme being a part of worship only by institution which as worship the people are no where warranted to perform in the acts of it whereas the Essential act of Ordination is prayer which though reqâ—â—red by Gospel Rules on that occasion yet in it self is an act of natual worship which the people may perform so Baptisme is a seal of the Covenant c. Ob. 3. We never find Ordination practiced but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. Ans 1. Then 1 Tim. 4. 14. cannot speak of Ordination by an ordinary Presbytery for Timothy was an extraordinary officer and so was not inferiour to an ordinary Presbytery either this or else what he saith p. 149. 154. must be false 2. We never find Ordination by ordinary officers upon an ordinary Call out of the Churches they are over and so the case is as difficult on his part as on ours His last Argument p. 160. viz. That Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in office we confuted before And thus we have finished our reply to the chief matters in his book onely for a conclusion he accuseth us to the Reader 1. For novel and strange passages 2. For self-contradicting passages Mr. Pool p. 160. 161. 162. 163. we shall briefly answer to these 1. As to his list of novel strang passages we answer 1. Our words pag. 13. do not so much as implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Jewes as a Teacher by office That Text Mat. 13. 54. 57. was alledged onely to evidence that stumblers at and opposers of the word in respect of him that teacheth may be said to be taught this is all we produce it for as any Reader may see and this it clearly proveth that no meer man can be an officer to such we prove but it is by other mediums not by that Text neither can any inferrence be drawn from our words against Christs being an Officer to such especially seeing Christ was an extraordinary person even the Law-maker and determiner who men should be Officers to As to the Apostles in a large sense they were officers to heathens but not Officers over them or in a strict sense as we have shewn in this book Ch. 7. 2. The second we own if the rest of our words be added to it neither hath he disproved it we would know from whom Apollo had a probation before his preaching 3. The third is proved in the pages he quoteth and also in this book Chap. 10. Let him evidence that an outward call from man is any where in Scripture stiled a mission or sending or that any but God doth send in the sense we take it in there We do not deny that a Church is to give a Call to Office but we deny that sending is that call 4. The fourth we own neither hath he disproved it and the same we say to the sixt and seventh As to the fist about administring the Sacraments not as Pastors we desire the Reader would view our former book pag. 280. and this book Chap. 6. As to the eight ninth we have spoken to them Ch. 6. 2. As to his accusation for selfe-contradicting passages we answer 1. We can find nothing like a contradiction in our words if pag. 20 and 149. be compared For if a man may lawfully preach yet may there not be divers things pre-required unto his preaching here or there May not a man have power to preach and yet want requisites unto the exercise of that power in this or that place do not they say a man may have power and yet without the consent of some or a special call may not exercise that power in such a place Jus Div. Min. pag. 144 Doth not Mr. Pool expresly assert it pag. 6. Yea he saith pag. 48. It is true no preachers are in Scripture oblidged to preach in such or such a place c. what do we say more We may turne his words pag. 163. upon himself say how can a man preach but he must preach in this or that place quod nusquam fit non fit So that the contradiction if it be one is as much his as ours 2 It is his grosse mistake to say that we are guilty of selfe-contradiction in the other two particulars which he mentioneth pag. 163. For what he rehearseth out of our book pag. 300. to make one part of the contradiction is an objection of theirs they are not our words but the words of the provincial assembly Jus. Divin Min. pag. 133. And that which he maketh the other part of the contradiction is our answer to the aforesaid objection and so we do but oppose them pag. 302. not contradict our selves They are their words from p. 300. l. 21. to p. 301. lin 14. this he might easily have seen though it be not printed in a different Character And now we shall put Mr. Pool in mind of some of his 1. novel and strange passages 2. Selfe-contradictions 3. Repugnancies to the provincial Assembly whose case he pleadeth the Dr. 1. novel strange passages 1. He saith that a Minister may be a Minister though he have no particular Church to which he stands related p. 11. by Minister he intends an officer pag. 10. 2. He saith that heathens are a part of Christs body pag. 13. And therefore are the object and
answer offered to them whereby it would come to passe that the cause would appear more weak when it wanteth no strength to support it And as there is liberty of spirit or vanity bewrayed even in the Drs. Title page so we meet with insulting language here and there in both their books all which considered we desire thou wouldst not think their books unanswerable if they reply to us and we do not answer agaâ—n 5. If thâ—â— requirest after that man of God Mr. Iohn Martin whose name is in the title page of our former book but not in this know beâ—â— gone to God and by a passage through the gâ—tâ—s of death hath obtained rest from all his labours who owned this cause in which he was ingaged with us to the last and witnessed his approbation and to use his owne expression when in his last sicknesse free concurrence with us in so much of his book as was prepared and came under his eve 6. That whereas Mr Charke of Waldron in Sussex in the latter end of his book hath pretended to answer six arguments which are found in the latter end of our book the reason why we gave him no reply is partly because of his book we apprehend him to be of such a spirit that an answer would only exasperate his corruption partly because his replyes are very weak and need no answer nor are worth the answering This is all at present onely That the Lord who gives the light without may annoint their eyes with eye-salve and make thee see is the prayer of Thine to serve thee in the work of the Gospel Frederick Woodal Sam. Petto Mon. 1. day 27. 1659. A vindication of the Epistle THe vindication of our Epistle to the former book intituled the Preacher Sent Wherein the nature of a Church capable of Officers and of being preached unto by such Office-wise is cleared from the exceptions of Dr. Collings in his reply and of Mr. Hudson in his addition or postscrip to his vindication of the Church Catholick visible As we saw it needful to assert in our other book our perswasion of the nature of a Gospel Church for the better clearing the nature of office and of power of preaching Office-wise therein So the Dr. saw it incumbant unto him to overturne if possible that foundation which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this controversie an account whereof was given by us in these words A-Church formed unto fellowship in new Testament Ordinances and is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the meanes of worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God and edification of their own souls and the good of others 1. This description he examineth in the six particulars thereof That it is a company he grants and that one cannot properly be called a Church we accept of this but if he thinketh by a figure one may be called so as his assertion qualified with a strictly and properly seemeth to imitate we doubt his figurative will be found not a Scriptural but anti-scriptural sense no better then that wherein a Prelate a Pope claimeth the denomination not as properly but vertuaâ—â— so against whose usurpations himselfe stands justly engaged as well may one man be called a City as one man a Church which cannot be in any sense 2 A particular company Dr. C. I cannot fathom your notion of particular c. Answ That notion is not singular a man cannot travel far in this controversie scarce in any author but he meets it and comes acquainted with it It is indeed opposed to universal 1. If a universal company of Saints holding forth the word of Life in a conversation becomming the Gospel may be called a universal visible Church 2. If all the members of particular Churches are or ought to be members of this universal yet the particular Churches themselves as such are not members That forme which giveth them their being as such implyeth another union and is attended with other Lambs and orders then the vniversall is ingaged in or obliged unto as shall more fully appear in its due place 3. As therefore a flock of sheep a swarme of bees being part of that company of sheep of Bees which is in the World may be called a particular company of sheep bees c. though as a flock Swarme they be no parts but otherwise distinguished and so a Church of Saints part of that company of Saints which is in the World may be called a particular company and stand related to the universal but as Saints not as Churches of Saints as we expressed our selves before under this head But the controversie is not onely about a word he now disputes for the term universal to have been put in the place of particular Dr. C. an universal theam in Logick is that which is apt to be predicated of many Church is such a Theam Answ We wonder that a man of learning should run into such a contradiction to Mr. H. unto whom we are sent for further light iâ— this controversie and also to himselfe within the verge of the same Paragraph 1. He contradicts Mr. H. who expresly denies that the Church Catholick is a Genus or universal notion and Theame apt to be predicated concerning many in the 4th Chapter of a vindication of the essence and unity of the Church Catholick visible 2. He contradicts himselfe when in the next leaf he affirms that the Church Catholick is Totum integrale which we are sure is not apt to be predicated of many naturally if the whole were predicated of the part The part might be said Vind. Sheibl Topic. Cap. 28. Sthal Axion Tit. 9. Reg. 9. to be the whole The head the body the branch the tree because Animal is predicated of Homo Homo is aptly said to be Animal But because he sends us to Mr. Hudson to Mr. H. we will go and willingly as to a man that understands himselfe whose moderation conjoyned with learning and diligence in this controversie though professedly against us we highly respect and value 1. He urgeth Scriptures where the word Church is used not applicable to a particular Church Acts 8. 3. c. 2. He useth arguments to prove that every Officer is an Officer to a universal because by baptism he admits into it and by Excomunication casts out of it not into or out of a particular onely Answ The term Church in the singular number is frequently used in Scripture to signifie not a universall Church nor a singular onely as in some of his Scriptures but this and that and the other particular as amongst many other in the Scriptures hereafter mentioned Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church i. e. this or that Church in which the offence was committed Surely none will say that after taking one or two the offended brother must in the next place tell it to the universal Church where doth any such Church meet for
Dom. 200 and had his approbation in his famous apology for Christians more then 1400 yeares old who Cap. 39. denies the Christians being a factious society as they were aspersed and shewes their manner We make saith he a Congregation by certaine knowledge all conspire in the service of the true God where we live united under one discipline c. We assemble together by Troops in our prayers to God in these assemblies we make Exhortations and Threatnings and Exercise Divine censure that banisheth sinners and excludes them from our communion c. That our Saviour in saying tell the Church should send his Disciples in case of scandal Suppose committed against Religion and his Law to those Courts to whom Religion it selfe was a scandal and offence is not by sober men to be imagined That he should allude to those Courts intending such like to be erected when the Jewish politie should be taken downe as it leaves the offended without remedy to day So the Rule impracticable till Christ be â—ead and risen again It is far more probable that as the Temple yet standing and the great Congregation meeting therein Pharisees Saduces Essenes c. Had their caetus proprios their distinct Assâ—mblies in which they did consult the peace and prosperity of their Order respectively and sensure and judge Offences committed against the Lawes and institutions thereof So Christ having gathered a company under him and made known his Law this company did meet together Acts 1. 21. where with reason we may conclude the concernments of Christianity were propounded and considered and offences heard and finally determined if this were the Church of which Christ Mat. 18. 17 doth speak it cleares our Argument but suppose the Rule were impracticable for the present yet he cannot so speak in the Jewes dialect as to assert that such Courts should â—e erected as were amongst them for the word Church is never used in Scripture for an Eldership but for a company of visible believers united to walk together in the same numerical Ordinances and it is plain that Christ would have the offence told to such an Assembly as he giveth the name of Church to And also Christs order here is quite different from that amongst the Jewes they after private admonition had not an institution for taking one or two private persons to admonish before bringing the matter to their Courts In the close of our discourse for the compleatnesse of a particular Church and against a Universal we minded this object viz. Though Churches meet not in all their members yet they may meet in their representatives which being met may be called a Classical Provincial or National Church To which we answered that such a Church is not a true Church Dr. Collings replyeth A Synod is a true Church or our definition is not true for a Synod is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in means of worship c. Answ To say a representative is a true Church is to speak contradictions If it be an image it is not a man if a shadow it s not a substance if the representative of a true it s truly a representative but not that which is represented in truth A Synod in Dr. C. sense differs from a Church by us described toto coelo 1 Saints as so are fit mater for a Church but saints as gifted are only fit matter for a Synod Saints qualified for Synodal debats and determinations 2. Saints as united are a Church or stand related unto it Saints or holy men delegated are a Synod or stand related to it 3. In a Church body members are united unto fellowship in meanes of instituted worship In a Synod unto council c. Here is differing matter differing form and differing ends But we now returne from walking the bounds of the Church to take a further view of the buildings thereof and of the precious stones therein we said of this particular company It is an Holy company a company of Saints This D. Collings grants Saâ—o sensu as he saith upon some arguments conclusive enough urged by us Mr. H. doth distinguish of Saints Some by dedication and consecration some by regeneration and supposeth we mean by visible Saints such as are so in the former sense Accordingly the Dr. not dealing with our arguments but going about another way doth deny that a visibility of saving Grace is needful to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it and Mr. H. saith we have no certain rule to judge of the regeneration of another In which discourse they do in effect speak thus unto us you do well to see that your Church members be Saints Holy persons but you have nothing to do to enquire about truth of Grace nor to conclude of Saintship and holynesse from the appearance or visibility thereof As if holinesse or saintship could under the Gosple be placed at the foot of any other account then that of the presence or appearance of Grace Special saving grace is indeed an invisible thing and of it we can make no true i. e. certain and infallible judgement yet we may and must make a Church judgement and a judgement of saving Grace in order to communion in the Lords Supper he doth allow though he saith a judgement of saving Grace is impossible what consistency there is in such expressions let him consider yea in the close of his Epistle he sits in judgement upon our hearts but how he should diserne our secrets that doth professe against inquiring about the inward work let the Reader judge The children of the members we regard as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. not barely from the parents profession but the manifestation of God saying he is their God and of Christ saying of such is the kingdome of Heaven they are partakers of that fulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as professors are which the Elect and called are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partakers of The Apostolical practice doth not evince Acts 2. Act. 4. That the thousands baptized were baptized upon a bare owning the Gospel without any respect to saving grace They which were baptized renouncing the Religion in which educated embracing the Gospel under persecution and contempt they were pricked in heart they gladly received the word Acts 2. 