of the circumcision unto Peter Gal. 2. v. 7. but yet Paul to use Mr. Pools words though improper was actually immediately and absolutely an officer at the same time to the Jews hence he is often executing his office amongst the Jews as Act. 21. ver 15. 17. 18. c. And he saith expressely the care of all the Churches was upon him dayly 2 Cor. 11. ver 28. Ergo He had an actual relation to the Jewish as well as the Gentile Churches even to all the Churches and so no double relation did arise by his being the Apostle of the Gentiles but as a father having many children with families of their own may abide and continue longer with some of them then with others yet standeth in the same relation of a father to all So the Apostles though they did abide more with some Churches then with others yet no distinct relation was introduced thereby and therefore this instance of the Apostles is nothing to his purpose For the relation of ordinary Officers to a particular Church is such that if they had a relation to a Universal Church it would not be the same but another and so distinct that themselves assert a double relation and that one viz. that to the Church Universal lasteth though his particular relation ceaseth Jus Divin Min. p. 151. Neither doth it appear that all the Apostles had some Churches more especially assigned to them then others and those that had not must needs be as he phraseth it actually and equally related to all Churches and without any such double relation but were obliged to travel from one Church to another where as ordinary officers are fixed in their particular Churches and obliged to abide there Mr. Poole p. 9. taketh notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which he saith is the great rule in all Church administrations for a Minister may joyntly with others rule a far greater proportion then he can teach he taketh notice that the Apostles could not teach every Church yet did actually rule all the Churches at least which are mentioned Act. 15. c. Ans 1. The question is not whether there be a possibility of a Ministers ruling more then he can teâ—â—â—â— but whether by Christs appointment a Minister is to undertake the Ruling of more then he can teach or oâ— more then a particular Church we can find no institution of Christ for any such thing and without that edification will not be a rule sufficient to warrant the acting in Church-administrations when every thing may lawfully be done that is possible to be done then this arguing will be good 2. It is not proved that any act of Rule or Government was put forth Act. 15. and there is no syllable of proof that the Apostles power of Government was more extensive then their teaching power so much as in the exercise of it He proceedeth to lay down some Arguments to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as officers to more then their own particular Churches Argu. 1. If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Mr. Poole p. 10. heathens then they are noâ— Officers onely to their particular congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible heathens To prove his Minor he saith 1. That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected is undeniable 2 Such are clearly expressed Mat. 28. ver 19 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostical Office and relation Answ 1. There were multitudes baptized by John before the Apostles were constituted Officers Mat. 3. ver 5 6. and either there must be some visible Gospel Church then erected to which these Baptized persons were related and then his Argument is untrue or else that must be a truth which he calleth a monstrous paradox pag. 28. viz. That Baptism doth not admit or make a man to stand in relation to any Church for they were members of the Jewish Church before and so were not admitted into that by their Baptism and if no Gospel Church was at this time erected then their Baptism did not admit them into any Church at all 2. Many did visibly stand in relation to Christ before the Apostles were constituted Officers or had that mission Mat. 28. therefore either his Argument p. 29. must be false or else this his position p. 10. that Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected cannot be true of which he saith it s a plain case and undeniable 3. If the Essence of the Church had been preserved in the Apostles in case all converted Christians had dyed as he supposed pag. 10. how can he deny the Church to have a being the Apostles having a being in whom he saith the Essence of the Church was 4. We desire our distinction formerly mentioned may be remembred we grant the Apostles were and others are in a general sence Officers to heathens but we deny that they were or that others are Officers to heathens in a special sence namely as over them in the Lord and this answereth his supposition pag. 10. of Christians dying and none remaining to be Preached to but heathens and also taketh off his charge against us in the same page for denying Apostles to be Officers unto heathens 5. Apostles were extraordinary officers our question is onely about ordinary Officers and therefore all he saith is beside the question If Apostles were before the visible Gospel Church was erected and if Apostles acted as Officers towards convertible heathens yet seeing they were extraordinary Officers it will not follow thence that ordinary Officers act as Officers towards convertible heathens Object Apostles and Pastors are parallel'd in this case Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. c. the body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum or the object of the pastoral Office but the body of Christ includes heathens Therefore heathens to be converted are the object and correlate of the pastoral office That heathens are a part of Christs body he thinketh evident they are called his sheep Joh. 10. ver 16. he laid down his life for them which he did onely for his body Eph. 5. c. Mr. Poole pag. 12. 13. Answ 1. If by the body of Christ Eph. 4. ver 11. 12. we must as Mr. Poole saith pag. 12. necessarily understand the whole collection of all Christs members in all ages of the Church all which in Scripture phrase go to the making up of Christs body c. then it is the mystical body of Christ that is intended consisting of the whole number of the elect redeemed justified or sanctified ones and these onely And if the body of Christ includeth heathens and visibly unconverted ones as Mr. Poole supposeth it doth here then it must be taken in this sence but that ministers should be Officers or act as officers to this mystical
the Argument proveth just nothing Argu. 5. Their fifth Argument is To Preach without calling and Ordination to the work is to usurp authority over the Church to prove which they assert preaching to be an act of authority Hebr. 7. 1 Tim. 2. 12. The weaknesse of this argument we largely shewed Preacher Sent pag. 171 172 173. but Mr. Pool replyeth not to what we have there said He telleth us pag. 107. if a man preacheth to heathens he cannot usurp authority over the Church and this enervateth their argument We deny that men use office-authority towards heathens in preaching to them they do not act as over them his very instance confuteth this for an Ambassador hath not authority over him that he is sent to treat with in a large sense we have proved that gifted men have authority and that from the Scripture to preach without ordination and so we do not crosse the golden saying of Tgnatius which he mentioneth pag. 107. As for Hebr. 7. we said amongst other things he that blesseth by an original inherent power as Christ doth he is greater then he that is blessed and of such blessing the Text speaketh c. Ob. This is very grosse the Text evidently speaks of Melchisedeck who blessed onely ministerially and not by an original power c. pag. 108. Answ 1. We did not say that Melchisedeck blessed by an original power our words plainly give that power to Christ onely 2. That the Text hath reference unto Christ who hath an original power to blesse we proved and it is clear Heb. 6. v. 20. Jesus made an high Priest forever after the order of Melchisedeck and Heb. 7. v. 11 12. 14. 17. After the similitude of Melchisedeck there ariseth another Priest ve 15. Whence it is evident that the Apostles main scope drift and designe is to set forth Christ in his greatnesse and excellency by comparing him with Melchisedeck for severall things are spoken of Melchisedeck that do more properly belong unto Christ then to him as he is said to be without Father without Mother and withuut beginning Heb. 7. 3. yet Melchisadeck was a man and not God and so as to his natural being had a Father a Mother and a beginning and therefore these things are spoken of him as Calvin saith as of one cloathed with the person of Christ Thus the Apostle declareth not onely how Christ concurred in the particular act of blessing Abraham but the greatnesse of Melchisedeck who blessed Abraham is mentioned chiefly to notifie the greatnesse of Christ who blessed the faithful after that similitude viz. with an extraordinary High-Priests blessing From all which it is evident that if Melchisedeck blessed only ministerially yet seeing the chief designe of the Text is to set forth Christs acting as a high-Priest in blessing hence as it hath reference unto him so a blessing by an original power is intended 3. Melchisedeck blessed by an extraordinary authority and this can be no proof that all ordinary persons who blesse others have a superioriry over those that are blessed and so this speaketh nothing to his purpose As to 1 Tim. 2. 12. we told them there is a plain distinction and difference in that very Text between teaching and usurping authority as nor doth intimate Ob. 1. It is a familiar thing to use a word disjoyning one thing from an other when indeed the one explaines the other Rev. 22. 15. Gal. 1. 12. Mr. Pool pag. 108. Answ 1. If sometimes a word disjunctive be expositive yet usually it is not so multitude of instances might be given where things disjoyned by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in 1 Tim. 2. 12. must be distinct one from an other 2. The Scriptures he alledgeth speak not for him Rev. 22. 15. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is copulative and so doth not necessarily disjoyne as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth The things are distinct in Gal. 1. 12. I neither received it of man neither was I taught it c. i. e. I neither was taught it by others nor did I learn it of my selfe by my own study and industry there is a teaching and so a learning which is not by other men a self-teaching Rom. 2. 21. and a natures teaching 1 Corin. 11. 14. yea there are Satanical teachings which are not by men 3. When the Scripture useth a disjoyning word as here it doth the things spoken of are distinct unlesse where cogent reasons enforce the contrary and what a weak argument then is it to prove teaching an act of authority when these are disjoyned with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very Text that is produced for the proof of it viz. 1. Tim. 2. 12. Ob. 2. On the one side of it teaching is forbidden on the other side silence is enjoyned and nothing can be more evident then that he speakes of that usurpation of authority which consisteth in teaching and is opposed to silence Mr. Pool pag. 109. Answ 1 If things be never so distinct yet one must be expressed before the other and therefore the putting teaching before usurping authority doth not prove usurpation of authority to consist in teaching neither is the injoyning silence after any proof of it for women may usurp authority by private speaking and so silence is opposed unto usurping of authority which is not publike teaching 2. Many other phrases are so◠hemmed in on both sides and yet the things are certainely distinct one from another as 1 Cor. 3. ver 7. watering hath planting on the one side and Gods giving increase on the other side will any say therefore watering consisteth in planting so Gal. 1. ver 1. and Gal. 5. 6. neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith c. uncircumcision hath circumcision on the one side and faith on the other side but will any say that uncircumcision consisteth in circumcision no more doth teaching on the one side and silence on the other prove usurpation of authority to consist in teaching Mr. Pool speaketh here with much confidence but with no evidence Ob. 3. The man here is not to be understood singularly for her husband but indefinitely for any man for the Apostle is comparing Sex with Sex in the general it concerns such women as have no husbands it is authority in a Church affair that is spoken of Mr. Pool pag. 109. Answ 1. If the man here be understood indefinitely any man then the gift 1 Pet. 4. 10. is to be understood indefinitely any gift and this answereth what he saith pag. 45. about an indefinite expression 2. If as he saith the Apostle compareth Sex with Sex in the general then the prohibition belongeth only to women and so it maketh nothing against the preaching of gifted men 3. The whole sex is forbidden teaching but only those that have husbands may be forbidden this usurping of authority because only they are required to be under that obedience of wives The promise of salvation in child-bearing mentioned but
