Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	church_n	minister_n	people_n	2,506	5	4.7611	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. That they may do acts of office and authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him

less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren

a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 ●te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone● 〈◊〉 ●is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the

therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith We use to teach our People that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will and the prayer is in Faith while he that prays believes God will do that which is most good for him so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift that he might be able to prophesie but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will and wisdom of God and doing so he might pray in faith though there were no such particular promise Object But say our Brethren this was impossible to be obtained 1 Cor. 12.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be If I should tell our Brethren here To God nothing is impossible they would think I equivocated with them yet it is the coyn they have much used in payment to me but where lyes the impossibility in respect of Gods revealed will they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be That Text indeed proves that all the Members of a particular Church cannot be officers to that Church and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word ears to hear and heads to govern whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage But surely it will not follow but that all those who are members in this particular Church may yet be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea and they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides universal holiness our Brethren know may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained We allow also that Text to prove that all the Members of the universal Church should not be ordinary Officers But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers Much less doth any thing they have said prove that all Christians in that Church might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office when God should set them in such relations Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound which our Brethren hint pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts as if God pleased so to imploy him he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an unerring Spirit and speak with tongues or be able to heal the sick provided his End were right in desiring For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by Joel and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for them they might pray for but 1 Cor. 14.5 I would that you all spake with tongues They proceed to the proof of the Minor viz. That the prophecying spoken of ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth this they prove from the terms ye and all v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer 1. Having denyed the Major and made good our denial of it I need not trouble my self with denying this 2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not include every individual always Are all Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29 Let us hear what they say to our Arguments to prove that these prophets were Officers 1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. Where they stand distinguished from the people and enumerated amongst officers placed before Evangelists and next to the Apostles To this they answer p. 93 94 95. 1. That priority of order is no infallible Argument 2. That some not Officers are enumerated 1 Cor. 12.28 and prophecie is called a gift Rom. 12.6 3. Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Prophets such as Acts 11.27 28. To all which I shall give a short answer 1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argumen where there is any other Scripture or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men to express the Order but we say our brethren have no such Text nor reason neither and that the Apostle in that Text Eph. 4.11 12. seems to rank Preaching Officers according to their dignity beginning with Apostles then reckoning Evangelists Thirdly Prophets Fourthly Pastors Fifthly Teachers And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints and the common Members of the Body of Christ 2. We say there are none but Officers mentioned Eph. 4.11 12. Nor any 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But such as were either officers or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost from whence we conclude That Prophets were either extraordinary officers or ordinary officers or gifted with extraordinary gifts peculiar to that state of the Church Now it is indifferent to us as to the present controversie of which it be understood So our Brethren will grant that one of them must be meant and so much that Text will evince If Gifted men be meant I wonder who are the Church in which they are set ver 29. Our Brethren say prophecie is called a Gift Rom. 12.6 but there is nothing plainer than that by gift is meant office to him that readeth ver 7.8 3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets Pag. 96. we take them at their word and say it is all we have been contending for only then it lies upon our brethren to prove that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church 1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it So say the Prelates for Arch-bishops and Bishops where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches and committing government to them was enough and the cessation of their extraordinary Mission was enough So we say for these Prophets the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experience is a demonstration to us that prophecie is ceased where is there any now that can without study and meditation infallibly give the sense of Scriptures from revelation or can foretell things to come we have pitifull experience every day that those pleaded for cannot do the first and the year 1657. being come and gone and the Jews not converted proves that John Tillinghast though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for prove they cannot do the later As we say to the Prelatical party so we say to our Brethren St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased Secondly Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift and therefore it continues the gift of tongues and healing in those days were ordinary yet