37. 41. a bare profession where that also is a carnal ingagement is not so signal in the hundred part His easy answer to our question concerning tryal of Grace in order to Communion in the supper and not to Church Communion is indeed as he calleth it an easy answer we no where find saith he let a man Examine himselfe and so come into the fellowship of the Church he thinks the 3000. and the 5000. had scarce any leasure before their admission to do it throughly Answ Commendable was that fear Acts 5. 11. not onely the fear of the Church but of others also ne laederent hunc caetum nec contemnerent nec
question it must have been Ergo Office is a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as its Correlate Arg. 2. The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is termniated Vin Revi But the office of the Ministry is terminated pag. 12. in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate Answ 1. An illogicall argument◠in the major the subject of the relation is remembred in the Minor it is forgotten and the relation it self put in the place thereof If it were in form it must run thus The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the subject of office relation is terminated in the worke Ergo work is the Correlate Answ 2. If his major be understood universally viz. That the correlate to any relation is any thing wherein the subject is any way terminated we may fairely deny this without denying all Logick If it be taken particularly it is not conclusive against us we grant that the Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is so terminated as the essence or being of the relation is introduced by its termination as a Father is so terminated in a Son or Child that he hath his being as a Father in having a Son or Child and therefore a Son or child is Correlate so in other such relations But the Correlate to any relation is not that wherein the subject is terminated as the end of the relation for the ends cannot be attained until the relation it self hath an actuall existence and exist it cannot without a Correlate As the relation of a Father is terminated in the worke of a Father as its end yet there must be a Son or child in being before the doing of that work and the same may be said of other relations as Master and servant Husband and wife c. and thus the work of the Ministry being the end of that relation there must be a Correlate in being before that worke can be performed and so work cannot be the Correlate If this will hold good in relations secundum esse that is enough in this matter to evidence his argument to be false for that runneth generally the Correlate to any relation c. and besides it doth not yet appear that officers are relations secundum dici 2. As to his Minor we say The office of the Ministry is not terminated in the work considered absolutely but respectively as the office of the Mayor of Norwich is not terminated in the work of a Mayor or Magistracy absolutely and so for Justices of the peace or other civil officers if they go out of the city Corporation or county whereunto they are limited they cannot act as officers and therefore their office is terminated in their work in such a place or amongst such a people And thus the office of the Ministry is terminated not in the work in general but with respect and reference unto such a people or such a Church Relata sunt aliorum Dr. Collings proceedeth in a reply to our four arguments which shews that worke cannot be the Correlate to the Office In answer to the two first he saith Ob. 1. Officers are Relata secundum dici not Relata secundum esse nominal relations not those that Logicians call real relations Vind. Revind pag. 14. 15. 16. Answ We suppose Dr. Collings is the first that hath ranked officers who are to be over others amongst those that are Relata secundum dici we have not met with any Logicians that have done in before him the Rules upon which our arguments are built are known by all that are acquainted with Logick to be true in such as are Relata secundum esse Answ 2. Against its being a Nominall Relation we shall offer an argument or two Arg. 1. If the office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation then it is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse or a real relation But the Office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation Ergo The office of the Ministry is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse The major none that is acquainted with Logick can deny The Minor appeareth because there is no other predicament that it is reducible to let him shew to which if it may be referred We yet adhere to Aristotle in this and Seton who giving an instance of predicamental relation giveth it in the office of Magistracy we suppose the office of the Ministry is in the same predicament with that Arg. 2. If officers qua officers have their whole being in respect and reference unto others then office is a Relation secundum esse but officers qua officers have their whole being in respect reference unto others Ergo office is a relation secundum esse The major he cannot deny The Minor he excepteth against Ob. But the Essence of office lyeth not in its relation but in that authority wherewith the person is cloathed by his ordination Vind. Revind pag. 14. Answ 1. Authority hath no Causal influence into office but floweth from it and followeth after it therefore the essence of Office doth not consist in it The London Ministers say Church Officers are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first recepticle or subject of Church authority Jus. Divin Regim pag. 163. If so then officers are before authority at least prioritate nature and then authority is but an adjunct which though a necessary concequent yet is no constituent consider Master and Scholers a Tutor pupils c. Ans 2 If this were true then it were possible for a relation to hold though every thing in the world should cease which it should stand referred to There might be a relation and yet nothing be related to or else ordination in such a case must be lost It is not proved that a person can stand cloathed with the authority of the Ministerial relation if there be no Church that he standeth related to Ob. 2. Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines Vind. Revind pag. 14. Ans Zabarel whom he mentionethis against him who saith Non est relatio nisi interea que sunt actu non est enim pater nisi qui actu filium habeat quo fit ut semper necessarium sit uno relativorum existente alterum quoque existere Zab. de fac an cap. 3. Consider Job to day he hath children he is a Father consider him to morrow he hath no children he is no Father when he hath none it is possible he may afterward shall we say therefore he is potentially or habitually a father His dividing an officer into actual and potential is as the dividing Ens into Ens non Ens. His instance about the Mayor of Norwich is
nothing to his purpose we grant that though he be sick or in prison and so cannot execute his Office yet he is not only potentially but actually an officer still But suppose the City of Norwich should either by fire or sword or famine or any such sad providence cease to exist if the Mayor should be left alive we ask whither he could be deemed a Mayor or an Officer still when there were no City of Norwich existing to be the correlate to him as a Relate The like we say in the case in hand how can a man remain in the Office of the Ministry if there be no Church as a correlate for him to stand related to Either he must be an Officer or no Officer If there be no Church existing that he is over then no Officer existeth for they exist and perish together as to the same degree of being What he meaneth by habit of Office we know not He intends not we suppose the indelible character which Bellarm. saith is qualitas absoluta as every habit excepting the tenth predicament Office cannot be proved a qualitative habit forasmuch as it is not any thing inherent in body or mind but something adherent onely And now Christian Reader thou mayest see Dr. Collings dealeth not kindly with thee in perswading that Officers are nominal relations Is it not more likely that Office should be such a relation as is between a father and child master and servant husband and wife Magistrate and subject then such a relation as is between scibile scientia a thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing Object But may not a man be in the Office of Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the goverment of them it is his Commission makes him an Officer Vind. Revind pag. 15. Ans This is but a similitude and so proveth nothing and it will serve our purpose as well as his for his Commission doth not make him an habitual Officer nor give him a power in actu primo to act as a Colonel in the goverment of all Regiments in the Army but limiteth him unto one particular Regiment and so will speak as much against a mans being an Officer to any but a particular Church as it may seem to speak for the actual existence of a relation without a correlate 2. Here is a begging another question viz. That Ordination doth Commissionate men to be Officers this being denyed there is no parity in the cases and so no strength in the objection We have proved that Election with acceptation doth make men to be Officers and so the correlate viz. the Church electing doth exist as soon as the Officer 3. We would know whether a Licence given a man from his Prince whereby he is impowered to keep so many servants unto such an end and so to govern them doth make a man a Master when not one servant is engaged by him or related to him 4. A Colonels Commission before he hath a Regiment doth authorize him to raise one giveth him right unto a Colonels pay and so maketh him an Officer nominal and Titular but it is the Assignment or submission of a Regiment unto him that maketh him an Officer reall and actual Many Captains and Colonels retain Commissions and former Titles when Wars are ended and Companies are disbanded yet are no Officers but as is expressed If he will yet contend that a Colonel as is instanced is an officer we say further In ordinary cases a Regiment is Assigned to him and if he hath none he can be but an extraordinary Officer answerable to Apostles having Commission from the General of the Army as the Apostles had their call and Commission immediately from Christ not from men Ergo there is no parity in the cases and so the instance is vain Obj. 3. To our third Argument he saith The Gospel owneth the Church as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry Acts 20. 17. 28. But not alone he saith it owns the work too Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. and Ephes 4. is as much Gospel as Act. 20. 17. Vind. Revind pag. 16. Answ In the Major of our third Argument nothing is wanting not alone or onely for the Church alone or onely is the correlate to a Church Officer should we say a wiâ—e is the correlate in wedlock not onely but cohabitation c. Or a Son not onely but Education whatever we might be for Logicians yet in this our Logick would not be good In dividing between the correlate and the end non dividimus componenda sed distinguenda which upon second thoughts he will not blame us for That Ephes 4. is Gospel we grant but that it owneth the work as the correlate we deny It owneth the work of the Ministry as one end of Office-gifts not as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry It is said he gave some to be Apostles c. and if it be enquired for what end the answer is for the work of the Ministry Obj. 4. To our fourth Argument he saith It is a feeble Argument Vind. Revind pag. 17. 18. which is drawn from names and titles If we say that all their titles have the Church onely as their correlate he desires to know whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have so 1 Tim. 27. c. He saith every rational creature yea God himself is the correlate and therefore they are called the Ministers of God c. He desireth us to shew one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called the Minister of the Church he addeth that we speak no Scripture phrase when we call Ministers i. e. preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church c. Answ 1 An Argument from Names and Titles surely is as feeble when our brethrâ—n use it as when we use it against them doth not D. Collings argue from the name of Officers to their acts and particularly from the title of Teacher Vin. pag. 34. yea in this very book Vind. Revind pag. 89. lin 1 2 3 4. 5. Also to prove the Office of the Ministry of divine institution the London Ministers argue expressely from their Names and Titles Jus. Divin Minst pag. 8. 9. 2 So far as Nomen is notamen rei so far definitio nominis is definitio rei Consider Father in a naturall sense and the definition of the Name is the definition of the thing The names of Pastor Teacher Elder c. Notifie the relation and so are forcibly Argumentative for a Churches being the Correlate 3. The intendment of some names and titles is not to expresse what is the Correlate but some thing else about a relation as Officers may be called Ministers of God and Christ onely to intimate who is the Author and institutor of their office Ministers of the Word to intimate what is the subject of their preaching Cryers or preachers as in the Texts he mentioneth 1 Tim. 2. 7.