A VINDICATION OF THE PREACHER SENT OR A VVarrant for publick Preaching without Ordination Wherein is further discovered 1. That some Gifted men unordained are Gospel Preachers 2. That Officers sustain not a relation as Officers to the Universal Church and other weighty questions concerning Election and Ordination are opened and cleared In answer to two Books 1. Vindiciae Ministrij Evangelici Revindicatae or the Preacher pretendly Sent sent back again By Dr Colling of Norwich 2 Q. warrante or a Moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the Preaching of gifted and unordained persons By Mr. Pool at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London WITH A Reply to the exceptions of Mr. Hudson and D. Collings against the Epistle to the Preacher Sent. Published By Frederick Woodal Minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk Samuel Petto Minister of the Gospel at Sandcraft in Suffolk LONDON Printed by J. T. Livewell Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1659. An Advertisement to the Reader IT is Recorded of the most holy that when the cry of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah came up unto him he went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry thereof before he executed judgment upon them and this is written for our instruction that where indictments are drawn up against persons or things we may not proceed to sentence upon the charg untill wee see the proof thereof We are not ignorant of cries even outcries against the liberty of Prophsying we contend about and we fear notwithstanding our former and present defence if the question be moved about it what evil hath it done the answer will be returned unto it away with it crucisie it Our brethren are preparing Spirits unto this while they represent it an Idol the City of Jericho which was not to be built a Trojan horse full of Error nonsense and blasphemy A Pandoras box whence all sorts of mischeivous soulpoysoning opinions fly out c. See their Epistles And here suffer us a little to expostulate with them Is ordination indeed as a Venice-glass that can hold no poyson are you not partial who can finde Errors Heresies impertinencyes among persons not ordained but among the ordayned omnia bene Alas what learned non-sense amongst many of them what empty notions What Aiery speculations how often are people served with bones instead of bread How oft have they froth for drink They that condemn too much Lead in a window because it hinders light might be offended with painted glasse We confesse and deny not we have seen Theeves and murtherers going out and in at this door as also in the other way who deserve indeed that their mouthes should be stopped but their evil flowes not from our principle but from the abuse thereof not from the principle as stated by us although Mr. Pool in his Epistle thinks it done very loosly because though we assert it inexpedient mischeivous and uncomfortable to preach without approbation from others yet we say in some cases for ought we know it may be so done Preacher Sent. pag. 20. wherein we might promise our selves favour for them whose principle it is that in some cases it may be lawful to preach without Ordination Mr. Pool pag. 68. 102. If they put Ordination in the place of Aprobation yet say in some cases a man may preach without ordination where is the offence But Dr. Collings doth judge that no rule of Regulation can or will be fixed by us upon this liberty so that it differs not from licentiousnesse but is a very strumpet harlot Mother of abominations c. We answer 1. If by this rule of Regulation he mean the form or patern to which all doctrine must conform which therefore is called regula regulans the Rule is fixed viz. the sacred Scriptures 2. If he mean the measure or standard for qualification the Rule needs not be fixed by us where it is fixed as in Rules of examination unto Ordination it is rarely observed and a man may be qualified for one place or people not for another 3. If he mean the order of reducement in case Error or heresie be preached or the liberty any way abused the Rule is fixed Mat. 18. 15 16. The Church hath power over preachers and over Pastors Coloss 4. 17. 1 Corin. 5. 12. Rev. 2. ver 2. Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers That Church and the Angel thereof are commended for trying of Preachers Those that may and disapprove may approve where there is cause here is a Scripture rule for approbation of Preachers and that not so much as in order to Ordination Courteous Reader we desire thee to take notice of these few following particulars 1. That we do not repeat all the words of Dr. Collings or Mr. Pool but what is most material in their Arguments which liberty they have taken to themselves in replying to us 2. That although we have cause to complain that many Arguments in our former book yet remain untouched and some but slightly wounded are buried alive with too much of the dust and ashes of reproach cast upon them yet hoping and expecting that the determining Reader will examine and compare Arguments and answers impartially we shall be silent 3. That very many of Mr. Pools Arguments and replies are drawn from the Apostles and that in matters wherein they acted as extraordinary Officers Also necessity is often urged against us whereas necessity cannot justly be pleaded to justifie actings unless it be in natural duties Their instance of the Shew-bread reacheth no further it was a natural duty to eat that for the preservation of life to kill a man in self-defence is a natural duty which may further answer what Mr. Pool saith pag. 102. about necessity we say to defend the life of a man or to take away the life of a murderer is not a peculiar work to a Magistrate but to command persons to the one and the other is the Magistrats work and this a private man may not do in a case of necessity and if they will grant preaching to be a natural duty how can they deny gifted men liberty for doing of it 4. That thou art to expect this the last thou shalt receive from us in this controversie we cannot absolutely promise it because the righteous and the wise and their works are in the hand of God Eccles 9. 1. but are very much inclined unto it amongst others upon these grounds because we have spoken fully to the matter in our former and this book and there is no end of words neither do we love alwayes to be wading in a controversie which diverteth from more practical things at present and at the last must be left to the Reader to judge and we would not by multiplying replies carry thee away from those Arguments we used in the first Book which they have left behind without any thingof
such Acts to tell it unto So Ephes 3. 10. 21. 1. Tim. 3. 5. If a man i. e. any man knew not to rule his own house i. e. this or that house how shall he take care of the Church i. e. this or that Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. in the house of God which is the Church i e. in any Church where thou presidest 〈◊〉 Tim. 5 16. Let not the Church be charged i. e. any Church where the any man or woman mentioned by the Apostle having widdowes doth reside Heb. 2. 12. In the midst of the Church This declaring praise cannot be in the midst of the universal Church which never meeteth upon such Acts and therefore it is not meant of this or that particular onely but this and that and the other distinct indeed in distinct individual formes as Plato Socrates are distinct but agreeing in common nature inseparable inherent in them both Thus it is said the wife is bound 1. Cor. 7. 39 every particular wife the man is not of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. 8. nor this nor that man nor any man when the name of an Integrum is given to a part it s not so because its a part but because of the common nature so that the flesh of Iohn and the flesh of Thomas is all flesh as well as the flesh of the Leg and arme of either of them we do not think a particular Church formed unto fellowship according to institution is as so a part or hath its denomination for parts sake but being of the same kind with other Churches of the same constitution it s included in and represented by the same name for kindes sake This may answer the argument from the Apostles who because not officers to a certain particular onely are supposed to have been so to the universal For the Apostles were Officers in and over every particular by vertue of an immediate call and general commission wherin they have no successors which particulers though not parts as is already expressed may be signified by a singular word Church even as many common wealths as to order and government Independent may be so signified and it may be properly said God appointed for a common-wealth Rulers Judgges c. i. e. for this that and the other Common-wealth Nor is it haâ—d to Imagin how one may have power in and over two or three or more yet they have no dependance one upon an other A Father may have ten daughters and each daughter her family distinct the Father hath power in each family though the particular sisters or their o fficers not so Nor are the arguments more cogent taken from baptism and excommunication Baptism makes not any one stand in relation to the Church more then the Lords-Supper nor is it administred that persons may be members of the body we know our brethren will not administer it to the heathens or Idolaters but to persons called from Idols i. e. to members in their sense of the visible Church We know our brethren qualified their Catholick notion with this terme solemn intending not admission in a general sense but solemn admission as the enlisting or enrolment of a soldier is his admission into the Army But its consistency with their other principles we see not If a soldier be casheired he is readmitted by a new enrolment If a member be excomunicate yet when absolved he is not rebaptized We need say no more to this argument here having occasion to meet it againe and to consider the Scriptures whereon it s built We rest very confident that some Parent Master or neighbour who through providence is instrumental to the converting of a sinner doth more to the entring a person into the body of Christ then any Minister ever did by Baptism or can do Though baptism entereth not a member into any Church yet where ever regularly performed is valid to its ends uses and consequential priveledges in every Church not by reason of the unity of Churches but upon an other account Suppose a man be free in London and have the seale of his freedom in that Corporation onely yet he is free to buy and sell in every Corporation in England and interested in common Priveledges where ever he is though not in proper as Jurisdiction and Government If he that sets the seal at London admits not into every Company and Corporation in the Land If communion with every Corporation in some things doth not prove such an union among them all as is between the members of some one Corporation The argument upon Baptism to prove a Catholick Church falleth to the ground Excomunication indeed separateth the person excomunicate from Relation to and communion with the body from which he is cut off 1 Cor. 55. 7. 13. But as a member forfeiting his freedom at London is formerly desfranchised there where he was actually a member and consequently incapacitated to claim the Priviledges which formerly he enjoyed by vertue of that freedom other where though London and other Cities and Townes Corporate make not one Corporation So it is in this case Mr. Hudson objects postcript page 5. several Corporations are constituted by several Charters c. and but the universal Church hath but one Charter from our Soveraigne under the same Systeme of Lawes c. Answ As the World according to the fellowship of Nature hath one Jus Gentium and Law of nature for the whole yet according to the fellowship of Order must of necessity be under other Lawes for the several parts thereof in those combined fellowships so the Church in the fellowship of its Nature or the whole company called to union and communion with the Lord Jesus hath one Law of faith obedience c. For all its individuals yet not one Law for the whole as such for Order Policy c. But the Churches in the fellowship of order have Lawes suitable to their order by the wil and appointment of Jesus Christ It s the Law of the universal Church that the members of it worship the Lord. It s the Law of the particular that the members meet and worship in one place 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. thus they walk together in ordinances so that walking in ordinances with an other Church neglecting it in this is sinful because every one is bound to walk with the same Church whereof he is a member That Text is yet in controversie 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church we said its paralel to God hath set the members every one in the body verse 18 If this prove not a Catholike body nor doth that prove a Catholick Church Dâ— Collings replyeth the body is totum integrale If members had been enumerated not confined to the service of that particular it would have proved a universal body Answ The body to which the Church is compared is totum intigrale Organicum but particulare so is the Church The Apostles had place and power over more then this
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.