But our Brethren dare not say who shall judge that as I noted before therefore it is all that will Fifthly Our Brethren say true our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture But when the question is whether there be any ground in Scripture for this liberty or no and our Brethren have no plain Scripture to prove it no particular Precept no Presidents but of persons qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost that ever ordinarily preached We hope our Friends will judge that it is no light Argument to prove our Brethren mistaken in the Scriptures they pretend because their sense of them being granted a standing Sacred Office of the Gospel plainly confirmed by many Scriptures would be made frustraneous and of no use Sixthly But Lastly say our Brethren we do grant that Apostles and Evangelists might Preach yet was not the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless I Answer 1. This is no consequence for Apostles and Evangelists were Officers 2. They were virtually Pastors and Teachers they differed in nothing from them but the extent of their power 3. There was a plain need of Pastors and Teachers notwithstanding these extraordinary Officers for 1. They were to endure but for a time 2. They were not to be confined to a place it had been sin for them to have always staid in one place So that notwithstanding them there was an apparent use of Pastors Teachers 4. We say as to such times as they were resident in this or that particular Church there was no need of any Pastors or Teachers because they could do all their acts But we hope our Brethren will not say so for their gifted men And thus much may serve to have answered all they say against my third Argument My fourth Argument I laid thus Vindiciae Ministerii pag. 38 39. What things by Scripture-warrant are in publick Assemblies to be communicated unto others by faithfull men who shall be able to teach others and to whom such things shall first be committed by Gods Timothies those things private persons to whom they are not so committed may not so communicate But of this nature are Gospel-Truths 2 Tim. 2.2 Ergo. I granted our Brethren that the Greek word translated Commit did sometimes signifie to propound a thing to others But most properly such a committing as is of a thing which is committed in trust to one not to another as Luk. 12.48 Luk. 23.46 Act 13.43 Act. 20.32 1 Tim. 1.18 1 Pet. 4.19 I told them it could not be understood in the former sense here for so Timothy was to preach to unfaithfull men as well as faithfull but he is commanded only to commit these things to faithfull men and it was not enough that these men were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful but notwithstanding that they must have these things committed to them before they taught others Now let us hear our Brethren 1. They grant that none but such as are faithfull and able may teach others and such as are learned in Gospel mysteries This will go a great way for I hope our Brethren will not judge him able to interpret the Gospel that is not able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into his own Tongue I wonder how he shall distinguish betwixt the Jus Divinum of the Doway Bible translated into English and the Bible of our English translation as much may be said for the Old Testament So that the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew will be necessary to understand Gospel-Mysteries so far as to communicate them to others viz. Revealing the whole Counsel of God to them indeed in cases of absolute necessity where enough such men cannot be found something may be abated not because they are able but because none are to be found more able For other Learning as much might be said but this is not directly to our present purpose our question supposeth them able yet we say they are not Commissionated 2. Our Brethren tell us that the word translated Commit is to be taken here for a propounding of those things doctrinally 1. Because the end is to make them able 2. Because it doth not appear from any other Scripture that any other committing of Gospel-Truths viz. such as I speak of is required unto a Call no not to Office 1. But our Brethren have nothing in the Text to prove ●hat the end of the Committing of those things to them was to make them able it says no such thing 2. Our Brethren know the Enallage of Tenses is very ordinary in Scripture the future used for the present and the present for the future tense 3. If Timothy were to commit those things only to them that should be able to teach others his Rule was very incertain for how could he know who they should be 4. That there is an ordination necessary was elsewhere proved by me and more sufficiently by the London Brethren I told our Brethren That Timothy is commanded to commit these to faithfull men only and such as should be able to teach others therefore it could not be meerly doctrinally for so they should be committed to all To this I can finde no answer only our Brethren say that this is to shew unconverted men are not to be Preachers 2 Nor all that are converted but such as are able But how this answers my Argument I cannot guess for if as our Brethren assert the committing ●ere but doctrinal that is here meant it is sure enough they were thus to be communicated to the unconverted Again whereas our Brethren say that it is the committing these things to them makes them able We grant it in the sense of that known Maxime Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus We say the Moral ability of the Preacher is created by his being authorized to the work by a solemn separation to the performance of it without which though many be naturally able yet none is morally able as it is the Judges Commission that makes him able to relieve the fatherless and oppressed Widow in Judgement Our Brethren therefore as their safest refuge flie to the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this was a Precept concerning Preachers by Office The Text saith no such thing however we own no others whereas they say we must restrain it to publick Preaching We say there is reason for it for the Apostles business is to direct Timothy in the setling of Gospel Churches as to publick Officers and Administrations And besides Reason will tell us that those need not to have Timothy commit the Scriptures to them who exhort from the obligation of Natural and Oeconomical duty But we say that all such publick Teachers of others are here meant as Preach with authority obliging the Publick Assemblies of the Church to hear them all such as administer that glorious publick Ordinance of God which we call Preaching and is the ordinary means of saving souls And this is enough for the

who preacheth is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty This is so rational that none can deny it for sin is the transgression of a law and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural divine positive or humane now this is certain that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse or reads a chapter he must be specially authorized to preach or I shall not be specially obliged to hear 2. The second principle is this That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer I think that none in their right wits will deny this hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow from this principle 1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed let who will preach none are bound to come to hear but they may all stay at home and read a good book if they please for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach and so none under an obligation to hear 2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait upon any publike Ordinance which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls than reading a chapter at home doth The reason is because no particular Churches are formed and there can be none in office It is not the place or company but the person administring who makes the ordinance publike 3. Where there is a particular Church formed it is true the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer but for all others if they do stay at home and read a chapter or a good book they sin not for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them than they have to preach at home one to another 4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach if he be not a member of his particular Church he cannot come in faith believing upon the account of any precept or promise that the word heard shall profit him any more than if he had staid at home and heard his servant read a chapter for he that preacheth stands in no office is clothed with no more authority toward him No he is only in office to the members of his own Church 5. If any pastor of any particular Church at any time uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person who is not an actual member of his Church he sinneth against God doing an act of office to a person to whom he is in no office and hath no authority And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to consider to what Athei●m and confusion this one principle improved would in a short time bring us And I am verily perswaded that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion are of another mind from these three in this point for so wise and learned men can never surely think that when at any time they preach in any place or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches they preach but as gifted brethren so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom is under as much appointment of Gods for the salvation of souls as theirs is yet this is a true conclusion from this principle up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be performed by an officer which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world As for their third chapter I might spare my pains in answering of it for it is but a conclusion from their premises in the first and second chapter and it is too much to deny the premises and conclusion too In this third chapter they give us the description of office then indeavour to prove it and lastly draw two conclusions from it their description is this Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified Preaching without Ordination p. 14. founded upon a special and regular call 1 This definition offends two logick rules say we which are these Aristot l. 6. top cap. 5. That all definitions should be adequate That is nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel as I proved before yet that is put into the definition secondly Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified or in the notion of a regular call which I suppose our brethren will not grant Arist top l. 6. a p 1. 2. A second rule is this That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species The ministerial office is a Genus here defined but there are diverss ministers say we that have no such particular Church for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo without a title to a place was no divine order but prudential to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministery and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense doth relate to a particular Church but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense and as it is used in Scripture both in Jeremy 3.15 Eph. 4.13 Our Brethren expound their description For the Genus we allow what they say Office is a Relation Their terms of relation we deny we say the particular Church is not the only correlate but the Vniversal Church is also a correlate to the office yea and the work yea God himself and all Nations of which before Here 's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered besides that term Angel of the Church used Rev. 2.1.8 c. To which I answer that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est it is very disputable whether a single person or the Presbytery be meant by that term 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church But not the flock as our Brethren say The Apostles ordained the Deacons not the flock It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy Acts. 6. and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete As to the formal cause