Rom. 10. 14. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to signifie their declaring or publishing their message as Cryers or Heralds use to do Some names and titles are not intended for the discovering what is the Correlate to the Office of the Ministry but for other ends and therefore our Argument is firme though all titles have not the Church onely as their Correlate 4. We judge his first answer which he calleth most proper to this Question To whom are they Officers most improper For it is this to Jesus Christ Should a King passe through a street and it be enquired what or whose King goeth there and one should answer Christs King he should give a very improper answer and leave the enquirer in the dark but he that informeth that he is the King of France c. leadeth into light So for a Mayor its improper to say there goeth the Protectors Mayor but there goeth the Mayor of Norwich is proper 5. Whereas he saith p. 18. every creature is the Correlate to office as well as the Church 1. If so then the Elders of the Church are the Elders of the World Angels of the Churches Angels of the World then Pastors and Teachers set in the Church are set in the World too but where did he ever read of Elders of the world c. 2 We would know what is the foundation of the relation between a pastor and the world is it founded in nature as that of Parent and children or in Will or consent as that of Husband and wife Master and Servant or in some third thing 3. Then it s more proper to call Officers World-Officers then Church Officers as to call the Protector Protector of England rather then of London because of the extent of authority and office-power Nor is that reason in the least cogent viz. Officers are appointed to gather out of the World members unto Christ Suppose an Embassador from England be in France dispatching businesse for his master there he is not thereby related unto France So an Embassador for Christ in the world is not related unto the world as his Correlate but onely to the flock he is ever in the Lord. He saith moreover That God is the Correlate that God is the Author and institutor thereof we acknowledge upon which account there ariseth a Metaphysical respect between Officers and God and they are the Ministers of God but as the Correlate of a King is a subject and only that in predicamental relation he who is to be governed Ruled and not God So the correlate of a Church Officer is the Church and onely that which is to be watched over prayed for instructed by vertue of a special bond in which the Officer is engaged unto it The duty of a relation terminates upon the correlate God were to be governed if he were the Correlate of a Governour 6. Preaching Ministers are expressely called Elders of the Church Acts. 20. v. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church And this is as much as to say The Minister of the Church if not more for Elder is the name of Office They are called by that Church whereunto they are related Revel 2. v. 1. Vnto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus v. 8. Vnto the Angel of the church in Smyrna so v. 12. 18. and this is as much as to say the Ministers of such a church for what is it to be the angel of such a Church but to be the Minister thereof And whereas he beseecheth us not to endeavour to abuse simple Souls with such wofull falacies Vind. Revind pag. 19. Now let the Reader judge who hath gone about to abuse him most Dr. Collings or we Whereas he saith this is no Scripture phrase to call preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church Our second position is this Posit That Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to an universall Church Dr. Collings insiâ—â—eth upon an explication of the word Church and some other premises from pag. 19. to pag. 27. or 29. to which we shall not give any further reply at present then he meeteth within the answer to his Epistle Ob. 1. In his reply to our first Argument He complaines of fowl disputing because we take away the subject or suppositum of the question Answ When the question was whether the Pope were the supream Officer of the Universal visible Church Learned Protestants denyed the being of the Universal visible Church disputing fully against the adversary not fowlly as he saith Ob. 2. He tels us Vind. Revind pag. 29. what we say may be granted and yet nothing is proved by it Answ This we confesse we understand not how it was possible that the subject or the suppositum of a question can be taken away so as nothing should be proved if the whole be granted we desire to know of him by the next But what is his reason If the Gospel knowes a Church Vniversall under any notion though not under a Political forme it is enough Vind. Revind p. 29. Ans No Organ is related but to a body Organical hands and feet armes and legs as so are not related to flesh and blood as so but as so formed Rulers are not related unto men as so but as formed in societies and reduced under policy and Government as he referreth us to Mr. Hudson so we may refer him to Mr. Hooker Mr Stone and to our owne Epistle Our second Argument he putteth into a form of his own under a pretence to mend some faults it it and is not satisfied with that forme which himselfe put it into but then putteth it into an other and thus findeth himself work Surely this is not fair dealing he might have shewn us the faults of our argument and lest it to us to mend them and not cast them into his own form and then spend time in answering them we shall onely say this in way of answer Answ 1. As he hath formed the Argument the Office of the Ministry is made the correlate whereas we assert the Church to be the correlate let the Reader now judge whether he doth not wrong himself and us by this way of proceeding 2. Our Argument proceeded upon those Relative names and Titles which the Scripture expresseth Officers by and which they cannot lose without losing their Office and which are used upon the most special occasions and these Titles forbid a Universal Church to be the correlate unto Office as is shewn Preacher sent pag. 10. 11. c. As to Acts 20. 28. It concludeth that an Officer is commanded to feed all the flock that he standeth in the relation of a Bishop or Overseer to and so denyeth a Universal Church to be that flock which he is an Officer or Overseer to for he is not commanded to feed all the Universal Church And this sheweth that the terms Pastor and Teacher when used to expresse Office are
taken in a strict sence to denote onely a relation to a particular Church for Bishops Pastors and Teachers are the same officers under different names 3. If we were convinced that there were such a Universal visible Church made up of all particulars we should then grant that the Office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister had that Church of Churches for its correlate as much as the Office of a Justice of peace which he instanceth in as it resides in the whole number of Justices hath the whole nation as a correlate but still we should think that every particular Minister were limitted in his Office to a particular Church as a Justice is to a particular County Dr. Collings useth three Arguments to prove that the Office of the Ministry relates not onely to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. that they may do acts of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Argu. 1. Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Vind. Revind pag. 33. Christ are related to the Universal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4. 12. 13. Ans 1. This Argument from Eph. 4. v. 12. 13. for the substance of it is answered Preacher sent p. 295. 2. This Argument doth not conclude the question if such a Universal Church could be proved we might grant them to be some way related to it yet not as Officers His Argument if it were to the purpose should conclude not onely that Pastors and Teachers are related to the Universal Church but 1. As Officers 2. As to their correlate whereas if a Universal Church were the body of Christ there intended the place alledged Eph. 4. doth only specifie that the edifying of that body is one end of giving Pastors and Teachers and a correlate must be existing before the end of the relatoin can be attained and so that body may not be the correlate to Pastors and Teachers In his following this Argument there is an altering of the phrase from the Universal visible Church or body about which the question is unto the mystical body of Christ. If we grant that Pastors and Teachers are related to the mystical body of Christ which is made up onely of the Elect yet we may deny them to be related to it as Offices or that to be the correlate to their Office They may be given for the edifying of that body although they have no work appointed them by Jesus Christ to do but onely in a particular Church that body is edified if any member of it be edified Argu. 2. Those whom God hath commissionated to Preach and Baptize Vind. Revin Pag. 34. all Nations are not related onely to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his Ministers to go Preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo Ans 1. His major may fairly be denyed if it speaketh to the question as stated by himself Vind. Revind pag. 33. We say those whom God hath commissionated to Preach to and Baptize all Nations are so related to particular Churches as that they may not do acts materially and formally of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of the particular Churches they are over As the whole number of Justices of Peace in this Nation are commissionated to perform the acts of Justices in all Counties and shires in England yet the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person as himself observeth Vind. Revind pag. 31. 32. is limited by his Commission to such a County and he cannot act as a Justice beyond the bounds of that County of shire So the whole number of Church-Officers may be commissionated to perform acts of Office in all Nations yet the Office as it resides in this or that particular person is limited to a particular Church so as none may do acts of Office beyond the bounds of that particular Church which the person is over 2. To his minor we say The commission Mat. 28. 19. was not onely for the Apostles in the substance but in the Universality it was for them onely Apostles as such were extraordinary Officers and had no successors Were this Commission ours in the Universality we see not how we could fix with a good conscience As warrantably might a man confine his ministry to a family when appointed to a Church as confined to a church when appointed for all the world Our granting that the commission reacheth Officers now in the substance of it is enough to evidence how far we are from shaking hands with Socinus Smalcius c. though we deny their Office to have the same extent that the Apostles had Argu. 3. His third Argument is drawn ab absurdo Vind. Revind p. 35. There are five absurdities which he layeth at our door against which we have sufficiently justified our selves in the body of our discourse out of the womb of two principles he mid-wives forth these Pr. 1. That the Authority of him who Preacheth is that which makes the action of the hearer duty Pr. 2. That an act of Office cannot be done by him who is no Officer Vind. Revind pag. 35. Ans The latter of these is fully spoken to Preacher sent pag. 278. 279. 280. And in the same book we have largely proved this principle That many gifted men who are not in Office have Authority or a command and warrant from Christ to Preach From which joyned with Dr. Collings first principle aforementioned it will appear that the absurdities Vind. Revin Pag. 36. he talketh of are pitiful non sequiturs For hence it followes 1. That where there are no particular Churches formed yet the people are bound to come to hear because many gifted men not in office have authority to preach and it is the authority of the speaker saith he that maketh the action of the hearer duty and this taketh off his first absurdity 2. That in England where there is neither Church nor officer yet they may wait upon that publike meanes which is a special appointment of Christ to save their souls for gifted men not in office have authority to preach and so his second absurdity cometh to nothing 3 That where a particular Church is formed when their Officer preacheth not on the Lords day yet the members are bound to hear though gifted men not in office preach for they have authority from Christ to do it 4 That persons not of that Ministers Church who Preacheth may go in faith for he hath authority as a gifted man to preach unto those that are not members of his Church and so his fourth absurdity is taken away His fift Concerning giving the Sacrament to one that is not a member of his Church we have spoken sufficiently to elsewhere And here let us expostulate a little can Dr.
Collings see a mote and can he not behold a Beam doth he strain a t a Gnat and swallow a camel Are there not greater absurdities in his way 1 Is it not an absurdity to engage a man by office to preach when none are ingaged to hear suppose ordination make an officer sinetitulo which may be in Dr. Collings judgement a Pastor Teacher or overseer to whose charge no man or company of men is committed to whom none are bound Where ever this pretended officer Preacheth upon the Lords day the people may leave him and goe to other Ministers especially if ordained also whom they preferre before him who yet is bound to preach and none to hear 2 Is it not an absurdity solemnly to set a man apart to the work of the Ministry wherein neverthelesse he shall not be engaged to work but turning aside to a School Physick c. may say to them that ask why he standeth idle as to preaching work no man hath hired me 3 To make an Officer to every rationall creature when no creature can rationally say this is my Minister nor he say this is my people As if a Justice should marry a man to woman kind and leave him to act as an husband where he could find a woman that would entertain him 4 To determine a relate and relation actual and the Correlate potential onely He excepteth against our description of office pretending that two Rules are offended by it Ob. 1. The former rule he supposeth to be broken by our bringing a particular Church into it and our leaving Ordination out Vind. Revind pag. 38. Answ In our former book and also in this we have proved that a particular Church is the Correlate to Office and that Ordination is not of the Essence but onely an Adjunct of Office and what Logick teacheth to leave the Correlate out or to put an adjunct into the description of a relation Ob. 2 His second rule supposed to be offended is mentioned Vind. Revind pag. 38. Answ In his explaning himselfe he doth not onely oppose us but a multitude of ancient and modern Popish and Protestant divines yea Scripture and reason That a man should be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place be put into office when there is not a man in the world whom he can challinge by vertue of office to submit to him It is not onely rational and prudential for a man to stay his coronation till he have his Kingdome but orderly and just but when a man will cause himselfe to be crowned and cannot tell whether ever his kingdome will come it is a disorder nor is he a King though crowned The terme is of the relation as laid down by us he doth deny which we yet assert and let the Reader judge between us The causes of the relation we declared viz. principal God instrumental the Church or flock His answer is the efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church but not the flock Answ 1. We desire to know what difference there is between Church and flock or how they can be distinguished Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock to feed the Church of God c. In the very same verse Church and flock are used Synonymously 2. What one Scripture doth call officers the church in the necessary sense thereof See Park de Polit. Eccles l. 3. cap. 15. upon this question An soli Sacerdotes sint Ecclesia which he answereth in the negative saying no place in the scriptures or Fathers can be found where it is said officers by themselves considered are the Church The former cause he asserts to be Mission of which in the special controversy thereabout He finds fault with our Logick Vind. Revind pag. 39. in arguing from the lesse to the greater Affirmatively We wonder Dr. Collings should trouble the Reader with such objections that are fully answerd in the very book he is replying to In what sense we argue from the lesse to the greater and how far we are from arguing from ability to do the lesser to ability to do the greater and how full the scripture is as Mat. 6. 26. 30. of such Logick as we use he may see Preacher Sent. pag. 224. 225. 226. having blamed us for arguing aminori ad majus Affirmative To prove preaching for tryals sake he alleageth 1 Tim. 3. 10. and saith he Vind. Revind pag. 40. we may argue a minori ad majus negative If the lowest Officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I meane ordinary officers c. We deny not that Officers are to be proved but we wonder Dr. Collings is not ashamed to accuse others causelesly for using false Logick when in the very next page himselfe doth so grosly mistake He pretendeth to argue from the lesser to the greater negatively and yet there is never a note of negation in his argument If the lowest Officer must then much more the higher-Surely no man will reckon this a negative proposition CHAP. II. Wherein a brief answer is given to the exceptions against our two first arguments for the preaching of gifted persons without ordination DR Collings in his second Chapter chiefly telleth us what he understandeth by authoritative preaching He saith the authority of the preacher 1. Obligeth him to preach 2. Obligeth people to hear Our arguments for the preaching of gifted men being built upon a command of Christ a Gospel promise c. will evidence that they are obliged to preach and that souls sin in neglecting to hear them that there is an authoritative preaching in that sencewhereas pag. 45. he opposeth it to precarious preaching in which the preacher may beg but cannot command either auditory or attention We answer His colonel which he mentioneth Vin. pag. 15. may beat his drum and none are bound to follow him So that a Colonel is no officer or this instance sheweth it to be no sin not to hear an ordained man as well as not to hear a gifted brother We would know whether a man who hath submitted to the Ordination which Dr. Collings pleadeth for can command either Auditory or attention when none have desired him to Preach to them or no particular Church hath by Election made him their Minister or whether the Minister of one Church can command another Church to be his Auditory and to give attention to him without or against the consent of the Pastor thereof If he will say he cannot in such cases command Auditory or attention then it followeth that it is not Authoritative Preaching out of a mans own Congregation or to any but those that call him and so it is Preaching ex dono not ex officio to others and then it is election or the desire of the people and not Ordination that maketh it Authoritative Preaching in that sence for a man is ordained and yet is not obliged to preach to any nor any people obliged to hear