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
fourth argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples Act. 13. 25. c. Apollo preached publickly yet was not ordained and the scattered Saints Act. 8. Dr. Collings may see Preacher Sent. p. 66. that we intend not Gospel presidents by an extraordinary call and therefore what â—he saith Vind. Revind pag. 57. 58. about Apostleship the holy Kisse c. is but to raise a mist before the Eyes of the Reader Ob. In these instances there is not a parity 1. In the species of their gifts there might be office or extraordinary gifts Apollo is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1. 12. called a Minister 1 Cor. 3. 5. and was mighty in the Scriptures It is plain he preached onely in order to office p. 59. The scattered Christians were of the 8000. who were filled with extraordinary gifts Acts 4. 31. pag. 60. 2. In the Acts nothing found to evidence that they Acts 8. did preach in publike assemblies p. 6. 3. In the state of the Church it was an infant state and a persecuted state they might be under a necessity oâ— precept those extraordinary gifts might be attended with a praeceptive impression Acts 4. 31. there was necessitas medij there was no other ordinary meanes of Salvation for these people Vind. Revind p. 61. 62. Ans 1. Apollo's gifts were not of an other species Adam and Abel not two species of men though Adam by creation Abel by generation nor the habits in Adam a divers species from them in Abel because they infused these acquired If Apollo's gifts had been infused which yet is not granted this would not prove them of a divers species but his being mighty in the Scriptures maketh it probable that he received them in an ordinary way as now a dayes viz. by the Scriptures and not otherwayes as the Doctor argueth He wrongeth himselfe and us in affirming pag. 59. that we say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it the contrary may be seen Preacher Sent. p. 71. 72. 73. yet it being an endlesse work to answer the groundlesse â—urmises of men we had reason to desire proof But Apollo knew onely the baptism of Iohn Acts 18. 25. Ergo Apollo neither had extraordinary gifts nor did preach in order to office or ordination for without knowing more then the baptisme of Iohn he could not know these which belong to the baptism of Christ Mat. 3. 11. He i. e. Jesus Christ shall baptize you with the holy Ghost And that he should preach as a Probationer to a woman Priscilla and that at Ephesus in order to Office at Corinth how unlikely is it As to the Scattered Christians If all mentioned Acts. 4. 31. had extraordinary preaching gifts and were 8000. in number which yet we do not grant then the Gospel knoweth occasional preachers for so many could not have opportunity for constant preaching in that Church neither can it be proved that they did it else-where before the scattering Also then he must say that here was a whole Church of Preachers which is more strange then that in these dayes there should be in Churches some gifted men besides Officers who may Preach Some think that the speaking the word with boldnesse mentioned v. 31. hath reference to the Apostles as an answer of that prayer for them v. 29. 30. but we say it cannot be proved that they were the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost that they are there said to be filled with and so the objection vanisheth 2 As for parity of Acts Apollo preached publikely in the Synogogue and Christians heard him Acts 18. 26. and this he did not with the allowance of the Jewish Church onely but of Christ And if afterward he were an officer which we know not but he might though upon his proofs we do not conclude it yet now he was none The scattered Christians went every where preaching Acts 8. 4. and therefore they acted publickly as well as privately He must assert an order of private preachers who may goe every where preaching in private houses but may not do it in publick or else this exception Vind. Revind p. 61. is vain 3. As to the state of the Church as it was an infant state so Christ provided extraordinary Officers as Apostles and gave extraordinary gifts for the nursing of it up in infancy but as we have proved Apollo had no such gifts and the Dr. saith p. 59. its plain that he preached onely in order to Office by which he plainly granteth that for the present he was no Officer at all of a Gospel Church And let it be proved that any others had an allowance in that infant state to act in Gospel-administrations which were at other times peculiar to office as Apollo had if preaching were so all presidents or examples recorded in the New Testament refer to that infant state of the Church and therefore no argument for Gospel presidents could be vailed if the infancy of the Church could hinder it because that may be alleadged against all that some presidents have the force of a rule himselfe granteth Vind. Revind pag. 58. and others Jus Dinin Min. pag. 160. 161. as for those Acts 8. there being in a persecuted state will not make such a case of necessity as he speaketh of for it doth not appear that all these scattered Saints which preached had such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost however such extraordinary preaching gifts are to be used in the most tranquil setled state of the Church though many Ministers ordained be present and therefore persecution about which we are now speaking could not put them under any such preceptive impression as might render their preaching lawful now which in a setled state of the Church would be unlawfull And upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people no such necessity as he talketh of will be evinced from it If Churches had lost their Officers by persecution there were a greater colour for such a plea but here the case was otherwaies for the Apostles who were Officers were not scattered neither was it the persecuted Church that was preached to but others How mens being persecuted from their habitations can render their preaching Lawful which otherwise were not or lay them under either a natural or moral necessity to preach in their travels beyond what they should have if their occasions did lead them to the same places without persecution we understand not And the Apostles who were by Christs appointment to preach not onely in the Regions of Judea and Samaria where this scattering was Acts 8. 1. but in all Nations Mat. 28. 19. were neither scattered nor necessitated that it appeareth to stay where they were by the persecution and therefore there was other means of salvation for those people though these scattered Saints had not preached when the Lord had Officers of his own near viz. Apostles yet he would honour
the Office which authorize to such an exercise of the gift 2. There is a promise of the very gift of prophesie which is of far larger extent then office Joel 2. 28 I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh your sons and your daughters shall prophesie c. This all flâ—sh cannot be limited unto Officers This promise began to be fulfilled Act. 2. but its full accomplishment is not yet as appears Joel 3. ver 1. The captivity of Judah and Jerusalem is not yet recovered the Jews not yet converted and this shall be in those dayes i. e. wherein the pouring out of the spirit shall be for those were the daves before mentioned Both sons and daughters still have a gift of Scripture-interpretation which is a gift of prophesie And this promise of the gift of prophesie being so general hence our Argument will not prove that it was no gift as he saith 3. Prayers for the gift of prophesie or any other mercies which are to be begged with submission to the will of God cannot be in duty or faith without they be limited and bounded by some Divine word or promise for it is a humane faith which hath not a Divine word to bottom upon and if it were otherwise any man might pray that he might be made a King an Emperour or to have an estate of many thousand pounds per annum or to live many thousand years on earth or what he pleased and this might warrant him therein that he prayed for them with submission to the will of God If a Divine word be the boundary of such supplications then a particular mans recovery out of sickness may be owned as a fruit of Promise and then there must be some Divine word for every mans becoming an officer who was a member of the Church at Corinth else they could not in duty or in faith covet it and it cannot be imagined that such a word should be limited to Corinth and therefore it must extend to the Church of Ephesus Smyrna and any other Gospel Church and so it must amount to thus much That all the men who were members of any Gospel Church were bound in duty and might in faith covet to be Church officers and how likely it is that this should be a truth and how well it agreeth with our brethrens Principles who deny the Preaching of gifted men let the Reader judge And if he liketh not our Argument from a promise he may take it from a precept and then he must say That every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth and so of any other Gospel Church was commanded to covet to be an Officer if prophesying were an office for every man was commanded to covet to prophesie 1 Cor. 14. ver 1. 5. 39. 4. We apprehend there is an impossibility in respect of the revealed will of God of many mens becoming Officers who are Church-members hinted in that place 1 Cor. 12. 7. which we have according to his wish thought upon but although it seemeth to deny that all members of the Church can attain unto the same Office gifts or measure of them yet it doth not deny that there may be a joynt concurrence of all in matters of common concernment nor the usefulness of the suffrage of the meanest members And by several passages in his book pag. 2. we are apt to think that he doth not encourage the members of his Church to covet to be Officers either there or in other Churches though pag. 68. he saith if we mistake him not this is such a perfection as they ought to labour after The London Ministers are of another mind for Jus Div. Min. pag. 85. they deny it to be a common duty to study Divinity in order to Preaching Universal holiness is promised Ezek. 36. ver 26. A new heart will I give you ver 29. I will save you from all your uncleannesses If he meaneth Universal holiness in respect of degrees it is promised to and shall be injoyed in another life and so the attainment of it there is to be sought for here We are to labor for the highest pitch of holines which is attainable in this life and this is promised But that which is impossible to be attained is not to be coveted And it is considerable that no Church is exhorted to covet to be Apostles or Evangelists or Pastors or Teachers but a Church is exhorted to covet the gift of prophesie and therefore that gift may more generally be coveted then the lowest of those Offices 5. The term all doth include the generality of those spoken to and that is enough to our purpose He granteth pag. 69. that priority of order is no infallible Argument where there is any other Scripture or any found reason to evince it no intention of the holy pen-men and that both are found in this case our Arguments for their being ordinary Prophets do sufficiently prove We do not conclude that those Texts 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. 12. are meant of extraordinary Prophets but upon this supposition that they must be Officers we think it will not follow that those 1 Cor. 14. must be so also As if he lay upon the catch he cryeth out we take them at their word c. But seeing it s not impossible that the one place should speak of one fort of Prophets and the other place of another we might use an it may be about it for that often denoteth but a possibility and leaveth the matter dubious Ezek. 2. 3. Jerem. 36. 3. 7. Luke 20. 13. Prop. 2. That some have the gift of prophesie or that prophesying is a gift still continuing This we prove 1. Because there is no Gospel rule for the ceasing of it 2. Because it was ordinary Ob. So say the Prelates for Archbishops and Bishops where is there any now that Vind. Revind pag. 70. 71. can without study meditation infallibly give the sence of Scripture from Revelation or can foretell things to come we have experience that those pleaded for cannot do the first and the year 1657. being come and gone and the Jews not converted proves that John Tillinghast cannot do the latter St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased The gift of tongues and bealing in those dayes were ordinary yet none of them is continuing Answ 1. It is not proved that the prophecying 1 Cor. 14. was a gift of infallible Revelation or of foretelling things to come and therefore the ceasing of such gifts and the charging Timothy to study and meditate are far from proving that this prophecying is ceased Mr. John Tillinghast neither pretended to such an extradinary gift of foretelling things to come or infallible Revelation as he speaketh of and therefore is very impertinently alleadged here The first stirring of the Jews he thought in probability and greatest likelihood from Scriptures numbers would be in the year 1656. vid.