him If they be under a general obligation to Preach when opportunity or a call is offered so are gifted men If he will say they can command it let him prove it whom they may require to hear when Churches are full of Pastors We urged diverse Arguments for the Preaching of some men without Ordination Argu. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination Preacher Sent. p. 29. Obj. Dr. Collings knoweth no need of any Preaching in order to election but onely twice or thrice to try a mans utterance and denyeth the election of a particular Church as necessary to precede Ordination c. Vind. Revind pag. 45. 46. Answ A tryal what gifts a man hath for Scripture interpretation and of the sutableness of a mans gifts to such a people c. maketh ordinary Preaching necessary in order to election as well as the tryal of utterance 2. Election did precede Ordination Act. 6. vers 5. they chose Stephen vers 6. And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them Dr. Collings asketh whether we think that the election there was by the whole multitude We answer yes for it is expressely said v. 5 the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen c. they who chose the Text answereth the whole multitude Their being divided because some widows were neglected in the daily ministration did not hinder their agreeing together in the chusing of Deacons which was propounded as a means purposely for the healing of those divisions neither doth the number if it were so great forbid it for more have met We expected his attempting to give some Text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election but he waveth that altogether Argu. 2. From Gospel commands 1 Pet. 4 ver 10. 11. Hebr. 10. 25. Preach sent p. 32. Obj. Dr. Collings his chief exceptions against this are 1. If any one who hath ability may dispense the the gift then gifted brethren may administer baptisme and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text. Vind. p. 50. 2. The context speaketh of the good things of this world pag. 50. 3. If the ability to Preach be the gift only meant he that never had the Oracles of God committed to him cannot speak them as the Oracles of God And however this was when the Church was in a scattered state pag. 51. 4. He inclineth to take it in the latitude for any communicable gift but it must be ministered in a due way and order and upon a regular Câ—lâ— Vind. Revind pag. 55. Ans 1. We do not limit it to the gift of Preaching but say that is one special gift intended 1 Pet. 4. v. 11. If any man speak c. and so it cannot be restained to this worlds goods And the foregoing and following exhortations being left in general amongst the Saints and a note of universality being used here v. 10. as every man c. hence the generality of those that have grace and the gift of Scripture interpretation are commanded to Mister that gift and hence gift cannot be restrained to Office seeing many are so gifted who are no Officers And the gift of Preaching being a publike gift i. e. such as fitteth for and is mostly laid out in a publike way hence it is very probable that an use of it in publike Assemblies is that which the Apostle driveth at especially seeing other Texts do warrant gifted men in such publike actings as Hebr. 10. 25. Act. 18 26. 28. 2. Neither may every one that is gifted administer Baptisme and the Supper by vertue of this Text. For 1. The gift of Preaching is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 11. the administration of Sacraments not so 2. Some Preaching is an act of meer charity no ministering of Seals is so Every friend of the bridegroome according to his ability may serve the Bridegroome in acts of charity but none can serve him in those rites wherein mutual engagement is Sealed but one appointed especially thereunto 3. Dr. Collings is at liberty to Preach many Sermons without the knowledge or expresse consent of his eldership but not to suspend one member from the Supper or admit one thereto there is then some difference between the dispensation of the word and the administration of Sacraments 4. Baptisme and the Lords Sâ—pperare act so purely of institution that they would never have been duties nor could have been known to be so without Scripture-light and so are not to be dispensed by any though gifted without an allowance thereunto by the institution which is the onely determining rule about the Adminstrator and Administration But as prayer is a natural duty though commanded over in the Gospel and many rules laid down to regulate direct in the performance of it So Preaching in it self is an act of natural worship if there had been no Scripture rules laid down about it yet man by natures light might have learned it to be a duty to publish the will God his Creator unto others according to ability and opportunity and therefore the Law of nature doth firstly lay gifted men under obligations to Preach and this is seconded by Gospel rules as in the Text alledged 3. It is nothing to his purpose if gift be understood of Alms or Office unlesse it be exclusive and that it cannot be limited to them onely we proved in our former book and he inclineth to take it for any communicable gift Vind. Revind pag. 55. and so he cannot restrain it unto Alms or Office But if his Arguments did prove it very probable that by gift is meant Office which they do not they were equally strong to prove that Alms are not the gift chiefly intended It might then be said the gift is to be administered as Stewards and to acts of Office are instanced in ver 11. and therefore it is meant only of Office not of Alms which many men out of Office may give and when some of his Arguments will serve as answers unto others or when he is found answering himself let the Reader judge whether that childishness which he mentioned Vind. Revind p. 49. be to be found in our replies or in his Arguments 4. The Church was not in such a scattered state but that it had Officers in it for it s said 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort c. If gifted men may Preach in Churches that have Elders in them much more may they do it elsewhere 5. The main stress is upon the Call Quest What gives a Call to Preach Ans 1. That which maketh an habitual Prophet Preacher c. although we allow not actual and habitual in relations yet otherwise we allow it justifies the actual except the hearers be incapacitated as to that priviledge If men be Prophets in the collation of grace and a gift through the use of means who will forbid them prophecy but rather wish as Moses Num. 11. 29. 2. Christs command concerning a work is mans Call to do
it as in hearing praying fasting c. Dr. Collings doth suppose in some time the bare command of Christ may make an Officer Vind. Revind pag. 63. We suppose at all times a preacher The commanding every man that hath preaching gifts and graces to minister with them doth determine that the Oracles of God are committed to them and that it is Gods way and order that they should be exercised in the work of preaching As to what he saith pag. 52. 53. we answer the command of Christ being a Call it warrants their preaching on the Sabbath or Lords day as well as at other times and whether gifted persons preaching be a publike Ordinance for saving of souls let the Reader judge by our Arguments It was allowed of and desired by the Reformers of Scotland for in their Petition to the Queen they did ask 1. That they might have prayers publikely in their vulgar Tongue 2. That if any hard place of Scripture were read in their meetings it might be lawful to any qualified persons in knowledge being present to interpret and open c. Hist of Reform of Scot. pag. 128. which practice was of use in the Jewish Congregations Grot. in Mat. 4. 23. The instance of a Magistrate is not paralel 1. Gifts make not powers 2. This instance will destroy private preachers none may do the Act of a Magistrate privately but a Magistrate That the Administration of publike Ordinances is peculiar to publike Officers and that those who have publike gifts and imployments are meerly private persons let him prove will he deny Synodical determinations to be adminstrations of publike Ordinances it is certain that those who were no Officers even the multitude did publikely act in that Synod Act. 15. see vers 12. 22. 23. Surely no judicious Reader will think that there is weight in these exceptions As to Heb. 10. v. 25. who can question its being a warrant for ordinary Church Assemblies was it not a Church or Churches that the Epistle is written to will he deny Church Assemblies to be publike meetings is not exhortation the work enjoyned in them are Officers onely put upon this work what syllable of proof is there in the Text for any such assertion where do we alleadge this place for private meetings It is asserted by some that by gift probably is meant Office after shewing the improbillity of it diverse waves we add these words Preach sent p. 59. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely a gift and an indefinite proposition is equipollent usually to an Universal and so it may be extended to all gifts in general and therefore cannot without some special reason be restrained to one particular gift viz. Office Dr. Collings seemeth to be much disturbed at this he bringeth it up Vind Revind pag. 55 and 87. and after misplacing usually and adding most he cryeth out it is no Logick Let him again look into Keckerman Syst. Log. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 who saith A Universal proposition is either definite or indefinite Indefinitae est quae habet subjectum universale sine nota and he giveth this Canon aboutâ— Est indefinitarum usus ad significandum quod praedicatum subjecto insit non quidem semper sed plermunque Seu ut graeci loquuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut matres sunt indulgentes â—imium liberis cretenses sunt mendaces Interdum significatur non maximâ— quidem ex parte sed multis tamen convenire praedicatum ut Heroum filij noxae Hispani superstitio insolentes c. We did not say that an indefinite proposition is alwayes equipollent to a Universal but usually and whether Keckermans plerunque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do amount to as much as usually let the Reader judge Is not the Scripture full of such Logick 1 Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop must be blameless i. e. every Bishop 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself i. e. every man who partaketh of the Supper If the rule holdeth onely in materia necessaria that is enough to prove that it is frequently usually or often of such a general importance and so gift cannot without special reason be limited here to one gift viz. Office CHAP. III. Containing a briefe answer to the exceptions against our arguments for gifted persons preaching from a promise and the examples of Apollo and the scattered Saints and the prophecy mentioned 1 Corin. 14. WE urge other arguments for the preaching of of men without ordination Arg. 3 From a Gospel promise Mat. 25. 29. For unto every one that hath shall be given c. Preacher Sent. pag. 62. Ob. Dr. Collings would infer that then men not commissionated for the Magistracy nor ordained to the Ministry having a talent or ability may execute Justice and administer Sacraments Vind. Revind p. 57. Answ 1. Talents or gifts may be considered as accidentia absoluta or relativa Absolute accidents alter not the state of the subject relative make a superiour and inferior Aptitude to govern is an absolute accident and maketh not a Migistrate 2. Talents or gifts which are absolute accidents are to be improved according to the nature of such talents or gifts he that is apt to governe may helpe in government by council and advice without pretence of power over those whom he doth direct A skilfull sea-man may direct the Pilate not stepping into his place we must distinguish Ministerium circa Ecclesiam quae jam in corpus collecta est manet a ministerio circa illos qui colligendi caritativa admonitione sivelint as Voctius tells Jansenius Desp Caus Pap. l. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. 10. 3. A particular exception is enough to limit any general rule Some Lawes of England run in general termes yet by some particular proviso the Universities or some Corporations are exempted from obedience to them all others not excepted will be liable to the penalty if they transgresse the Law So if a King promiseth a reward to every subject that shall do some notable service except those of some particular Corporation it is plain that all not excepted have allowance to do the work and thereupon may expect the reward Now the promise Mat. 25. 29. running in general termes hence every man not excepted is to use his talents If by a particular exception the administration of sacraments be limited unto office yet this doth not deny a liberty to use other talents and to expect the benefit of this promise in the use of them seeing it is said unto every one that hath shall be given He granteth that men may preach divers times as probationers when they are no officers but may not do the worke of a Magistrate or administer Sacraments without those offices Ergo the exercise of preaching gifts is more separable from office then the other We fully answered this objection Preacher Sent. pag. 39. 40. 162. and therefore let not the Reader expect any further answer from us though Dr. Collings often calleth this in to help him Arg. 4. Our
fourth argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples Act. 13. 25. c. Apollo preached publickly yet was not ordained and the scattered Saints Act. 8. Dr. Collings may see Preacher Sent. p. 66. that we intend not Gospel presidents by an extraordinary call and therefore what â—he saith Vind. Revind pag. 57. 58. about Apostleship the holy Kisse c. is but to raise a mist before the Eyes of the Reader Ob. In these instances there is not a parity 1. In the species of their gifts there might be office or extraordinary gifts Apollo is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1. 12. called a Minister 1 Cor. 3. 5. and was mighty in the Scriptures It is plain he preached onely in order to office p. 59. The scattered Christians were of the 8000. who were filled with extraordinary gifts Acts 4. 31. pag. 60. 2. In the Acts nothing found to evidence that they Acts 8. did preach in publike assemblies p. 6. 3. In the state of the Church it was an infant state and a persecuted state they might be under a necessity oâ— precept those extraordinary gifts might be attended with a praeceptive impression Acts 4. 31. there was necessitas medij there was no other ordinary meanes of Salvation for these people Vind. Revind p. 61. 62. Ans 1. Apollo's gifts were not of an other species Adam and Abel not two species of men though Adam by creation Abel by generation nor the habits in Adam a divers species from them in Abel because they infused these acquired If Apollo's gifts had been infused which yet is not granted this would not prove them of a divers species but his being mighty in the Scriptures maketh it probable that he received them in an ordinary way as now a dayes viz. by the Scriptures and not otherwayes as the Doctor argueth He wrongeth himselfe and us in affirming pag. 59. that we say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it the contrary may be seen Preacher Sent. p. 71. 72. 73. yet it being an endlesse work to answer the groundlesse â—urmises of men we had reason to desire proof But Apollo knew onely the baptism of Iohn Acts 18. 25. Ergo Apollo neither had extraordinary gifts nor did preach in order to office or ordination for without knowing more then the baptisme of Iohn he could not know these which belong to the baptism of Christ Mat. 3. 11. He i. e. Jesus Christ shall baptize you with the holy Ghost And that he should preach as a Probationer to a woman Priscilla and that at Ephesus in order to Office at Corinth how unlikely is it As to the Scattered Christians If all mentioned Acts. 4. 31. had extraordinary preaching gifts and were 8000. in number which yet we do not grant then the Gospel knoweth occasional preachers for so many could not have opportunity for constant preaching in that Church neither can it be proved that they did it else-where before the scattering Also then he must say that here was a whole Church of Preachers which is more strange then that in these dayes there should be in Churches some gifted men besides Officers who may Preach Some think that the speaking the word with boldnesse mentioned v. 31. hath reference to the Apostles as an answer of that prayer for them v. 29. 30. but we say it cannot be proved that they were the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost that they are there said to be filled with and so the objection vanisheth 2 As for parity of Acts Apollo preached publikely in the Synogogue and Christians heard him Acts 18. 26. and this he did not with the allowance of the Jewish Church onely but of Christ And if afterward he were an officer which we know not but he might though upon his proofs we do not conclude it yet now he was none The scattered Christians went every where preaching Acts 8. 4. and therefore they acted publickly as well as privately He must assert an order of private preachers who may goe every where preaching in private houses but may not do it in publick or else this exception Vind. Revind p. 61. is vain 3. As to the state of the Church as it was an infant state so Christ provided extraordinary Officers as Apostles and gave extraordinary gifts for the nursing of it up in infancy but as we have proved Apollo had no such gifts and the Dr. saith p. 59. its plain that he preached onely in order to Office by which he plainly granteth that for the present he was no Officer at all of a Gospel Church And let it be proved that any others had an allowance in that infant state to act in Gospel-administrations which were at other times peculiar to office as Apollo had if preaching were so all presidents or examples recorded in the New Testament refer to that infant state of the Church and therefore no argument for Gospel presidents could be vailed if the infancy of the Church could hinder it because that may be alleadged against all that some presidents have the force of a rule himselfe granteth Vind. Revind pag. 58. and others Jus Dinin Min. pag. 160. 161. as for those Acts 8. there being in a persecuted state will not make such a case of necessity as he speaketh of for it doth not appear that all these scattered Saints which preached had such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost however such extraordinary preaching gifts are to be used in the most tranquil setled state of the Church though many Ministers ordained be present and therefore persecution about which we are now speaking could not put them under any such preceptive impression as might render their preaching lawful now which in a setled state of the Church would be unlawfull And upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people no such necessity as he talketh of will be evinced from it If Churches had lost their Officers by persecution there were a greater colour for such a plea but here the case was otherwaies for the Apostles who were Officers were not scattered neither was it the persecuted Church that was preached to but others How mens being persecuted from their habitations can render their preaching Lawful which otherwise were not or lay them under either a natural or moral necessity to preach in their travels beyond what they should have if their occasions did lead them to the same places without persecution we understand not And the Apostles who were by Christs appointment to preach not onely in the Regions of Judea and Samaria where this scattering was Acts 8. 1. but in all Nations Mat. 28. 19. were neither scattered nor necessitated that it appeareth to stay where they were by the persecution and therefore there was other means of salvation for those people though these scattered Saints had not preached when the Lord had Officers of his own near viz. Apostles yet he would honour
That probationers who are no Officers may Preach if it should be not ordinarily but occasionally or onely once seeing they will not allow them to Baptize so much as once this is enough to prove from their practice that if Baptizing be an act peculiar to Office yet it will not follow then Preaching is such and also that Preaching is not peculiar to Office and so his excepting them out of the question cannot hinder the overthrow of his argument pag. 92. thereby That proper acts quarto modo as he saith these are pag. 90. should admit of so much as one exception is strange Logick and as much as to say they are peculiar to Officers and yet not peculiar to them and therefore his exceptions pag. 93 cannot help him As to Mat. 28. ver 19 20. We do not yet find that it was an Office-making Commission but an enlargement of the Commission of Officers to other persons viz. to the Gentiles If a man hath two Commissions to the same work the latter may make him an Officer to more persons but doth not make him more an Officer then before and his instance pag. 94. about ejecting scandalous Ministers by one Commission in Norfolk by another in Norwich amounteth to no more nor his second reply pag. 94 we may grant that this Commission empowred them yet not to be Preachers and baptizers but to Preach to and baptize the Gentiles They did not of non-Preachers become Preachers by this Commission and such a Commission onely is to the present question about gifted mens Preaching His third reply consisteth partly of his meer conjecture and partly of what is truth but not against us The promise proveth that some in all Nations to the worlds end may warrantably be Preached unto and baptized but it being a promise of Christs presence with some in the work of Preaching hence it presupposeth them to be empowred to Preach before the promise can be theirs and therefore cannot constitute them Preachers As to pag. 95 96. we were speaking onely of acts of Religious worship which men were warranted to perform And is a high-way-mans pronouncing the same sentence the Judge doth allowed by the Laws of men for the same end that the Judges act is as exhorting and admonishing are allowed to men out of Office by the Lawes of God for the same end that Officers perform them or can the sprinkling and powering water on the face of Children or the breaking of bread and giving it to them be deemed any acts of Religious worship or are men allowed by the Lord to perform these acts for the same ends that an Officer doth in administering baptisme and the Lords Supper if not how doth this take off our answer about exhorting and admonishing In what way and manner men out of Office may perform these acts we have proved elsewhere Argu. 3. As to his third Argument from the uselesness of the Ministerial Vind. Revind Pag. 96. Office as to its chief act if this practice be allowed We utterly deny it The Ministerial Office is not set up as to that act in vain though many out of Office may Preach neither doth his instances pag. 99. in Justices Colonels Captains c. prove it For the main end of establishing Justices of the Peace is the conservation of the peace which others may endeavour who are no Justices The main act of Colonels and Captains and the main end for which they are established is fighting with an enemy and every common souldier is bound to fight even in open field as well as they yet their Office is not set up in vain as to that act If he shall say others do not act as Justices in keeping the peace or that common Souldiers do not Command a Regiment or company in fighting we answer no more do gifted men Preach to a Church as Officers as Pastors to it And Reader know that he offereth thee and us much wrong in telling thee pag. 99. that we say the Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office If this be not sence the fault is his whose words they are Our words may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 203. If we say Preaching in it self is no act of Office surely therein we deny some Preaching to be the main or chief act of Office and so do speak directly to his argument Yet we may grant that there is Preaching which is a main and chief act of Office Whereas he desireth to know the difference between these wayes of Preaching in the fore-cited place of our former book he may see it That which is a main act of Office is a preaching as under a special relation to them that are preached to as being over them in the Lord and having them committed to ones charge for feeding with the word Act 20. v. 28. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. The other preaching is not after this manner And this is not an empty motion as he calleth it pag. 102 103 but a real difference for if an officer of our Church preacheth to many other Churches often yet he is not over nor hath the charge of many Churches committed to him onely Episcopal men will assert that So whosoever preacheth to unconverted heathens and Indians cannot with any Scripture evidence be said to be over those Infidels in the Lord or to have them committed to his chaege onely a Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood is capable of such a commitment Acts 20. 28. and therefore it is one thing to preach and another thing to preach as over those in the Lord that are Preached to and this may answer what he saith pag. 102 103. We say gifted men by Christs appointment do the same acts materially that Officers performe in their preaching and that for those ends he mentioneth of Conviction Convertion and Edification yet there is a vast difference between their actings And that Christs appointing both the one and the other should make their authority the same which he asserteth Vind. Revind pag. 102. is strange Colonels Captaines c. may have commissions from one man yet have different authorities Another may be appointed by a master of a house to do some work yet not have the same authority that the steward hath Our Examples do plainly shew that different relations do empower for and lay under obligations to the same acts materially and thence it followes that the belonging of such acts to one relation can be no Proof that the other relation is vain uselesse or unnecessary as to those acts The parental relation is not vain and uselesse as to instruction if other relations or friends be under some obligations to give instructions to the same children Nor will it speak the bayliffs office in a Corporation to be uselesse and un-necessary if the free-men may put forth some of the same Acts which they do No more will the Lords establishing standing officers for the work of preaching or Governement
both which we mentioned Preacher Sent. pag. 203 204. argue that none else may act herein nor wil officers be useless and un-necessary as to those acts if gifted men may preach and the Church act in government And this answereth divers of his exceptions pag. 103. 104. only we shall add that his straining one of our similitudes to make it run on four feet for the drawing this out of it That gifted men may preach or may let it a lone and then adding many lines pag. 103. to disprove what himselfe hath wrested out of it is far from a canded dealing with us especially seeing the very words of our similitude do plainly deny this sense of it and these words he hath concealed Our similitude runneth thus A Christian friend or neighbour may and ought to give gratious and wholsome instructions c. If he had rightly applyed the similitude he must have said so gifted men may and ought to preach and then he would not have used so many words to prove that they are not at their liberty whether they will preach or no. Likewise our words are the one is under a standing obligation by the parental relation to performe such acts the other not He giveth our words thus The one is under a standing obligation the other not Whereas our words do not deny friends to be under an obligation to such acts but assert their obligation to be indifferent from that which is parental He granteth pag. 105. that our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture and whether there be any ground in Scripture for the preaching of gifted men let the Reader judge That Apostles and Evangelists differed in nothing from Pastors and Teachers but in the extent of their power which he asserteth pag. 105. we apprehend is a great mistake for besides a power of miraculous operation they had immediate inspirations and infalible directions from the holy spirit As to their being Officers it s answered Preacher Sent. Pag. 209. We conclude that Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and Teachers also were needful then but his argument seemeth to us to deny some of them to be necessary in those dayes We might as well say that where Pastors and teachers were resident there was no need of Apostles or Evangelists for preaching or such ordinary acts as he may say pag. 106. that when they were resident in this or that particular Church there was no need of Pastors or Teachers and his reason will be as strong for us as for him because they could do all their acts And surely when there were many Apostles at Jerusalem and Prophets at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. though all did not speak at the same time yet none were un-necessary no more are gifted men We may turn his argument pag. 98. upon himselfe God doth nothing in vain But in case the preaching of Officers could render it un-ecessary for gifted men to do it then he had done something in vain for we have proved that he hath appointed gifted men to preach Ergo it is false that gifted men may not do it Arg. 4. His fourth argument is taken from the committing of Gospel truths to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others by Gods Timothies 2 Tim. 2. 2. Vind. Revind pag. 106. To what he saith about mens being able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into their own Tongue we answer 1. We grant a knowledg of the Original to be a good help yet it s not absolutely necessary as himselfe confesseth 2. It is learning in Gospel mystries that the Text speaketh of 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things thou hast heard of me commit c. As to what followeth we say it is a commitment of the word not of persons they to whom this commitment was were set over none thereby It was to be committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Epethite of members Eph. 1. 1. The Church in other Scriptures not Officers onely is the object of the commitment Rom. 3. 2. called therefore the pillar and ground of truth 1. If the ability be before commitment then he must say a man may be morally able to preach before Ordination for id possumus quod jure possumus and so his argument falleth for the committing is not ordaining If the ability be attained by committing those things to them Why doth he pag. 107. deny it to be an effect or end thereof And seeing the Gospel owneth a committing doctrinal and this doth make men naturally able how will it ever be proved that a morall ability is onely intended And unlesse that be proved his argument is of no force for men must be naturally able before they may warrantably be ordained if that were a committing of Gospel truths to men And that the ability is subsequent is plain who shall be able 2. It cannot be concluded that the future is used for the present-tense but when â—special reason doth enforce it and none is found here 3. Men ought to commitCospel truths unto others doctrinally without a certaine rule to assure them who should be converted strengthened or comforted and as well might he do it in this case without assurance that every one should be able and therefore his query pag. 107. how could he know who they should be is of no concernement 4. It must be proved not onely that ordination is necessary but that it is the committing of Gospel truths which is spoken of 2 Tim. 2. 2. or else this argument is of no force 5. He required what means the restriction of faithfull men Vind. Revind pag. 40. We answered this in our former book and shall add thus much The Apostle careth about a succession of truth which might be most hopefully expected from faithfull men and therefore he would have it committed unto them especially for that end thus the restriction Iob. 21. v. 15. 17 feed my sheep doth notifie that they especially are to be fed 6. We do not grant that the other committing is meant but if it were the manner must necessarily be understood else it will not help him at all We do not deny that teaching publikly is intended but how he can tell us it s meant of publike teachers and yet say the Apostle plainly speakes de re of the thing not de modo of the manner of performance Vind. Vindic. pag. 140. would be considered And if it be understood of Officers that is not exclusive of gifted men Arg. 5. His fifth argument is from their requiring lawfully a maintenance Vind. Revin pag. 109. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 18 Math. 10. 10. Gal. 6. 6. Hespeaketh very little to our replyes unto this we say the Scriptures alleadged speak of a constant preaching he denyeth that Mat. 10. 10. or Gal. 6. 6. hint the least of such a thing Why will he trouble the Reader with such words without profit Will he allow of any occasional if not why doth he so much as seem to deny these to be constant