calleth in any indifferent Reader and then any Reader to judge and addeth that the letter of Scripture is expresse against us 1 Cor. 14. 22. and rehearseth the Words one would think such a heap of high words should not be used with such confidence unlesse it were to usher in a discovery of some grosse Error or mistake which he had found in those which he writeth against But upon perusing those pages again and again we cannot find any such Error on our part nay we think that he hath rushed himselfe into divers grosse self-contradictions Let any indifferent Reader search our former book Preacher Sent. p. 115. and find out if he can how v. 22. is against us and that expresly in the letter Have we either denyed Tongues to be for a sign to them that believe not or affirmed them to be for a signe to them that believe have we asserted prophesying to serve for them that believe not otherwise then the Apostle doth v. 24 25. or denyed that Prophecying serveth for them which believe If not what shadow of truth is there in what he faith He telleth us we would make them believe that the sense is onely that Prophesie was not for a signe to them that believed not but for their conversion it might be This he would have the Reader weigh a little and then judge betwixt us we desire it may be weighed Reader which part wilt thou deny Wilt thou say That Prophesie was for a sign to them that believed not This Dr. Collings himself pag. 73. denyeth using these words This Text viz. v. 22. onely proves that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not Wilt thou say that Prophesie might not be for the conversion of them that believe not Doth not the Apostle prove it might v. 24. 25 and doth not Dr. Collings consesse it when the unbeliever goeth into the Church Assembly pag. 85. If he supposeth that we grant Prophesie to be a sign but not for their conversion he is much mistaken he may see it denyed Preacher Sent. p. 102. neither is there a syllable that way pag. 115. to which he is now replying We may conclude from his words and v. 22. that it is not a sign at all for that verse plainly denyeth it to be a signe to unbelievers and he saith pag. 84. if it were a signe at all it must be for them who believed not and this confirmeth our argument pag. 102. And let the Reader judge whether Dr. Collings hath not run into a self-contradiction in the following expressions of the same book 1. The antithesis 1 Cor. 14. 22. he saith lyes here that tongues were for a sign to heathens that believed not but prophesying was a sign onely for such as believed viz it was an act onely to to be performed within the 1. It is plain that if prophecying were for any signe it must be for unbelievers for believers needed no signe Vind. Revind pag. 84. Now that prophecy should be for their i. e. unbelievers pale of the Churth this text onely proves that prophesie was no signe to them that believed not Vind. Revind pag. 73. conversion and not a signe for it seems very harsh Vind. Revind pag. 85. 2. Let any Reader judge whether those words but prophecying not for those who believe not doe not plainly exclude the ordinance from any relation to unbelievers Vind. Revind pag. 84. 2. That v. 25. 26. prove that Prophesie is useful for the conversion of unbelievers we grant it but it is when the unbeliever comes into the Church assembly Vind. Revind Pag. 85. We hope Dr. Collings understands by Prophecy such Prophecy as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians otherwise we may tell him as he doth us pag. 65. he deceives his Reader with an equivocal word Yea our present question is onely about the Prophecy spoken of 1 Cor. 14. and we deny that this Prophecying was for any sign either to believers or unbelievers As ordinary preaching is now for the conversion of unbelievers yet is not a sign for it so was that Prophesying for their conversion yet not a signe for it Whereas he saith pag 85. Prophecy is useful for the conversion of unbelievers but it is when the unbeliever comes into the Church Assembly not when the Prophet goes out to them v. 23. 24. and addeth mark the Prophet is tyed up to the Assembly of the Church in one place and then blameth some for travelling up and down the countrey and so pag. 73. 109. We consesse we wonder that Dr. Collings should professe himselfe to be of this mind Is not this charged to be Independentism in the height of it to tie up some Gospel-administrations to the Assembly of the Church in one place Is there not as much ver 23. 24. to tie up from going out to any other Church Assemblies as from going out to unbelievers yea is there not as much 1 Cor. 11 17. 18. 20. 33. to tie up the Lords Supper to the Assembly of the Church in one place as there is 1 Cor. 14. ver 23. 24. to confine prophesie to it yet would he not blame us if we should say a Pastor may administer the Lords Supper to believers of other Churches when they come into the Church Assemblies but must not go out to them The Assembly speaking of administering the Sacrament to members of another Church tell us surely he i. e. an Elder may as well do it when he goes to them as when they come to him for it Answ of the Assem pag. 7. and may not we say that the Prophets may go to unbelievers as well as they come to them If the prophecying Act. 19. 6. were an extraordinary gift or conferred in an extraordinary way this proveth not either that all prophecying or that mentioned 1 Cor. 14. was so CHAP. IV. Containing a short reply to what Dr. Collings saith in defence of his own Arguments OUr Arguments for the Preaching of some persons ordinarily in publike Assemblies without Ordination being now cleared from those exceptions which he laid against them Hence it appeareth that there are some Gospel Vind. Revind p. 86. to p. 90. Precepts and Presidents which allow the ordinary publike Preaching of some gifted persons without Ordination and this answereth his first Argument Argu. 1. None of the Scriptures he alleadgeth do prove that all Vind. Revind from Pag 86. to pag. 90. those that are to Preach the Gospel should be so solemnly set apart for that work And hence some who are no Officers nor extraordinarily gifted may ordinarily Preach in publike Assemblies and therefore Preaching is not an act peculiar to Office and this answereth his second argument p. 90. 91. Arg. 2. In our former book p. 199. we say distribution is materially an Vind. Revind Pag. 90. act of a Deacons Office but not formally Barnabas and Saul distributed the Churches stock Act. 11. vers 29. 30. yet they were no Deacons
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
are mediate commands to us to watch and the watching is the same and so may the mission then and now be the same And if Mat. 28. 19. were not the same mission that others have now why doth he alleadge that place to prove Preaching and Baptizing in the same Commission Vind. pag. 35. Vind. Revind pag. 92. 94. and say that it doth establish a constant Office of the Ministry to the worlds end And to be sure the Apostles mission was not Ordination As for a mission to the whole Catholick Church which he speaketh of p. 117. it is an unscriptural notion and no reason being produced to countenance it we should but waste paper to multiply words about it and this is our answer to his fifth chapter CHAP. V. Concerning Apollo and Johns baptisme as also the Texts for Election OUr argument from the preaching of Apollo is such as spiritual weapons being wanting to fight with it he is fleeing to the carnal weapons of bitter words and seeketh that way to prevail against it We had occasion to say that the baptism of Iohn the baptism of Christ are distinguished each from other Hereupon he saith pag. 118. This argument as to the matter of it is purely Popish and false as to the forme of it and its usage in this case is primarily Socinian as to both false and no way conclusive And diverse arguments he bringeth to prove Iohns baptisme and Christs to be the same We grant they are the same in kind they are not two Baptismes and so all his Arguments are needless and concern not us But that the baptisme of John is as we said distinguished from the Baptisme of Christ is generally asserted by Protestant writers and may appear Argu. 1. From the defectiveness of that knowledge which reacheth no further then Johns Baptisme Act. 18. 25. It had been in vain to say he knew onely the Baptisme of John if there had been nothing more to be known besides what was in that baptisme and his learning the way of God more perfectly from Aquila and Priscilla ver 26. doth intimate the imperfection of it Now if any thing be to be known besides what belonged to Johns Baptisme it must belong to Christs Baptisme and so proveth them to be distinguished Argu. 2. From clear Scripture Luke 7. ver 28. He that is least in the Kingdom of God is greater then he i. e. then John Baptist So Mat. 11. ver 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Praeftantior nempe quoad genus doctrinae quippe quae tum erit longe illustrior jucundior piscat Inloc How could the least in the Kingdom of God be greater then John if his Baptisme were not differenced from Christs Argu 3. From the non-appointment either of Ordination or of those Officers which are to be Ordained until after the Baptisme of John it was impossible to know by Johns Baptisme that there should be Pastors and Teachers or that they should receive such an Ordination the institution for these Offices did not come until afterward and are onely to be found amongst the Doctrines of Christ and so prove a difference between the Baptismes let any shew an institution for these amongst any of the doctrines of John otherwise Act. 18 ver 25. Apollo's Preaching when he knew onely the Baptisme of John which did give no knowledge of Ordination is a full proof that he did and others may preach without ordination Dr. Collings Vind. Revind p. 117. 118. useth these words Bellarmine and other Jesuites and Papists say that the baptism of Christ and Iohn were distinguished but I cannot tell that any Protestants said so before our brethren And pag. 121. he addeth these words That our bretheren may be ashamed ever to bring this argument into the field again I must tell them that as the Papists laid the foundation so the blasphemous Socinian was the first I ever met with who built upon it Reader if the odious names of Papist and Socinian can raise such a dust as to blind thine eyes thou wilt be in danger here to loose sight of the truth but that these charges are altogether groundlesse in the present case may appear 1. Because we do not distinguish them as Papists do in the substance but onely in the circumstance we did not say they are diverse kinds of baptismes but diverse in the manner of Revelation and in this they whom he citeth against us are for us and Chemnitius expressely treats of and asserts the difference Exam. Con. Trid. can de Bapt. Will Dr. Collings say that nothing can be distinguished unlesse it be diversified in kind Is not a man in a married state distinguished from himselfe in a single state Is not the new Moon distinguished from the old yet the same Moon Surely as well may Iohns baptisme be distinguished from Christs 2. Because many both ancient and moderne writers who were neither Papists nor Socinians have asserted the baptisme of Iohn and Christ to be distinguished yea some of them have gone further then we in this matter Cyprian who flourished about the yeare of our Lord 250. useth these word 〈◊〉 Praeparabat viam Domino Joannes lavando exterius Corpora ut praecederet exterius lavacrum secuturum baptisma in quo conferretur animarum ablutio peccatorum remissio Praecessit quod er at ex parte ut consummatio sequeretur Cyprian De baptismo Christi manifestatione Trinitatis page 436. And of the same mind was Tertullian and other of the Antients Aâ—â—o Aretius saith Ministerium suum baptizandi distinguit a Christi baptismo Ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu Sancto igni primum fatetur baptizandi munus utrique esse commune sed in se plurimum differre c. Aret. in Mâ—â— 3. v. 11. paâ— 133. Piscator in Mat. 3. v. 11. pag. 70. Discrimen tantum est in circumstantia temporis quia Johannes baptizavit in Christum paulo post manifestandum Acts 19. 4. at Apostoli illorumque successores baptizarunt baptizant in Christum jam manifestatum Spanhem Duâ— Evang. par 3. pag. 72. 73. gieth a distinction and then saith Applicatio distinctionis est eandem fuisse baptismi Johannis substantiam essentiam significationem efficatiam quae baptismi Christi Discrimen reperiri tantum in circumstantiis accidentalibus 〈◊〉 pag. 73. in circumstantis temporis quia baptismus Johannis anterior in modo significationis quia baptizabat in Christum venturum in efficatia spiritus quae Christo jam plene manifesto major aliis id genus Calvin in Act. 19. 4. our baptisme at this day doth not differ any thing from it i. e. from Iohns baptisme save onely that Christ is already revealed and in his death and resurrection our salvation is made perfect Keckerman Sâ—st Theol. l. 3. pag. 453. Johannes baptismus quoad substantiam idem fuit cum baptismo Christi â—â—iamsitempore aut aliis quibusdam circumstantiis fuerit â—iversus To the same purpose speaketh Vrsin catech