p. 2. pag. 432. Trelcatius Instit Theol. l. 2. pag. 204 205. Duae sunt causae cur inter suum Christi baptismum distinguat Priâ—r ut notet differentiam inter baptismum extrenum aquae baptismum internum spiritus altera ut distinguat inter personam officium suum inter personam â—fficium Christi c. Qui patris de discrimine utriusque baptismi egerunt aut de circumstantiis modo patefactionis Christi egerunt tantum non de substantia aut efficatia ut Origines Justiâ—us Nazianzenus Chrysost Cyrillus aut de baptismo sive externo Johannis sive interno Christi seperatim ut Basilius Tertul. Cypria Hieron aut humanitas a veritatis trumite aberrarunt ut Agustinus pag. 206. in answer to the Papists objection from that very place Acts 19. v 3. 4. 5. he useth these words ex ambigua significatione vocas baptismi nihil sequitur Nec enim baptismus a quam solum significat sed aut re baptismi aut ipsam Johannis doctrinam Mr William Lyford in his Apologie for the publike Ministry by way of reply to this very argument from Apollo's preaching without ordination pag. 26. useth these words The baptism of Iohn and of Christ distinguished Acts. 19. v. 4. 5. are not two baptismes of water but onely one with water which is called Iohns baptism Acts 19 3. and the Lordâ— baptisme Acts 8. 16. But Christs baptisme in distinction from Iohns was the pouring forth of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles and others in those daies as St Peter does expound it Acts 11. 15. 16. c. From all this it is evident that although some Protestant writers as Calvin Piscator Spanhemius and others have strongly asserted the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be â—â—e same as to the substance and essence oâ— them yet even they and many others before them as Cyprian Tertull. have asserted that the baptisme of Iohn and Christ were distinguished at least in Circumstances secundum modum patefactionis Christi And the aforementioned Mr. Lyford though he was against preaching without ordination yet granteth the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be distinguished in that very place which we alledge for it Acts 19. 4. 5. Wollebius Theol. pag. 126. saith there is baptismusfluminis seu aquae luminis seu doctrinae Mat. 3 11 Mat 22 25 Acts 18 25 And Scharpius Symphon pag 37. saith baptism is taken Synecdochiâ—e cum non tantum pro externo baptismo sed etiam pro tota doctrina sumitur ita in baptisma Johannis baptisati dicuntur ita Mat. 21. 25. baptisma Ioh. quod fuit pars Ministerii pro toto ministerio vel ut sigiâ—â—um pro tota doctrina obsignata sumitur And thus our assertion may divers waies hold true for Iohns water baptism Mat. 3. 11. is distinguished from Christs baptism with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit Acts 1â— 5. And the baptism of Iohn i. e. his doctrine is distinguished from the baptism of Christ i. e. from those doctrines which may be called the baptism of Christ wherein are contained many things about Gospel Churches Gospel Officers and Ordination c. which neither Apollo nor any other could know by the baptism of Iohn the revelation of them being in order of time after Iohns baptism and this difference is sufficient to cleare our argument We neither deny as the Papists do that grace might be conserred by the Spirit of Christ in or with the baptism of Iohn nor do we assert as the Papists do that all who were baptized with the baptism of Iohn ought to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ Nor are we yet perswaded that those Acts 19. were rebaptized with water-baptism though Musculus and learned Zaâ—chy and others who were neither Papists nor Socinians were of that judgement as we say with Dr. Ames Bell. Enerv. t. 3. l. 2. p. 297. Si rebaptizati fuerunt non fuit hoc propter imperfectionem baptismi Johannis sed propter aberrationem scioli alicujus a quo baptizati fuerunt Yet we are not perswaded that v. 5. is a continuation of Pauls narration of Iohns baptism but we shall not for the present contend about that We shall add but this who hath most cause to be ashamed we for bringing such an argument or Dr. Collings for giving such a reply let the Reader judge The residue of his book is spent about the three Scriptures which we bring for Election viz. Acts 1. Acts 6. and Acts 14. and the peoples ability to choose Iohn 10. we shall reply very briefly 1. As to Acts 1. v. 15. 23. how much it speaketh for the peoples Election may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 1â—7 c. In answer to his objection we say 1. Himselfe useth a like argument from a greater Officer to a lesse Vind. Minister Evang. p 31 32. for ordination he alleageth Acts 13. 3. and useth these words Their being Apostles makes but the argument afortiori better If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostles that were most eminently gifted with the holy Ghost should yet be solemnly set a part to the work of the Ministry how much more requisite is it for those who hath no such gifts and indowments We may now turne his reply to us Vind. Revind pag. 122. upon himselfe and say because all the people of a countrey may choose Parliament men by the Law it will not follow that they may châ—se Justices of the peace c. and the answer is as strong against his argument from Acts 13. 3. for Ordination as it can be against our Argument from Acts. 1. 23. for Election and so either his own argument must be nought or else ours is good for both stand upon the same foot we may put in Election for Ordination and use his own words thus If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostle that was most eminently gifted and indued with the Holy Ghost should be chosen by the people how much more requisite is it for Pastore and Teachers who have no such gifts and indowments as to his instance we say The people in choosing Parliament men to make them Lawes either choose Justices of peace who are established by their Lawes or abridge themselves of a liberty to choose them 2. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated and two stood as he rendreth it pag. 122 it must be by Gods direction else it would not have been followed with Gods approbation in that after Election v. 24. 26. neither could they have prayed in faith v. 24. that the Lord would shew whether of these two he had chosen if that act v. 23. had not given them a knowledge that one of these two and not any other of the company should be chosen which must be by some visible tokens thereof And if God witnessed this to them mediately we know not of any other meanes besides the Election of the people which we
are pleading for If it be said it was immediately and as he supposeth p. 122. by an extraordinary motion of the Holy Spirit as they at least might think as it is not like that the Spirit should so stir up two to offer themselves unto aservice which it was certaine but one of them should be appointed unto so there is not a syllable in the Text to countenance such a conjecture And their thinking it to be from the spirit could not have given a ground for that prayer v. â—4 3. Whereas he telleth us Vind. Revind p. 122. 123. if any did choose it is not said the multitude did it and he conceiveth by Disciples v. 15. only the Apostles are meant distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer it was in the midst of the 120. that Peter stood up and spake for they are expressely said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place and therefore not onely the Apostles but the 120 were meant by Disciples Acts 1. 15. for those in the midst of whom he stood up are called Disciples Again it is not said that besides the Disciples there was 120. but the number of names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place was about 120. and therefore the Apostles being in that same place as appeareth ver 13 14. were part of the 120 and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there mentioned And as it were purposely to answer this objection of the term Disciple being distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is said Luke 6. vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the company of â—is Disciples And that the directions about the choice should be given to all the 120. in that one place and onely the eleven Apostles who least needed such directions should be the onely choosers who can imagine it 4. Whereas he saith pag. 123. God here chose We answer The Election of two out of the company was given to the Disciples the Election of one of these two belonged to God because else he could not have had an immediate Call or have been an Apostle Suppose it were referred to the people of a County to pitch upon two and this determined that one of the two should be a Parliament man or some other officer to the County it would be reckoned that the people had a great priviledge yea that they did chose the Parliament man or other officers though the choice of the Supream Magistrate did determine which of the two should stand so in the case in hand the peoples choice did determine that one of the two should be an Apostle though God chose the one And if he will say as pag. 123. that this is just nothing let him consider that the word used to expresse the peoples Election Act. 1. 23. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same that is used to expresse Ordination Act. 6. 3. Tit. 1. ver 5. onely with the addition of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as learned men observe doth not specifically alter the signification and so according to his assertion Ordination must be just nothing too 2. As to Act. 6. ver 3 4 5. it clearly holdeth forth the peoples power for election We have evidenced the validity of our Argument from the less to the greater affirmatively Preach Sent. pag. 225. 226. but if he liketh it not this way we have argued from this Text for the peoples election from the less to the greater Negative pag. 227. and surely it will hold one of these wayes Object 1. That Church Acts 6. was the Vniversal Church as well as a particuliar Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all man-kind c. Vind. Revind p. 124. Answ Nothing can be said to be both particular and Universal 1. Universal and particular are distinct species as nothing is proper and common ordinary and extraordinary at the same time so nor Universal and particular 2. Universal and particular are relata nothing is both relate and Correlate in the same relation Ergo nothing can be particular and Universal Let him not think to improve this against us upon the rule of relations posito uno ponitur alterum Vniversale fundamental we grant not fâ—rmaâ— A multitude of Churches and in each the common nature really particular conceptively Universal according to the rule Vniversale est unum in multis 3. Adam was a particular man an individuum in the day of his Creation and afterward nothing more nothingless the common nature was in him apt to be predicated of many but it was not proper to say Adam was man-kind or Adam was a Catholick man Homo est Vniversale was true not est Vniversalis 4. He taketh Universal for an integrum made up of many as parts and how can an integrum exist in one member a heap in one stone a flock in one sheep c Object 2. The persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning spirits Act. 2. Acts 4. 31. Answ If extraordinary gifts made the act extraordinary as to Election then so also as to Ordination and therein it s no president for the persons had as extraordinary gifts who ordained Act. 6. v. 6. Object 3. The power as to the choice of Church Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawful to choose the greater and yet unlawful to choose the less c. Vind. Revind pag. 125. Answ 1. Our Argument is the same that the London Ministers use onely we apply it to election they to Ordination as may be seen Preach Sent. pag. 224. And therefore it is no certain Argument for them if it be not for us 2. The main if not the only argument for Church Government by Classical Provincial National and oecumenical Assemblies is taken from the less to the greater Affimatively and many things speak it to be invalid and non-conclusive in that case which cannot be alleadged in this Thus they argue from Mat. 18. see Answer of Assemb pag. 178. 3. An Argument from the less to the greater in some cases is so certain that it is a ground for â—aith to act upon Mat. 6. ver 26. Luke 12. 6. 7. and 11. v. 13. as we shewed Preacher Sent. pag. 126. And must it not needs be a certain Argnment when those pleaded for are undoubtedly invested with power to put forth the same act not distributing onely but collectively and in the same manner and when an instituted relation cannot be introduced nor the ends of it in an ordinary way be attained without the act and when other grounds and reasons are more strong for exerting the acts towards the greater then towards the less And this is the case in the present Argument for the people in a
body of Christ is a strange paradox For all the elect and called ones which lived before the coming of Christ in the flesh and all the Saints in heaven and all the elect unborn as well as those living in this or that age of the world belong to this body of Christ And now we shall turn his Argument upon himself The body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum or the object of the Pastoral Office but the body of Christ includes all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh and so before the Pastoral Office was instituted and all the Saints in heaven yea heathens even all the elect unborn Ergo all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh and so before the Pastoral office was instituted and all the Saints in heaven yea heathens and all the elect unborn are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office Who wil not easily see the weaknesse of this argument for many members of this body were in heaven thousands of years before any were invested with the Pastoral Office on Earth and surely they were not officers to those who were in heaven they had no need of their officr If body be taken in this sense his major is apparently false The body of Christ in its latitude is not the correlatum or object of the pastoral office 2. If it be understood of the visible body of Chr. then his minor is false The body of Christ i. e. his visible Church or body doth not include heathens to be converted Even the Text he alleadgeth evidenceth so much Iohn 10. v. 16. other sheep I have its true those were Gentiles heathens sheep by election but it is added which are not of this fold which witnesseth that heathens though sheep by predestination yet are not folded into the visible Church of Christ It would be an unscriptural and an abominable assertion to say that heathens are members or a part of Christs visible body or Church which onely is the correlate of the pastoral office Arg. 2. The second argument is taken from 2 Corin. 5. 20. where the reconcilable Mr. Pool p. 13. world which consists of such as are yet without and no members of the Church are made the chief objects and correlatum of the office of the Ministry To whom Ministers act as Ambassadors to them they act as officers But Ministers preach as Ambassadors to heathens convertible and to be converted Ergo His assumption he saith is evident for the termes to be an Ambassador is nothing elâ—e but to be an officer c. His assumption he would prove thus 1. First the scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others Ergo there is no difference 2. Even heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them and that not onely ex vi materiae because of the matter they treat of but virtute muneris by vertue of their Office Luke 10. 16. c. Ans 1. We deny his Major Ministers may act as Ambassadors to them they do not act as officers towards in a special sense and it is observeable that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Corin. 5. 20. for we are Ambassadors so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the work of an Ambassador from a King Luke 14. 22. he sendeth an Embassage and yet the same word is used to expresse the wicked act of those citizens against their King Luke 19. 4. â—is citizens hated him and sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Embassage after him It cannot be proved that those who were sent by these citizens were officers or acted as officers in a special sense in this message yet they acted as Ambassadors herein So if gifted men or other Ministers carry the message of the Gospel to heathens and the reconcilable world upon a command of Christ to goe with it they act as Ambassadors yet not as Officers therein 2. As to his minor in a general sense we grant that Ministers preach as Ambassadors to Heathens i. e. as those that are warranted or commanded by Christ to do a message of peace to them but in a strict sense they do not act as offfcers unto heathens As to his proofs of his minor we say 1. The Scripture concludeth that an officer doth preach as a Pastor Bishop or overseer to his owne Church Acts 20. 28. as over it in the Lord 1 Thes 5. v. 12. it no where saith that he preacheth under any such relation to others it lyeth upon Mr. Pool to prove it if he will assert it it were strange unscriptural language to say that God hath made officers overseers to Heathens or set them over them where are heathens called a mans flock If they were the object or correlate of the pastoral office they must be so for Pastor and flock are Relatives and Ambassadors if in office are the same Officers under an other name And this answereth his first particular pag. 14. and proveth that the Scripture makes a difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others for it concludeth his being in such a relation to his own Church as he stands not in to others and thence must needs arise a difference in actings 2. Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preach not onely for their doctrine nor for their Office sake but for Christs sake who sends them with that doctrine if they preach only as gifted persons not as officers yet it may aptly be said as Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me c. because they are warranted or commanded by Christ to do the message and so it is not their own but Christs he speaketh by them they are his words not theirs as in this instance A master of a family being from home may send a message by some friends or neighbours to his servants commanding some work from them if these servants do not hear those messengers they do not hear their master yet these friends or neighbours are no Officers nor can act as officers over them either in doing the message or in case of disobedience by inflicting any punishment c. So if a preachers message be not heard Christ is disobeyed therein concerning maintenance we have spoken in answer to Dr. Collings and also elswhere in way of reply to Mr. Pool The pronouncing of pardon and denouncing of wrath upon believing or disobeying in preaching are acts as we have sufficiently proved that gifted men may do without an office-relation Arg. 3. If conversion of heathens c. be the principal ground and end why the office of the ministry was instituted and the principal worke of the ministry then the Office of the ministry is related to heathens But the convertion of heathens c. is the principal end why the office of the ministry was instituted and the principal work of the ministry so instituted Therefore the office of the ministry is related to heathens
their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lyes Mr. Pool pag. 17. Ans 1. We suppose he intendeth that they are related to heathens as their correlate else he speaketh nothing to the question and then 2. His Major may fairely be denyed The fighting with enemies c. is the principal ground and end why the office of Colonels Captaines and other leaders of Armies were appointed and their principal work yet those enemies to be fought with are not the correlate to the office of Colonels Captaines c. It is a Regiment that is the correlate to the office of a Colonel and a Troop or company that is the correlate to the office of a captain And so heathens to be preached to are not the correlate to the office of the Ministery but particular Churches The instance of Colonels c. sheweth that a mans great work may lye among those that their relation is not toward 3. As to the minor that convertion of heathens and such as are without the Church is a great worke of officers qua gifted may be granted but that it is their principal work qua officers those texts Mat. 28. and Eph. 4. prove not The office of Pastors was not instituted until Churches were constituted had convertion of heathens been their principal work the institution of them before would have been as necessary as then And that officers and others qua gifted are appointed by Christ to preach unto unbelievers this sufficiently manifesteth Christs care for that great work the convertion of sinners though they do not act as officers in their conversion Thus we have answered his argument against this Assertion that Ministers are officers onely to their own congregations the provincial assemblie used divers arguments which we answered and Mr. Pool seeketh to indicate we shall briefly reply to his most material xceptions They objected that we receive members of other congregations to the Sacrament yet the administration of that is a ministerial act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher Mr. Pool is so disturbed at our answer to this that he saith p. 20. he questions not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it how we are faln from our own principles and pag. 21. would have all men take notice of that and also that we have through incogitancy precipitated our selves into the gulf of Annabaptisme and he doubts not but we will retract it c. And all this because we say If they perform these acts to any not of their own congregations they do not act as Past ors as officers to them therein Ans We see no ground to retract what we have said in this matter and we think any unprejudiced Reader who shall view our whole answer to their objection Preach Sent. pag. 278 279 280. will apprehend that there is more strength in Mr. Pools flourish of words to dazel the Eyes of the weake then of argument to convince the judicious that we are in an Error To clear the case 1. We professe that it was when we wrote our former book and still is our judgement that the administration of the Sacrament is an act which cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher None but an Officer may perform this act 2. Yet we conceive an Officer may administer the Sacrament which is a common Church priviledge unto members of other Churches without being an Officer over them for if any such relation as is between Pastor and the members of his flock did arise upon that act then an obligation unto the mutual duties of the relation must follow also else all in a relation were not bound to the duties of it and who will say that Pastors are to watch over the members of other Churches or that the Lord hath made them overseers of them or that such members are to aford maintenance c. to such Pastors And if they be no Officers over them they cannot be said to act as their Officers And let Mr. Poole and the Reader observe we never said that he who is no Pastor no Officer might act in the administration of the Sacrament but that in administring it to members of other Churches a man doth not act as a Pastor as an Officer to them i. e. in a special sence As Officers in corporations c. may afford some priviledges to such as they are no Officers to which none but such Officers can grant out Or to use the instance Mr. Poole mentioneth pag. 16. with some variation many acts of a Steward of an house in giving entertainment unto strangers cannot he done by any but the Steward except the Lord of the house yet saith Mr. Poole pag. 16. he acts not as a Steward to them whom he entertains whence it is undeniable that there are some acts which none but an Officer can perform wherein he doth not act as an Officer to some objects of them and therefore though none but Officers can administer the Lords Supper yet they may give it to members of other Churches which they are no Officers nor do not act as Officers towards That Rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali holds true onely in materia necessaria not in materia contingenti and therefore if a Pastor gives the Sacrament to those who are not of his own Church not as their Pastor yet it will not follow that every gifted brother may administer it or that our assertion cuts the sâ—news of Christian and Church-communion which he insinuates p. 22. That their Argument was against our practice may easily be seen in their Book not against the assertion but as supposed though ungroundedly to be contradicted by our practice And this is enough to answer what he saith pag. 20. 21. 22. and may clearly vindicate us from his aspersion for Anabaptism He replyeth nothing to what we have said Preacher Sent pag. 281. where we have clearly answered their third particular in the several branches and have proved against them that Ministers are called Elders of the people c. There are seven consequences which they said Jus Divin Min. pag. 140. would follow this assertion To our exceptions against the first and second of these Mr. Poole answereth little or nothing what he saith p. 23. is but a repetition of what he had said before which we have already answered In our reply to the third we argue against that position that a man is made a member of a Church by Baptism Mr. Poole telleth us it is none of their assertion that they allow Infants to be born Church-members and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism and a pari a heathen converted and professing the faith is a church-member inchoate before Baptism and that this onely they say that the solemn publike and visible way of admission of members into the Church is by Baptism Mr. Poole pag. 23. 24. Ans 1. They said that every Minister by Baptism admitteth into the Catholick visible
Church Jus Div. Min. pag. 139. and Mr. Poole saith pag. 25. in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission and cals the contrary a monstrous paradox pag. 28. And how he can deny it to be their assertion or free himself from self-contradiction in these expressions we know not for what difference is there between being made a church-member by Baptism and being admitted into the Church by Baptism and how can one be a church-member before Baptism and yet be admitted into the Church by Baptism especially if there be not any other door of admission How can those that are within the Church already be said without a loss of membership to be admitted into it by any after act surely admission is of those who are without and no members not of those who are within and are church-members The scriptures know no such thing as a being church-members inchoate either they are church-members or not if they be church-members as he confesseth they are before Baptism then they are admitted for membership presupposeth admission 2. As well may we say that men are Officers by a Churches Election before Ordination and onely the solemn admission into the Office or rather exercise of it to be by Ordination as he may assert an admission by Baptism after membership and then the Essence of the call to Office is not in Ordination 3. If Infants church-membership be as he saith pag. 24. the ground of their Baptism then they are visible church-members before their being Baptized for the ground of an action must be visible before acting and so their visible admission into the Church is not by Baptism but before it And in converts profession of faith which he supposeth them church-members by must first be visible and so their visible admission into the Church is antecedaneous to and is not by their Baptism And as publike as their profession is so publike is their visible church-membership or admission into the Church before Baptism As to what followeth pag. 24. 25. we formerly did and still do deny that a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church ejects him juridically out of all other Churches for this see our answer to Dr. Collings Epistle Object If he be not juridically ejected out of other Churches then he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce c. Mr. Poole pag. 24. Answ It will not follow for that sin which made the ejection just would make another Churches admission unjust Yet mens incapacity to be received by other Churches doth not arise from their being cast out of those Churches but from the want of such qualifications as are perquisite to admission into church-fellowship He grants p. 25. that when a Minister is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by deposition he ceaseth to be an Officer to the Universal Church Whence we infer that if he repenteth and becometh an Officer again he must have a new Ordination or else he may of no Officer become an Officer without Ordination and so Ordination is not Essential to Office That which followeth pag. 25. is but a repetition of what he had said and is answered before That such as are converted from heathenisme may joyn as members to some Church and so be baptized we proved Preacher Sent. pag. 289. he replyeth nothing to the proof of it yet chargeth us for obtruding uncouth notions upon the world without evident proof c. And he that saith pag. 24. they are church-members inchoate before Baptism and who maketh so little a matter of admission into a particular Church should not stumble at this notion And what is said to shew that admission is not by Baptism will not be far from a proof of it Our Arguments Preacher Sent. pag. 292. plainly shew that their assertion runs them upon Anabaptism Mr. Poole pag. 26. 27. giveth a double reason against it 1. That an excommunicate person ordinarily is a church-member though a diseased member 2 Thes 3. c. 2. Though his Baptism ceaseth at present actually and really as to all the actual priviledges of it so ceaseth that while he repents not he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person yet when he doth repent and readmit himself to the Church he needs no new Baptisme forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former Baptism and the Church accepts of it c. Answ 1. Anabaptism unavoidably followeth upon their assertion thus he that ceaseth to be a member of the visible Church his Baptisme ceaseth say they Jus Divin Min. pag. 146. But he that is excommunicate ceaseth say they to be a member of the visible Church for they tell us excommunication ejecteth out of that Church Jus Divin Min. pag. 139. Ergo He that is excommunicate his Baptism ceaseth Ergo If he be readmitted he must be rebaptized or else be in the Church unbaptized Surely Mr. Poole will not say that one may be ejected out of and yet remain a member of the Church for it is a contradiction to say that one is out of and yet in the Church at the same time and contrary to 1 Corin. 5. 12. which proveth that those who are without are not within yet he hath no other way to save the London Ministers from the dint of the foregoing conclusions To help them out of this Laborinth Mr. Poole telleth us that an excommunicate person is a church-member still but this is not to defend but to contradict them whose cause he undertaketh to to plead for they tell us an excommunicate person is ejected out of the Church and Mr. Poole saith he is a member of the Church still This therefore might suffice for the defence of what we have said but we shall add a few words 2. It is the judgement of many that the withdrawing mentioned 2 Thes 3. ver 6. 14. vastly differeth from excommunication because after the one a man is to be deemed as a brother and after the other he is to be accounted as a heathen and a Publican Mat. 18. ver 17. and if so this is no proof that excommunicate persons are church-members seeing the Text speaketh nothing of excommunication but onely of withdrawing 3. We observe his halting here he doth not say an excommunicate person alwayes but ordinarily is a member as if excommunication did sometimes make a man cease to be a church-member but ordinarily not which there is no syllable in Scripture for and much against it Mat. 18 v. 17. excommunicate persons are to be deemed as heathens and Publicans Ergo Not as church-members That such as are excommunicate for blasphemy denying Christ to be the Messias or renouncing some such grand Article of faith should still be a church-member is strange doctrine yet this must be or else his Argument pag. 26. is nought for it may be said He who is under a Church