answer they could not partly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an act of many especially when in an Assembly partly because whatsoever is put to suffrages may be determined by the major voice in case of dissent but this was impossible where there was but two for Paul could not out-vote Barnabas nor Barnabas out-vote Paul If Paul had given his voice for one and Barnabas had discented and had given his voice for another against Paul we aske who should have carryed it When the word denoteth the act of the indivisible God Acts 10 v. 41. it is not taken properly as it is in Acts 14. 23. but figuratively as God is said to have eyes eares hands c. So by a metaphor he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this answereth his second particular Vind. Revind pag. 129. 130. 3. The greek is as strong for us as the English translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth the peoples Election by suffrages and is not so clearly in apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he supposeth but rather in di-junction it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the article 〈◊〉 habet locum in divisienibus according to Grammar And if the praying and fasting related not to the constitution of the Elders as the Dr. saith pag. 130. but to the Apostles departure then the whole verse may refer to the people for it was the usual practice of the Churches to commend the Apostles unto the grace of God by solemn prayer in such parting 's Acts. 14. 26. Acts 15. 40. And Paul chose Silas and departed being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God 4. We had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken for Election or choosing by sufferages and not for orâ—ination and thence infer that Paul and Barnabas could not be the only persons that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our argument for that inferrence is this That which is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas onely But the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people Acts 6. Ergo The powe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas only And whether this be a begging the question or a proving what we assert let the Reader judge He bids us Vind. Revind pag. 131. see if there be one word in the Epistle to Timothy or Titus for the peoples choice We turne it upon himselfe let him see if there be one word in those Epistles for the officers choice or for the giving the power of election unto Officers What he addeth Vind. Revind pag. 132 133. is to deny that every particular Church is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister We have proved their ability from Iohn 10. v. 4. 5. See Preacher Sent. pag. 225. 237. Ob. 1. How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince againsaying Socinian or Arminian or Papist who know not what any of them hold Vind. Revind pag. 132. Answ 1. It is possible for those to judge whether a man be able to convince gainsayers who knowes not what many of them hold The Bishops or Presbiters who were administrators of Ordination in England 10. 20. 30. or 40 years ago could not know what Quakers and other blasphemers would hold yet surely he will not say that they could not judge whether those which they Ordained were able to convince gainsayers And why may not a Church as well be able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gainsayers though it knoweth not what Socinians or Arminians hold 2. Although some Church members know not errors by the name of Socinians c. yet if they hear them broached they are able to judge that they are contrary to sound dostrine As for those which turne from the faithful word in matters fundamental as they are unfit to judge of a Ministers qualifications so they are not duely qualified to be Church members Ob. 2. What belongs to Christs Sheep as Christs sheep belongs to every sheep but this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ. Ergo I hope our bretheren will not say this belongs to the woman yet are they Christs sheep too Nor that every man hath ability if they do and will give us leave we will pick them out Twenty out of every hundred c. Vind. Revind pag. 133. Answ 1. If it doth not belong to every sheep of Christ to judge of ministerial ability yet the reason may be because some want a word or institution of Christ to empower-them thereunto as in the case of women not because they want ability about which the present question is 2. It must belong to every sheep of Christ if Iohn 10. v. 5. reacheth so far as he concludeth it doth pag. 133. For such sheep as are hearers are there asserted to have both ability and liberty to judge what teachers they are to follow and who they are to avoid That one sold v. 16. is one specifically Jews and Gentiles have one kind of Church order not one Numerically all do not make up one Church of Churches But how he can reconcile his owne expressions upon this Text and make them agree in one we know not for he telleth us The Text saith my sheep not my fold what is here made to belong to sheep belongs to every sheep Vind. Revind pag. 133. If our Brethren say the Text is to be understood of Christs sheep as folded together in the Church we grant what they say but say it is meant of the one fold ver 16. Doth not one of the expressions deny it to be Christs fold and the other grant it to be his fold that is there intended 3. Although this or that Church-member taken singly may want ability to judge of ministerial qualifications yet all the members of a Church formed according to Christs institution being gathered together in Christs Name to wait for counsel at his mouth in such a matter will be able and so it may well belong to them to judge whether a man holdeth fast the faithful word be apt to teach and be able by sound Doctrine to exhort and convince gain-sayers CHAP. VI. Shewing that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to a Vniversal Church in way of reply to Mr. Pooles exceptions in the three first chapters of his Book THere came lately to our hands a Book entituled A moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons written by Mr. Poole at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London in way of reply to some part of our Book intituled The Preacher Sent. We shall give some brief animadversions upon the most considerable passages of his Book and
so leave it to the Reader to judge between us The Provincial Assemblies definition of Office is this The Office of the Ministry is a spiritual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a Person qualified founded upon a special and regular Call Jus Div. Min. pag. 3. This we excepted against because either it altogether omiteth or else determineth employment to be the correlate unto this relation and either way it is very faulty For it is grossely to swarve from the right Rules of a definition to omit the correlate in defining a particular relation which is Essential to the thing defined even themselves say that Relatives cannot be understood the one without the other Jus Divin Min. p. 2. we infer Ergo they cannot be defined aright the one without the other And there is nothing in their definition to be the correlate unless it be employment and that this cannot be it our four Arguments do evidence Preacher Sent. pag. 5. 6. 7. So that Mr. Poole may see that our Arguments were not onely brought to batter down one expression brought in onely obiter and occasionally as he supposeth pag. 3. but to discover a very considerable defect or imperfection in their definition which was made more obvious by that expression He saith pag. 3. it was not the design of the Assembly to deny the Ministry to be a relation to a Church nor was it their business accurately to insist upon the notions of relate and correlate they never called the work of the Ministry the correlate but onely obiter they asserted the Office of the Ministry to be better defined by relation to the work then to a particular Church which he saith we have not disproved Answ We speak nothing of an accurate insisting on the notions of relate and correlate but we say it is a false definition of a particular relation if nothing be asserted as the correlate and therefore their not denying a Church nor asserting work to be the correlate will not help unless they had affirmed and proved something else to be it Our proving in the second question a particular Church onely to be the correlate is enough to disprove that expression for Office must needs be better defined by its reference to its correlate then by its end His instance about a King pag. 3. cannot salve the business For it were very improper to say the Office of a King is a relation to Ruling and to give this as the definition of that and as absurd were it to say that the Office of a King is better defined by Ruling then by relation to his Subjects or Kingdom and it is not paralel unlesse it runneth us And so it is absurd to say that the abstract Ministry is better defined by relation to the work then to a particular Church for we have proved that such a Church is the correlate work not so but onely the end That office is a predicamental and not a Transcendendal or nominal relation and that a potential being is not sufficient in such a relation he may see in our reply to Dr. Collings But to clear the matter more fully and make way for the next question as a clew leading the right way out of this controversie we shall give this distinction The terms Office and Officer may be taken largely or strickly in a general or a special sence 1. In an general sence there is an Officer to man and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or work it self is the Office wherein one man doth serve another thus a mâ—n may be an Officer from an inferiour to a superiour or from one equal to another and have no relation proper or Predicamental growing thereupon In this large sense gifted men preaching yea any Church-members exercising any gift or doing any work for the profit of the body or Church may be called officers and the work an Office as Rom. 12. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Office But this is an Officer without Rule or Government of whom in this controversy we speak not In this sense though Apostles or others be considered as Officers to heathens it doth not at all contradict us 2. In a special sense there is an officer over man as a Prince over his subjects a master over his servants so a pastor over his flock this is an officer with power of Rule and Government Whensoever the Scripture speaketh of Office or Officer notified by the Titles of Pastor Teacher Elder or Bishop they are taken thus Acts 20. 28. Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1 Thes 5. 12. And thus we constantly considered it in our former book called The Preacher Sent. In this sense Apostles were not officers nor did preach as Officers to the heathens they had no power of Rule or Governement over them 1 Corin. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge those that are without Quest Whether officers stand in relation as officers to a particular Church onely We hold the affirmative part Mr Poole would have them officers to the whole Church pag. 6. 7. c. by which we suppose he intendeth a Church Catholike visible To his premises and preamble we say The Judgement of Churches is not our Rule but the Scripture we can find no such Synods as he speaketh of there Acts 15. holdeth forth that one Church may send messengers in difficult cases to an other Church as Antioch did there to Jerusalem for help and council but it cannot be proved that any acts of Government were there put forth towards any absent Churches and therefore this is no warrant for provincial or Occumenical Synods We wish that all differences in judgement amongst the Saints were at an end but we are not to silence a truth of Christ because some deare friends are dissenters neither is the difference between congregational brethren so great in this point as he supposeth We do not obtrude our Notions upon the world but have published our perswasions with our grounds desiring that they may be weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary and that either others may receive light from us or we from them Premise 1. He premiseth pag. 6. a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church 1. Actu Secundo actually immediately absolutely and independentlie 2. Actu primo habitually aptitudinally mediately conditionally dependingly so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where but may not exercise that jus or power every where but by the consent of the Church or Rulers c. Answ To assert an habituall Minister or Officer seemeth to us no better then to assert an habitual King Justice Constable or an habitual husband Father c. To be habitually and conditionally a Minister to a Church and to be no minister to it is all one 1. That Ministers have a jus or power to teach every where Office-wise is not proved the place alleadged go preach the Gospel to every creature injoyneth the exercise of the power and so must prove that
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
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
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
pag. 35. denyeth the major and saith a minister is not obliged actually to feed all his flock and addeth every Apostle was a Catholâ—â—â— Pastor and so had the whole Church for his flock Mat. 28. 19 20. But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church and all Nations c. Answ 1. His denyal of the major is little better then a denyal of the very words of Scripture for the Apostle saith Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church c. Is it not plain that actuall feeding is enjoyned and that not onely some but all a mans flock is thus to be sed 2. This doth not answer our argument but leaveth us under a new seeming difficulty 3. If his reason should be wholly granted we do not see how it justifyeth his denyal of our major or taketh away the force of our argument and had he not left out the conclusion of his Syllogism he might easily have seen it himself For the utmost he can conclude from those premises is but this Ergo every Catholike Pastor who hath the whole Church for his flock was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church all Nations c. And what is all this to the purpose If every Catholike Pastor or every one who hath the whole Church for his flock was not will it follow hence that no officer is obliged actually to feed all his flock May there not be some officers who have no such large flock and may stand under such obligations If every Apostle was not yet may not every ordinary Officer be obliged actually to feed all his flock What shadow ofa consequence is here This might be enough in answer to that which he supposeth to be an unanswerable reason but that his reason taketh not away the force of our Argument we may evidence these waies 1. Because the impossibility of every Apostles looking to all the Churches is the reason which himselfe giveth pag. 7 8. why they did it not But our argument is drawne from a command to ordinary Officers fixed in a particular Church all which it was possible for them actually to feed and so the cases run not paralel And that a universal Church should be their flock the hundred it may be the thousand part whereof by reason of their fixednesse in a particular Church they can never feed and yet be commanded to feed all their flock who can Imagine it Or doth not such a comand rather determine their particular flock to be all over which they are made Overseers 2. Because the Apostles had immediate directions from God which gave them a dispensation for an actual feeding every Church 3. Because if every Apostle was not commanded actually to feed all that flock or all those Churches that they had liberty by their commissions to act as Officers towards seeing every ordinary Officer is commanded to feed all the flock he is an Overseer to Acts. 20. 28. hence his supposed unanswerable reason faileth in the main thing it should prove If Mat. 28. 19 20. were spoken to this or that Apostle singly then that being a command of actuall teaching and baptizing every Apostle was obliged actually to feed or teach all Nations and then his minor is untrue But if it were spoken to all the Apostles together v. 16. 19 20. then if every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed all Churches or all Nations yet all the Apostles together did actually feed all the Churches in that age and were obliged to do it and all officers together in after ages are under the like obligation yet no one ordinary Officer is obliged actually to teach all Nations but every one is bound to feed all the flock over which he is made an overseer Arg. 2. If Officers now were actually to feed and take care of all the universal Church then their power were as extensive large as the Apostles c. Prâ— Sent. p. 11. Obj. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation but in the independancy superiority and singularity of jurisdiction Mr. Pool pag. 36. Answ 1. If this were true yet it proved what we produced it for viz. That no ordinary Officer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the unisal Church for himselfe granteth pag. 6. that it was peculiar to the Apostles to be actually Ministers to the whole Church 2. But that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation seemeth to us very false For 1. Apostles had universality of jurisdiction Ergo Apostles had generality of relation Ordinary officers have not universality of jurisdiction Ergo ordinary officers had not generality of relation Nomans jurisdiction can be extended beyond his relation and therefore none can deny the Apostles universality of relation and that ordinary officers have so extensive a jurisdiction let him prove that will assert it 2. As Apostles had general relation so they were under obligation to actual discharge of the duty of the relation in like extent 2 Corin. 11. 28. and so were the Churches towards them But ordinary Officers are not under an obligation for the actuall discharge of the duty of their relation to all Churches as we have already proved from Act 20 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. neither are all Churches under such obligations to duty towards them as their officers either â—o submit or afford maintenance c. to them and therefore ordinary officers relation doth not extend to all Churches 3. Apostles general relation obliged them to an Itinerant execution of their office so as they could not fix in any Church but ordinary Officers are not engaged to such an execution but by Divine appointment are fixed in some one church and are bound there to reside which is inconsistent with such a relation as the Apostles had 4. The general relation of the Apostles was so special as all Churches might plead a like interest in them and call them their officers with ordinary officers it is not so our brethren themselves being judges Jus Div. Min. pag. 143. If ordinary officers be not equally related to all Churches they are not at all related to them for relations do not suscipere magis minus unlesse the subject or foundation be mutable Arg. 3. Ministers are Pastors onely to them whom they can exercise Church government towards as well as teach Obj. Then the Apostles did not preach as Officers to heathens for towards such they could not exercise Church-governement Mr. Pool p. 37. Ans If Apostles did Preach as Officers over heathens it did arise from the extraordinariness of their Office for no ordinary Officers civil or military can act as Officers toward any that they cannot govern and having the Rule over and being over others in the Lord is made the specificating distinguishing Character of ordinary Officers from such as
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
he must say it is a gift not an office and then the question is granted or that there is another order of ordinary Officers for the work of preaching besides Pastors and Teachers Our second argument was that which ought in duty and might in faith be covered by every man who was a member of the Church of Corinth that was a gift only not an office c. Ob. He denyeth the major 1. An Office might be covered as well as a gift 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2. Shew where God promised to every member of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts 3. If an extraordinary office might not be desired either it is because it is an office and that hinders not or because extraordinary and then extraordinary gifts might not be desired but they might 1. Corin. 14. 1. 4. It was impossible for all to be officers there in that Church but not to be officers in other places c. Mr. Pool p. 71 72. An. 1. The second and forth particulars are answered in our reply to Dr. Collings whether we refer the Reader The first and third particulars reach not the business for the question here is not whether it was an office either ordinary or extraordinary But whether every man who was a member of Corinth or other Churches might covet to be officers Every man in a Church may desire to have gifts that he may be the more usefull in the body to fellow-members but every man may not desire office for that were to desire to be over it and if this desire should be granted that all should become officers where would be the body the Church for them to be over in those daies if all the members of a Church desired extraordinary gifts and had this desire answered they might all find use for those gifts but there could not be roome for all to be officers And there is not the least intimation in any verse of the Chapter that the intendment of the Apostle in puting every man in the Church of Corinth upon coveting to prophesie was that they might remove their station and become officrs in other places but that they might be the more useful to one another in that Church 1. Corin. 14. ver 22 23 24. 26. c. He saith they were to desire other extraordinary gifts ver 1. and if those were onely to render them more servicable in that Church with what shadow of reason can Prophesie be singled out and be concluded to be coveted in order to Office in other Churches Or doth Mr. Pool think in his heart that this was it the Apostle did drive at And how could all the men in that Church become officers in other places without a dissolution of the Church in this place which certainly was far from the Apostles designe As for their being enumerated amongst officers and before Evangelists we have answered it in our reply to Dr. Collings and also in our former book p. 93. In that Judas and Silas as Prophets did exhort Acts 15. 32. as himselfe confesseth pag. 74. and yet there were others whose work as Prophets was to foretel future events Acts 11. ver 27 28. hence it is not so improbable as he would seem to make it that there should be two sorts of New Testament Prophets especially our reasons from 1 Corin. 14. being considered but that answer was added ex abundanti the objection being sufficiently answered before and so was no subterfuge he may say if he please that one sort were Prophets by an extraordinary gift of prediction the other were Prophets by an ordinary gift of Scripture-interpretation As for the selfe-contradiction which pag. 75 76. he telleth us we boldly charge them with Indeed there being like titles given to both the books Jus Divin the habitations of the Authors of both being in and about London and the Authors of Jus Divin Regim p. 123. promising a book upon the very subject of the other we were induced to think that they had the same Authors but least they should have different Authors we onely laid it down by way of supposition not by way of charge our words are and here we cannot but observe how the the Lord hath left them to a self-contradiction If the sundry Ministers of London publishing the first book be of the Province of London which published the second c. Preacher Sent. page 97. By which any man may see that if the publishers of the first book be not of the province of London there is no charge for self-contradiction And though they be not of the Provincial Assembly yet it is very remarkable that they should contradict one an other about such a weighty matter For if the Prophets be ordinary persons as the Authors of the first book affirme that is sufficient saith Mr. Pool pag. 75. and what he addeth pag. 76. is far from proving it no contradiction viz. That these Prophets were extraordinary officers in respect of their gift and yet the ordinary pastors of Corinth in regard of their office and relation It is a new contradiction to say that the same persons at the sametime should be ordinary yet extraordinary Officers as much as to say they are ordinary and yet not ordinary Officers And office being a relation hence if they be extraordinary officers at all it must be in respect of their relation and therefore what he saith is very improper as if they could be extraordinary Officers not in respect of their relation And because they well knew there might be many extraordinary Officers in a Church yet that would not prove that there were more congregations then one in it therefore surely they intended to deny them to be extraordinary officers and their complying with Mr. Rutherford speaketh as much see more of this in our answer to Dr. Collings Prop. 2. That prophesying is still continuing His reply to our first argument about therepeal of it pag. 75. is also answered to Dr. Collings The prophesying was ordinary as we prove by diverse arguments to which he replyeth pag. 77 78. we answer If the Rules agree to extraordinary Officers and the work be such as they performed yet seeing the Chapter is spent chiefly in the regulating of prophsying and nothing extraordinary is predicated thereof who can rationally conclude them to be extraordinary Prophets Neither do those Rules agree to extraordinary officers as such nor is it their worke as such and therefore it is nothing to the purpose If he could find a whole Chapter spent in the regulating Apostles or such extraordinary officers in the exercise of their Office and yet nothing should be mentioned that agreeth to them as Apostles or as extraordinary officers this would run Paralel but no such instance is found Arg. 3. We say one great end of extraordinary Prophesying is denyed to this viz. to be a signe Ob. 1. They had an other extraordinary gift to wit a gift of infallable teaching by immediate revelation Divers of the
this Mr. Pool again would answer with necessity but that in any case they may preach but may not administer the Sacrament it speaketh their Argument invalid We tell him Mat. 28. is no commission authorizing them to preach and baptize and so their being joyned together there is no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize Object 1 Mr. Pool thinketh that they were not Apostles nor had their Commission as Apostles till Mat 28. 19. 20. this he saith is probable by these three considerations 1. That an Apostle was a new Testament Officer and the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ 2 They had not Apostolical gifts before the death of Christ 3. They wanted Vniversality of jurisdiction c. Mr. Pool pag. 105. Ans 1. When we urged Mat. 28. 19 20. he taketh it for a mission that doth not authorize to a work p. 87. else his answer cometh to nothing and yet here would have it be the Apostles Office-making Commission how he is consistent with himself herein we see not one of these replies must be naught 2. Long before the death of Christ its said Luke 6. ver 12. 13. He continued all night in prayer to God and when it was day be called unto him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom also he named Apostles We prove that they were Apostles before Mat. 28. 19. 20. by these considerations 1. Christ imposed the name of Apostles upon them Luke 6. 13. before Mat. 28. Ergo They had the Office of Apostles upon them before For surely Christ would not put the name of an Office upon them if they had not the Office that answered that name The seventy were sent out to preach yet had no such title put upon them but the name of Apostles was constantly given to the Twelve before the death of Christ Luke 17. 5. Luke 22. ver 14. Mat. 10. 2. and therefore Mr. Pool is too bold with Scripture to put other names upon them as Prophets or extradinary Teachers when the Gospel never knoweth them by these names but by the name of Apostles 2. Christ chose them before Mat 28. the name of Apostles being at the same time put upon them hence they were chosen to be Apostles Luke 6. 13. and this was after solemn prayer Ergo They were Apostles before for Election is the constitutive act of their office 3. They had Apostolical gifts though not in so full measure before the death Christ Mat. 10. ver 1. He gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease And this answereth his second consideration 4. Matthias was put into the same Office that Judas was in before the death of Christ for it s said Act. 1. ver 25. He is to take part of this ministry and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell Now Matthias undeniably was an Apostle Ergo so was Judas and the eleven before the death of Christ Yea this Text calleth the Office both of Judas and Mathias an Apostleship and to be sure Judas was not an Apostle after the death of Christ for he did not onely betray his Master but also hanged himself 3. To his first consideration we answer The new Testament if taken for the doctrine of the Gospel as 2 Corin. 3. of which they were Ministers was begun long before the death of Christ Luke 1. 