c. The Apostles were set in Corinth though not limited or confined to that Church All the strength of their Argument from 1 Cor. 12. 28. dependeth upon the Apostles speaking in the singular number the Church had it been said God hath set in the Churches c. there could have been no shadow of an Argument hence for their being officers to a Universal Church and seeing in the same chapter ver 12. 14. 17. c. he speaketh in the singular number the body the body and the whole body and yet all natural bodies do not make one body and ver 18. God set the members in the body c. yet there is no Catholick body how can his speaking in the singular number the Church ver 28. and that in the application of the same similitude prove a Catholick Church made up of all Churches To evidence that the sin of a people may nullifie the Office of a Minister which they deny Jus Div. Min. pag. 146 we ask whether if they murther him will not this nullifie his Office and if so why may not their sin other wayes make voyd the Office also Object Mr. Poole saith we confound the nullifying of the Office and the hindring the exercise of it 2. He demands whether this hold of the Apostles or no whether if the Catholike Church was confined to one congregation and that proved heretical and voted down the Apostles would this make their Office null or no he saith this followeth upon our principles for the church the correlate ceasing they must needs cease also ejusdem est instituere destituere and we allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people in the same page he telleth the world that we say the Apostles were constituted Officers by the church alleadging Acts 1 He addeth that this doctrine renders it in the power of mens lusts and humours to nullifie the promises of Christ the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadours for now there are none but ordinary Ministers and he supposeth but twenty congregations in the world and each of these may resolve severally to eject their Ministers c. This is the sum of what he expresseth in many words Mr. Poole pag. 32. 33. Ans 1. We have not confounded but clearly distinguished between nullifying the Office and hindring the exercise of it as he that shall impartially read our Book may see 2. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers our question is onely about ordinary Officers The Apostles were neither of man nor by man but were made by an extraordinary call of Christ and so it did belong onely to Christ to null their Office because ejusdem est instituere destituere But we cannot but complain that Mr. Poole hath here offered abundance of wrong to us in reporting to the world that we say Apostles were constituted Officers by the church alleadging Act. 1. and not contenting himself with sayit once he cometh over with it again towards the end of pag. 32. of his Book Whereas we have expressed the contrary and that in expresse Terms in speaking to Acts 1. which he sayeth we alledge for it Let any one read our book Preacher Sent. pag. 268. where we use these words This was but halfe an Election and that is the reason why it did not constitute Mathias an Apostle as appeareth because the choosing of the one which was by God was the constituted act Acts 1. 24. c. by which any one may see that we deny the Apostle to be constituted by the Church and assert it to be by God and therefore he hath done us much injury in this report 3. Suppose a Church murthereth its Officers either he must say that they are officers after they are dead which is absurd or else he must grant that the sin of a people may nullifie the office of a minister which the Provincial Assembly denyeth 4. No supposition may be allowed which implyeth a contradiction to any divine promise For God is faithful and therefore will restrain from every act that would render any promise void Some suppositions may be admitted of but not such as are against Promises otherwise we may answer his with an other himselfe supposeth p. 32. that the Catholike Church may be confined to one congregation if the Elders possibly but two or three should excommunicate that whole Church they should by this juridicall act how un just soever nullifie the promise of the perpetuity of the Church Mat. 16. 18. as much as by his supposition the people should nullifie the Promises about officers In such a case two or three Elders cannot be proved to be the universal Church and Officers to it also and if there be not a Church Officers set in it either the promises about officers or the Church must fail if suppositions against promises be allowed And in what a sad condition then would the Church be in for there would be none to appeal to and thus we might turne his words pag. 34 35. upon himselfe Or we might suppose that persecutors being most of the world might murther that one congregation which he improperly calleth the Catholike Church being but few its true the act would differ one being an act of horrid violence the other a juridical act but both are equally possible and so a supposition may be taken from one as well as from the other and therefore he can get nothing from such supposals The monstrous opinion followeth upon his owne principle Suppose but Twenty Ministers in the World who only have power according to him to ordain and they through treachery and frowardness should refuse to put forth their power for a succession they dye and so the promise of Christ is nullified neither doth his answer to the objection pag. 33. 34. take off this for here the case is not wholly different here is not an act of horrid violence and therefore it is as great an inconvenience to assert that Jesus Christ hath given to Ministers a juridical power as they judge that of Ordination to be by the abuse of which they might if they pleased disanul an Ordinance of Christ CHAP. VII Wherein our arguments for mens being Officers to a particular Church onely and not to a universal are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Pool bringeth against them Some arguments we used to prove that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely and not to a universal Church Mr. Pool pag. 35. den yeth the major of our first Syllogisme but medleth not with the proofs of it and so it remaineth firme still To prove our minor we use this argument Arg. 1. All that flock or Church over which the Holy Ghost hath made a man a Bishop or Overseer he is commanded actually to feed and take heed to and sinneth if he doth not But no Bishop or Overseer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the universal Church c. Ergo Ob. Mr. Pool
are none or from such as they are Officers to 1 Thes 5. ver 12. Heb. 13. ver 7. 17. and they cannot be said to be over those that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. or that they cannot exercise Church Government towards and therefore are not Officers to such for what is it to be an Officer to any but to be over them in the Lord Argu. 4. This brings in Episcopacy to make one man an Officer over many Churches Preacher Sent pag. 248. 283 187. Object The Episcopal way leaves to inferiour Ministers nothing but the name and Title of Officers all power of Jurisdiction being ingrossed into the Bishops hands c. That government by Bishops is a government by forreigners as it were the power of ruling being neither in the hands of the people nor of any chosen by them c. The formality of Episcopacy lies in this in the Superiority of one Pastor to another and to many other and of one church to all the rest in a Diocess not in the Superiority of a colledge of Pastors or convention of churches over one Pastor or church c. Mr. Poole pag. 37. 38. A. 1. We know not that we have used that Argument but onely in the Pages even now quoted and in neither of those places do we assert a government by a Colledge of Pastors to be Episcopacy it s the Superiority of one that we give that name unto and therefore most that he saith here as about the low countries not being a Monarchy c. is but to make the Reader believe that we speak what we do not 2. As government by Bishops was as he saith a government by forreigners so is that by Provincial and National Assemblies who must needs act as he telleth us Bishops do without knowing or being known to any one Church which they undertake to govern And as the choice of a Bishop by a Diocess cannot render that Government lawful so the choice of a Colledge of Pastors by a particular Church to Rule over it cannot warrant that neither having footing in Scripture 3. Episcopacy lies not only in the Superiority of one to many Pastors but in the Superiority of one to and usurped Power over many Churches sad experience as well as the writings of men do sufficiently bear witness to this Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 28. speaking for Bishops asserteth a Bishop to have Preheminence over diverse smaller particular congregations And such as plead against Bishops speak the same thing as Smectymnuâ—s pag. 54. 71. 78. And also the Provincial Assembly in answer to Episcopal pleas saith Jus Div. Min. part 2. pag. 82 83. The believers of one City made but one church in the Apostles dayes and add that the Asian Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but congregational Presbyters seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one So that its undeniable that for one man to be an Officer to more then one Church for one to be set over many Churches is Episcopacy and this onely do we call by that name Preacher Sent. pag. 248. 283. and that this followeth upon their principles we have there proved and therefore it is no frivolous or intemperate accusation We may turn what he saith upon himself in this Argument Those the formality of whose Office lies in their Superiority to many Pastors who engrosse all Power of Jurisdiction into their own hands and leave to inferiour Ministers nothing but the name and title of Officers and make them officers without Office and whose Government is such as the Power of Ruling is neither in the hands of the people nor of any chosen by them and who generally neither know nor are known to those whom they undertake to govern they are no Officers of Christ Let any shew any Scripture proof that Christ owneth such as Presbyters or any Officers of his who so far encroach upon the Kingly Office of Christ as to set up an Office not equall with but even in its formality Superiour to and over those Officers that Christ hath instituted yea which degradeth Christs Ministers and robbeth his people of that Power which he hath left them But Bishops and their Government saith Mr. Poole pag. 37. 38 is such Ergo Bishops are no Officers of Christ Ergo either Ordination is valid by such as are no Officers or else their Ordination is null who received it from Bishops CHAP. VIII Wherein our first and second Arguments for gifted mens Preaching are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Poole laid against them HIs fourth chapter hath little in it worth taking notice of That we do not plead for all that conceit themselves gifted he may see in what we say about a Rule of Regulation in our Advertisement to the Reader He findeth fault with our description of the work of Preaching yet he hath not replyed any thing to our proofes of it which may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 20 21 22. It s not proved that the end of their meeting Act. 17. ver 16. 17. 22. was to hear Paul Preach to them but he did it when they were met for other ends and that it is Preaching though in private and but to a single person is undeniably proved Act. 5. 42. and Act. 8. 35. and therefore neither a congregation Sacred nor the publikeness of the act doth make it Preaching The end of the work cannot but be sacred whoever be the workers and if this be all they intend they say just nothing We cannot but wonder that Mr. Poole pag. 41. 42. should use these words The end of the actor or speak er is purely solely the salvation of their souls and so it is truely and may properly be called Preaching Surely if this be enough to denominate it properly Preaching then our description of Preaching is good and we may as well say to him as he doth to us p. 40. then we are all Preachers bond and free Male and Female for any of these or any gifted men that we plead for may make the salvation of souls the end of their speaking so that if he will blame us he must blame himself also He saith it is publike Preaching that they dispute against and it is that we dispute for and so we come to the main question Quest Whether some men who are not ordained Officers may Preach or whether persons who have Preaching gifts and graces or are apt to teach may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publike Assemblies though they be not ordained Officers Ans We answer affirmatively they may Preach Arg. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination The major of our Argument he saith is not beyond exception yet he doth not flatly deny it or reply any thing to our proofes of it or of the other proposition The minor he saith if true is for the tryal of gifts and that they dispute not about but whether out of a case of necessity c. Ans That our minor
visible at least who were added to the Church therefore they stood in a visible relation to Christ in order before addition to the Church for this see more in our Epistle to our former book 2. His minor is untrue for multitudes even amongst us are baptized and yet do not visibly stand in relation to Christ but to Satan Ergo Baptism doth not make visibly to stand in relation to Christ Again a man must stand in a visible relation to Christ before baptism Math. 28. 19. They must first be disciples and then baptized And therefore it is not baptism but some thing antecedaneous to it that maketh visibly to stand in relation to Christ. As to Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. They may shew that believers being baptized in the name of Christ are solemnly engaged to professe and conform themselves unto him and that in his death but they do not prove that men cannot visibly put on Christ in his death or that they cannot visibly be in Christ without baptism and therefore they do not evidence that baptizing is that act in or by which they are so much as visibly made to stand in relation to Christ Our answers to this objection do also answer his next argument We say men must visibly stand in a covenant relation before admission into the Church or unto baptism for visible believing or a profession of Faith is pre-required in those that are adulti unto baptism Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. v. 12. 36 37. And therefore baptism neither maketh a man to stand visibly in relation to the covenant or to the Church It s being aseal of the covenant implyeth a precedent consederation or presupposeth a mans being in covenant as being but a ratification or confirmation of a covenant already made We demand whether the Lords Supper be not as wel a seal of the covenant as Baptism And whether that maketh a man stand in relation to the covenant and he be in covenant as often as he partaketh thereof and out when he doth it not If otherwise then it is no contradiction that the application of such a seal should not make to stand in relation to the covenant and surely they must stand in a visible relation to the covenant before a partaking of the Supper and then something else must make to stand in relation to the covenant To his last Argument pag. 29. we reply It is not that which gives the capacity but that which giveth the right to Church-priveledges that makes a man stand in relation to a Church Nei her doth Baptism make a man capable of Church-priviledges no not of the Supper which he mentions for some infants are Baptized and excommunicate persons also and yet are uncapable of that Church-priviledge nay the Presbyterians will not admit to the Supper without examination and the Provincial Assembly plead against admitting the ignorant or scandalous to the Supper Vind. Presb. Govern pag. 56. c. By which it appeareth that though they donot account unbaptized persons capable of the Supper yet they do not judge Baptisme enough to capacitate for the Supper for then they must deny it to none that are baptized His Arguments thus failing his conclusions from them come to nothing We denyed that 1 Corin. 12. 28. or Eph. 4. did prove a Ministers relation as an Officer to a Catholick visible Church if such a Church were intended there for it may properly be said there are set in the Commonwealth Justices Constables c. yet they are limited in their Office to a particular County or Parish c. And it is not improper to say God hath given to or set in the Church viz. this and that Church Apostles Evangelists c. Object 3. That implies that its one political body wherein they are set c. Mr. Poole pag. 30. Answ If there were a Catholike Church and that which is not granted a political body to as a Commonwealth is yet it s being said God hath given to or set in the Church Apostles Evangelists c. would no more prove that they are Officers to that whole political Universal Church so much as in actu primo then it s being said there are set in the Commonwealth Justices Constables c. would prove that they are Justices or Constables to the whole Commonwealth Much less can it be a proof of any such thing where evidence is wanting for a political Universal Church Ob. 2. The case wholly differs for Justices Constables c. have limited commissions c. Mr. Pool pag. 30. Answ So are Ministers limited in their office and confined to their particular Churches as we have proved and therefore this maketh no difference in the cases The case of the Empire we spake to before the Princes do not Govern in common but every one is distinct in Lawes and customes Object 3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon but the sence c. Apostles were so set in the Church that they were also set over the church so are not Justices they are in not over the Commonwealth c. Mr. Poole pag. 30. Answ This 1 Cor. 12. 28. is the main Text urged for a Universal origanical Church and yet Reader thou may est see when it cometh to they are constrained to borrow help from other Texts to shore up their Argument We grant that the Apostles were set not onely in but over all Churches but that this is the sence and explication of the phrase which the Apostle useth or the intendment of this Text so as the Apostle should mean that God hath set over the Church Apostles when he onely saith God hath set in the Church Apostles c. this is not nor ever can be proved And it s very observable that those phrases might be used 1 Cor. 12. 28. and Ephes 4. 11 12. the two places chiefly alleadged for a general visible orginical Church though those Texts should not be understood of the visible Church at all for Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers are set in and given for the edifying of the mystical body of Christ though they be not Officers to it or set over it And a poor Argument is it that hath no better ground to stand upon this answereth what he saith pag. 31. that it is that body into whith we are Baptized both Jewes and Gentiles and one whole body c. for all this may be predicated of the mystical Church or body of Christ But if the visible Church or body be intended the Church of Corinth and a pari all other true churches is the body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 27. Now ye are the body of Christ c. and in the very next verse its added And he hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. seeing this immediately followeth it need not seem strange that the meaning should be this The particular Church of Corinth is the body of Christ and God hath set in this Church or body first Apostles