78. and 2. v. 10. as also in other acceptations of it but suppose the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ Baptisme is a new Testament Ordinance and this he cannot deny seeing he maketh it the onely door of admission into the new Testament or Gospel Church p. 25. and it is easie to prove it upon truer and better grounds Yet baptisme was administred by the twelve long before the death of Christ Job 4. ver â— 2. and to multitudes by John the Baptist And the first constitution of Apostles new Testament Officers might as well be before the death of Christ as the first administration of Baptisme a new Testament Ordinance might be before it If after the new Testament began Apostles became officers and Baptisme an Ordinance thereof yet as it was the same Baptism so they were the same officers viz. Apostles before and after And this also may answer his third consideration If those that were Baptized before the death of Christ were Church-members then there was a Church which the Apostles might have jurisdiction over if they were not why might not they be Apostles without jurisdiction as well as persons be baptized without Church-membership if Baptisme be as he would have it a door of admission into the Church Officers he saith they were and to be Officers without any jurisdiction as he saith these were is as strange as to be Apostles without Universality of jurisdiction And if all this were not enough the extraordinariness of their Call or that time might better be alleadged in this case then it is in many against us Object 2. It must needs be granted that it is a renewing confirming and enlarging of their former Commission and this double work being equally imposed upon them must by like reason be equally restrained to them unless better grounds can be shewn to the contrary c. Mr. Pool pag. 14. Answ 1. Any impartial Reader may see enough in our former book Preacher Sent pag. 168. 169. to take off this reply It was an enlargement of the Apostles Commission to the Gentiles making them capable of being preached to and baptized but it s no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize If it should be said to Elders and Deacons Go teach Rule and distribute to the Church in such a place would the joyning of these together in an exhortation prove that every one who may Rule may Teach or that none may distribute but he that may Teach Surely no. Thus Mat. 28. 19. 20. It s said to Preachers and Baptizers Go Preach and baptize all Nations yet this cannot prove that none may preach but those who may baptize it onely sheweth that such as had power to Preach might now lawfully Preach to the Gentiles and such as had power to baptize might now administer baptism to the Gentiles which before they might not He imposeth the works on those that had power for them doth not restrain the power to perform the one unto them that had power to perform the other The intendment of this Text is not that it can be proved to shew that all who may Preach may Baptize but to warrant such as may do those works in their Preaching to and Baptizing the Gentiles 2. Let it be observed what their Argument is come to it should prove that none may Preach but those who may adminster the Sacraments and at last it is unless we can shew reason to the contrary the works are equally strained we have given reasons enough to the contrary and so
three verses after 1 Tim. 2. 15. doth not concern all women but onely those that have husbands 4. That Church authority is intended he asserteth but hath not proved 5. Women may usurp authority though it be not over husbands or in teaching publickly and therefore their argument hence is without proof though the man be not onely her husband but any man As to what he addeth pag. 109. it concerneth not us and is so far from an improvement of our argument to the highest that at the lowest it will be more conclusive but seeing he hath mentioned it we shall say thus much to it It precepts expresse be prohibitions by consequence as Mr. Pool saith they are pag. 98 99. then a pari exceptions expresse are concessions by consequence and so the excepting women in the case of teaching or prophesying 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. will be an allowance to men that have the gift we think one is as strong as the other Ob. 4. A paralel place is 1 Corin. 14. 34. to speak i. e. in the Church is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection and un-officed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women Mr. Pool pa. 110. Answ This we answered twice before He is so confident of the validity of this argument that he often mentioneth it and concludeth it undeniable and dispaireth of ever seeing him convinced by man that resisteth such evidence whereas indeed it is a meer empty sound 1. Because men may be in subjection and yet be in power ordinary Ministers were in subjection to the Apostles yet were in power yea in power to preach Men not in office were in power to judge 1 Corin. 5. 12. to pardon 2 Corin. 2 8. much more to declare the Law in which to proceed to judge and pardon Women are in subjection not in power Women might not preach if they should be ordained by an abuse of power 2. Because it is not every state of subjection that forbiddeth preaching 1 Corin. 14. 34. for then none who are subject to Magistrates and what Ministers are not so or parents may preach and so it is altogether without proof that all un-officed men are in that state of subjection which is there intended 3. Because it is not an Ecclesiastical state of subjection that is is intended 1 Corin. 14. 34. For then all women are not there forbidden preaching but only such as are Church-members because then none else were in the state of subjection that is the reason against womens preaching And because womens subjection in one kind viz. in a civil or natural respect forbiddeth their preaching for Mr. Pool to say by the same reason all unofficed men are forbidden to preach by their being in Subjection in another kind viz. to Church-officers who will not see the vanity of such an argument 4. Because the state of Subjection which the Apostle proveth womens preaching to be unlawfull by 1 Corin. 14. 34. is such as is peculiar to women and no un-officed men ever were in it and therefore it is no reason against any mens preaching no men being in the state of subjection spoken of if he will assert they are let him prove it He that readeth 1 Corin. 11. will find that Sex is compared with Sex man with woman and the woman said to be in subjection in way of distinction from or opposition to the man Because a woman who is one to whom man is a head 1. Corin. 11. 3. who was formed after the man 1 Tim. 2. 13. created for the man 1 Corin. 11. 9. subjected to the man Gen. 3. 16. because a woman the weaker vessel 1 Pet. 3 7. who was deceived and was in transgression 1 Tim. 2 14. because such a one is to keep silence in the Church must not prophesie there to say therefore the man who is the head of the woman may not prophesie or preach this is a lamentable non sequitur Arg. 6. Their sixt Argument is from the Scriptures reproving un-called men for preaching Jerem. 23. 21 22. I sent them not c. To part of our answer unto this he replyeth thus Ob. 1. This is a little too grosse to say they are by God called to be Prophets of whom God professeth they run but he sent them not The prophets had no other call then this or at least this was Gods usual way of calling them be immediately inspired them with an extraordinary message 1 Sam. 3. 20. Mr. Pool p. 111. Answ 1. Sending did not make prophets Samuel had a revelation yet was not sent to Eli to declare it he was forced to draw it out 1 Sam. 3. 17. yet Samuel was a prophet as appeareth v. 20. Jeremiah was sent Jerem. 26. 12. The Lord sent me to prophesie against this house and against this City all the words that ye have heard yet Jeremiah was a Prophet before this sending and not made a Prophet by it So those 2 Cron. 24. 19. were sent after they were Prophets So that the Prophets had a new mission as often as God commanded them to go with any new message to any people and were so often made Prophets if sending were as he supposeth their call Therefore Gods professing that they ran and he sent them not doth not deny them to be Prophets because sending is not the call 2. There is a sending which doth not authorize or give a call to Office as himselfe confesseth p. 83. 87. and let him prove that their not being sent was their not being authorized to be Prophets else the argument is vain 3. Those that were authorized and called by God to be Prophets sometimes went with false dreames or lyes and so ran without being sent yet when they carried a true message they were sent Act. 21. v. 4. So 1 Kings 13â— 11. There was an old Prophet and he Prophesied a lye pretending it to be the word of the Lord ver 18. I am a Prophet also as thou art and an Angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord saying bring him back c. and this was a lye as appeareth v. 17. 22. 23. Yet this old man was a Prophet truly called of God Mr Pool himselfe being judge for he saith Gods inspiring with an extraordinary message was his call to be a Prophet and this the good old man had ver 20 21. as they sat at table And the word of the Lord came unto the Prophet that brought him back c. Now he had a word from God to declare and so was called to be a Prophet yet ver 18. he ran without being sent So that as a false Prophet may carry a truth so a true Prophet may carry a lye We granted Preacher Sent pag. 128. that those Jerem. 23. were false Prophets in respect of their doctrine which they then preached but we still apprehend that they were standing Prophets of Israel and true Prophets in respect of their call and we proved it from v.
their Arguments against gifted mens preaching without Ordination He rehearseth our Arguments leaving out a great part of their strength and putting in his own exceptions against them and then mentioneth the heads of their Arguments without our exceptions against them and yet pretendeth pag. 116. not to take at advantage but to set the best glosse upon our cause in which surely no Reader will believe him CHAP. XII Concerning Election as belonging to a particular Church THere are three Scriptures chiefly urged to prove the power of Election to belong to a Church viz. Act. 1. Act 6. and Act. 14. Many of our answers to objections against these proofes we have no reply to and so we shall but touch upon things here and refer the Reader unto our former Book and to our reply to Dr. Collings for a fuller answer 1. The first Scripture is Act. 1. 23. Object It was not an exhortation to chuse nor a direction in chusing here is not a word of the piety c. of the person but onely a declaration that one must be chosen c. however it was fit the people should consent pag. 120. Answ 1. Here he plainly contradicteth the provincial Assembly for he saith it was not a direction in chusing they say Jus Divin Min. pag. 127. they were guided and directed in their choice by the eleven Apostles and seek to prove it from ver 21 22. how should we answer both 2. Qualifications are set down ver 21. and the men and brethren in the meeting being spoken to ver 16. it is clear that they were the persons chusing ver 23. 2. The second place is Act. 6. Object 1. Regulation by dead Lawes and rules is no prejudice to the peoples sole power in Election but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it If the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds would they have been Deacons if not then the Essence of the Call consists not in Election Mr. Pool pag. 121. Answ 1. Paul was as much a living Judge when he did write â—o Timothy and Titus as the Apostles were Acts 6. yet he giveth Rules for â—egulation 1 Tim. 3. ver 2. 3. Tit. 〈◊〉 ver 6â— and if Ordination be aymed at here either these Rules of Regulation destroyed the power of Timothy and Titus in Ordination or else those Rules Act 6. did not destroy the peoples power of Election And we may turn his question upon him If Paul had upon just grounds refused any of those Ordained by Timothy and Titus would they have been Officers if not then according to his arguing the Essence of the call consists not in Ordination 2. If they chose persons duely qualified the Apostles could not refuse them 3. If the Apostles had a negative voyce in case persons were not rightly qualified yet that would not deny the whole power of Election to be in the Church for their affirmitive voyce might be onely causa sine qua non not causa formalis of the Election as himself telleth us pag. 13â— we may urge his instances there against what he saith here and they will be as strong for us as for him And this answereth what followeth If the Apostles refusing any chosen would have hindred their being Deacons as p. 121. or the want of Ordination would have made Election null as he saith pag. 122. yet the Essence of the Call might consist in Election for their approbation or Ordination might be onely Causa sine qua non they might not be Essential though they could not be without them But it is he that forgets not we for the present question is about the peoples power of chusing not about Election as Essential to a Call nor of Apostles power in Election As to what he addeth pag. 123. about arguing a minori ad majus affirmative we answer It is Mr. Pool that runneth upon the grosse mistake for our Argument is fetched from the same Canon that there 's is as any one may plainly see Preacher Sent. pag. 224. And whether the Argument from the greater to the less affirmatively be not urged in the Scriptures we mentioned pag. 226. let the Reader judge Object 2. There is another Canon and that is this Quod competit minori competit eâ—iam majori If Ordination was required to the meaner and less considerable office which is that of the Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office and this was the Argument used by the Assembly Mr. Pool pag. 123. Answ Our Argument will stand upon this foot he can get nothing by this for the Canon will serve us what he saith of Ordination we may say of Election If the peoples Election was required to the meaner and lesse considerable office which is that of Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and mighter office 3. The third Text is Act. 14. ver 23. To his exceptions we answer 1. That the usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to chuse by suffrages and without special reason we must not recede from that and many reasons we gave against its denoting a chusing or ordaining onely by Paul and Barnabas 2. The word being applyed to God Act. 10. 44. it must needs be taken figuratively and as there it doth not denote chusing by suffrages so neither can it be taken for Imposition of hands for God hath no hands to lay on 3. The word is but once more used that we know of in Scripture and then it s applied to the Church so that according to the Scripture use of it the advantage is on our part 2 Cor. 8. 19. He thinketh the people did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Object 1. They are said to ordain them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to themselves Mr. Pool pag. 125. Ans He confesseth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore this cannot deny it to be the peoples or Churches Act. Object 2. The same persons are said to ordain in several Cities and Churches and so had an authority over several Churches pag. 25. Answ 1. If the persons were the same yet 1. They did not as the manner of some is ordain in one Church â—or another at Lystra for Antioch but in every Church respectively it was not all upon one day 2. They are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who go before others and are chief in chusing 2. It is not evident that the persons were the same Iâ— a Parliament were to be chosen and the Supream Magistrate should send men into the several Counties to observe the peoples Elections it might be said as it is here and when they had chosen them Parliament men by suffrages in every County c. though those men so sent had no hand in the Elections So if Paul and Barnabas had been onely Spectators and eye-witnesses of the several Churches Elections yet all might have been said
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
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
correlate of the Pastoral office ib. 3. He saith of an excomunicate person that while he repents not he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person or as an heathen yet when he doth repent he needs no new baptism forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former baptism pa. 27. 4. He saith that the difference between Apostolical and pastoral power lyes not in the extent of their relation pa. 36. 5. He saith Vzzah was punished not principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his heads but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders pag. 99. which is against 1 Chron. 13. 10. 6. He is not positive in it but giveth it as his opinion that Apostles had not their commission as Apostles till Mat. 28. pag. 105 106. 2. Self-contradicting passages 1. That a man is made a member of the Church by baptism is none of our Assertion pag. 23. 1. What a monstrous Paradox is this baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church p. 28. In Scripture there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission p. 25. 2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church eject him out of all other Churches or he is juridically ejected out of other Churches and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce c. pag. 24. 2. It may be said that an excomunicate person ordinarily is a member a Church-member though diseased p. 26 3. If a Religious General in speaking to his Army principally aimes at the salvation of their Souls yet this is not preaching though his end in speaking be their salvation pag. 41. 3. Speaking of Paul he saith the end of the actor or speaker is purely solely the salvation of their souls so it is trâ—ly and may properly be called preaching p. 41 42. 4. The lesse is called of the greater pag. 138. we never find ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. 4. He saith it is not any prejudice to the extraordinarines of Timothies Office that it was conâ—ered by ordinary officers pag. 149. what more ordinary both in state and Church then for a person to have an office conveyed to him viz. Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him p. 149. 3 Repugnancies to the Provincial Assembly and Dr. Collings 1. Every Minister by excomunication ejecteth members out of the Church Catholick visi ble Jus. Divin Min. pag. 139. 1. It may be said an excommunicate person ordinarily is a member a Churchmember though diseased Mr Pool pag. 26. 2. They i. e. Apostles and Evangilists were virtually Pastors and Teachers they differed nothing from them but the extent of their power Dr. Collings pag. 105 2. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation Mr. Pool p. 36.  And he maketh Pastors power as extensive as as he supposeth their relations to be pag. 6. Questions discussed Pr. S. noteth the Preacher sent Vind. noteth the preceding treatise The number directeth to the page in either of the Treatises where the question is resolved 1. Whether there be a universal political visible Church Or whether there be a Church of churches a visible Catholick Church formed unto fellowshiâ—p in new Testament ordinances Negat Epist to Pr. S. p. 4. 5. Vind. of Epist 2. Whether visible Saints be the onely fit matter for a visible Church Aff. Epist. to Pr. S. p. 6. 3. Who are visible Saints Epist to Pr. S. p. 7. 4. Whether a union by covenant consent or agreement be necessary unto member-hood in a visible Church Aff. Epist to Pr. S. pag. 9. 5. Who may be stiled Ministers Pr. S. pag. 2 Vind. p. 1. 6. Whether Office be a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as is correlate or to a Church Preach Sent. 4. Vindicat. pag. 2. c. 7. Whether Office be a relation secundum esse or secundum dici Vindicat. p. 4. 5. 8. Whether Officers stand in relation as Officers to a universal Church Neg. Whether to a particular Church onely Aff Whether to Heathens and such as are of no Church Neg. Pre. S. 288. Vind. p. 12 13. c. p. 86. c. 9. What is office Pr. S. 14. 10 Whether there be a difference between Preaching ex Officio and ex Dono Aff Preach S. 18. 11. Whether unbelievers may come into Churchmâ—â—â—ings to hear the word Aff. Pr. S. 18. 12. What is preaching Pr. S. 20. 13. Whether it be Preaching when in private Aff Pr. 8. 21. 14. Whether it be preaching when it is not in a sacred assembly Aff. Pr. S. p. 22 23. 15. What is authoritative preaching Preach S. 25. to 28. 16. Whether persons who have preaching gifts and Graces may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publick assemblies though they be not ordained Officers Affirm Preach S. 29. to 216. Vind. pag. 21. c. 125. c. 17. Whether Election ought to precede ordination Aff. Pr. S. 30. 18. What call is sufficient to the exercise of preaching gifts Pr. S. 37. Vind. 26. 19. Whether from gifted mens preaching it will follow that gifted women may preach or that men gifted for any civil or military imployment may Act therein without any further call Neg. Pr. S. 38 39. Vind. 29. 20. Whether it belongeth to the Sphâ—re place and calling of gifted men to preach Affirm Preach S. 40. 21. Whether the Baptism of Iohn and the Baptism of Christ be distinguished and how Pr. S. 69. 70. Vind. 66. to 71. 22. Whether Teaching and preaching be in scripture phrase the same Aff. p. 79. Pr. S. 23. Whether necessity be a good plea against the Argument from Acts 8 And whether the supposed necessity maketh officers or no Pr. S. 86. to 88. Vind. 33 34 35. 141. 24. Whether the prophesying 1 Corin. 14. be a gift or an Office Preach Sent. 90. Vind. 37. 145. Whether it be a gift still continuing Aff. P. S. 96. Vindicat. p. 41. 148. Whether those Prophets speak by extraordinary Revelation Neg. Preach S. 104 105. Vind. 46 151 152 153. 25. What is not and what is the mission or sending Rom. 15. Preach Sent. 121 to 138. Whether mission be ordination Neg Pr. S. 123. Vindic. 63 64. Whether mission authorizeth or giveth a Call to be an Officer or to preach Neg Pr. S. 121. Vindicat 156. 159 160. 26. Whether the examples of Sauls offering sacrifice or Vzzahs touching the Ark do forbid gifted mens preaching Neg. Pr. S. 154 155. Vindicat 164 165. 27. Whether gifted mens preaching doth mak Officers void or un-necessary as to that act Neg. Pr S. 156. vindicat 55 56 57. 28 Whether if gifted men may preach will it follow that they may administer the Sacraments Neg. Pr. S. 165 Vind. 169. 170. 29. Whether gifted
men be under any promise in their preaching Affirm Pr. S. 189. 30. Whether preaching be an act peculiar to Officâ— Neg. Preach Sent. 196. to 199. Vindicat 53. 31. Whether gifted men may require and receive maintenance when they preach Pr. Sent. 214 215. Vind. 61. 183 184. 32. Whether Election of a Minister belongeth to the major part of a Church Aff. Pr. S. 216. to 240. Vindicat. 71 72 185 186 c. 33. Whether an argument from the lesse to the greater affirmatively be valid and in what cases Pr. S. 224. to 228. Vindicat 75. 187. 34. Whether the whole essence of a call to office doth consist in Election Affirm preac S. 241. to 321. Vind. 190. 35. Whether Ordination doth give the essentials of the Ministerial Office Neg. pr. S. 244. c. 36. What is ordination preach Sent. 257. to 266. 37. Whether imposition of hands be so necessary unto ordination that it cannot without sin be omitted preach S. 259. to 262. 38. Whether an Officer may administer the Sacrament to some that are not of his particular Church pre S. 278 279 Vindicat. 101 102 39. Whether baptism admits into or maketh to stand in relation to any Church Neg. pre S. 284 25. Vindicat. 109 110. c. 40. Whether an Excomunicate person be Ejected out of all Churches pr. S. 284. Vind. 104. ib. Whether baptism ceaseth when Church membership ceaseth pag. 292. Vind. of Epist Vindicat. 105 107. 41. Whether blessing be an act peculiar to Office pr. S. 289. 42. Whether a Churches sinful rejection of a Minister doth nullifie his Office pr. S. 296. Vin 115 116. 43. Whether if an officer removeth and becometh an officer to another Church may there be an iteration of ordination pr. S. 297 298. 44. Whether in a Church which hath no Officers in it some believes may ordain without Officers pr. S. 323. c. 45. VVhether the difference between apostolical and pastoral power lyeth in the extent of the relation Aff. Vind. 120 121. 46. Whether Apostles were Apostles before Mat 28 19 20 Aff. Vind 169 170. 47. Whether officers be before Churches pr. 303 304. 48. Whether it were an ordinary or an extraordiry Presbytery that is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. v. 14 pr. S. 327 3 28. Vind. 49. Whether womens state of subjection doth forbid all un-officied men preaching Neg. Vin 177 178. 50 Whether it be the duty of gifted men to preacâ— Aff. pr. S. 36. Whether in some cases they may not warantably or without sin omit preaching or whether gifted men be obliged unto constant preaching if they have other callings pr. S. 159 Vindicat p. 129 130 131. 167. 184. THE TABLE Some Texts of Scripture opened in the preceding treatise noted by Vind. or in the Preacher Sent noted by Pr. S. those places which are largely handleâ— have an Asterick note against them Book Cap. ver Pr S. pag vin p Levit. â—9 17 4â—â— 4â— Â * Numb 8 10 34â— to 346  * Deutr. 1 13 272. 273.  * 1 Sam. 13 9 10. 155.  * 1 Chron. 13 9 10. 155 165 * Jerem. 14 14. 15. 127. 130.   23 13. 21. 128 179   22. 178 180. Malach. 3 16 17. 189  Math. 10 1. 5 6 7. 122. 124.     126   13 54. 57. 13   18 17. 18. 176   25 18 25. 26. 47. 60.  * 25 29 62. to     66. 29.  28 1â— 20. 121. 123.     125. 127.  * Mat. 28 19 20. 166. 167. 169.    188. 200. 170    289. 293.     311  Mark 3 14 124   4 24 25. 64 65.  Luk. 10 1 122  * Iohn 10 4 5. 225 82    237  * Acts. 1 17. 21. 22 23 217 to 220 71 72 c.    267 185  2 41. 288   5 42. 21. 79.   6  15 16 20     30 81.     152 162.     236 268.     270 318.     326 74 c. * 6. v. 2. 3. 5. 221 to 228. 185 186 * 8. 1. 3 4. 72 to 88. 32 137.  10. 41 228.   10. 46 47. 95   11 19 20. 74    21.     22      77 82.     83 84  * 13 1 2 3. 83 195.     251 to 257 192    267 268     299 326  * 14 23 228 to 235 78 187    16 242     243. 274.     275 303.   15 12. 22. 352.    23 50    32 335     109. 179  * 18 24 25 26 28. 56. 66. to 73 30 137  1â— 3 4 5. 69. 70. c. * 20 17 7. 15    28 8 9 11 118 * Roman 10 15 16. 249. 119    21 80 62  12 6 7. 117 to 138 154   8 33  1 Corin 1 17 50 89     202 203   7 20. 24 253  * 12 7 53    13 48 65    21 22. 286    28 47     294   13  93 94.    8 9 10. 113  * 14 many verses 88 to 116 36 144. 2 Corin. 8 18 19.     23 336  Galat. 1 11 12. 181  Ephes 1 16 17 18 105   4 11. 6 9. 17.    12 93. 295.  Philip 3 15 105.  Colloss 3 16 44. 45.   4 17 205  1 Thess 5 12 46. 205  * 1 Tim. 2      12 175 174.  3 1 2. 9 15 16.    4 5. 20 32.     222 311  * 4 14 234 275     3â—3 to 3â—5   5 18 114    22 194  2 Tim. 2 2 209 to 213 59. 2 Tim. 1 6 3â—3 314.     327  * Titus 1 5. 194 309     329 353     355  Hebr. 3 13 44  * Hebr. 5 4 5. 138. to 141 161  7 12 52 135  10  174 173  13 25. 54 136   7. 17. 17 205     247. 249.  * 1 Pet. 4 10 11. 32 to 62 23 c. 126 c.  5 1 3. 61  2 Pet. 1 19 20 110    21. 30. 111  1 Iohn 3 16. 51.  ERRATA In printing the book called the Preacher Sent beside those which were printed with it In the Epistle Page 2 Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 13. line 19. for not Read now In the Book Pag. line  4 18. 19. Read they say 14 4 dele of their 18 24 r. Acts 13 v. 16. 21 1 r. 〈◊〉 24 1 r. Preaching 46 33 r. 2 59 5 add and 66 8 r. Argument 4. 79 13 dele Jus Divin 83 6 r. christians though no officers 83 7 dele though no officers 101 9 r. foretelling future-events 101 33 r. Impostors or Seducers 103 15 r. Object 1. 129 20 r. undenyably 135 4 r. no mention 136 11 r. but that 137 33 dele Acts 8. 14. pag. line  142 5 add Jus Divin 72 73. 143 17 r. break their trusty 145 35 r. make 152 30 r. his own 155 19 r. before designation 155 29 r. did performe 160 22 r. an Officer 166 33 dele that 173 9 r. was preached to 203 1 r. himselfe asserteth 203 17 r. ingenuously  24 r. or the distinctive 217 15 r. limit it unto  29 r. needless 220 9 r. it was 230 36 dele that 239 32 r. was a stone 247 15 r. such a power 249 11 r. to prove 251 22 r. was not of the Essence of but 273 21 r. Church officers  29 r. It is 284 11 r. not nullifie 299 24 r. oblige 300 22 r. object 301 14 r. Answer 310 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 315 5 r. Presbyter  31 r. fift Page line  316 24 r. relatives 317 10 r. Solemnities 323 31 dele upon 325 36 r. Text in which 334 14 dele are 338 3 dele that 343 16 r. immediately 345 32 r. fully evidence 346 13 r. in the Tent 353 16 r. visit the 354 32 dele or else and r. and it must Add Jus Divin Minist and its page in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent. Jus Div. min. pa. Preach S. page line  111 78 2 Add Vind. Min. Evang. by Dr. Collings its pag. in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent. 111 79 18 111 80 33 69 131 35 77 133 4 70 133 26 73 74 144 24 74 75 147 6 Jus Div. Min. pa. preach S. pag. lin Dr. Coll. Vin. pa. preach S. pag. line 81 154 26 49 64 2. 28. 82 156 23 60 71 28    60 73 7 83 157 31 60 81 3 85 159 21 50 107 12. 30. 85 160 6 51 110 27 86 162 29 51 11â— 12. 22. 88 173 29 44 135 15 89 174 8    89 175 7      36    FINIS