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 â—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 â—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
thing Notatio saepe est inadaequata modo latior modo angustiâ—r saith the Logician But 2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally viz. All the titles and all the names we conceive their Argument very faulty for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City it doth not follow but that his title of Justice of the Peace hath the keeping of the Peace and the Statutes concerning Justices for the Correlate or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate 3. If our Brethren do say that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate we shall desire by the next to know whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers in the following Texts have the Church only for their Correlate 1 Tim. 2.7 2 Tim. 1.11 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14 Philip. 1.15 Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn to say that if the Question be asked To whom are they Officers the answer must be to the Church * 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked what is their office for what work is the office ordained The answer must be for the Preaching of the Gospel for the work of the Ministry The truth is The work is objectum quod the Church is objectum cui Both the Church and the imployment are the Correlates to this Relation the Church are the Correlated persons the work of the Ministry is the Correlated thing So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London for both the Church and the Employment are Correlates Nay under favour not the Church alone but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry as to Preaching The office of the Ministry was instituted as well for the gathering of the Saints as for the edifying of them as well for the perfecting of their number as for the perfecting of their graces Till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. Eph. 4.11 12 13. We can never believe that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother but as an officer of the Gospel Nay more God himself is the Correlate to this office and therefore they are called the Ministers of God the Ministers of Christ not Elders of the Church only or Ministers of the Church they are Gods Ministers in the Church and the Ministers of the Gospel in and for the Church and world too Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of the Church We can shew them many where they are called the Ministers of Christ of righteousness of the Gospel of Christ Now it is a rule Relata reciprocantur a Father is called the Father of such a Son and the Son is called the Son of such a Father But I say our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase when they call Ministers i. e. Preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church they are the Ministers of God and his Gospel in such a Church and they have some relation to the Church but not a more relation than they have to the work they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel is called their Gospel My Gospel saith Paul twice here is a plain reciprocation let them shew us the like if they can for their assertion otherwise we hope our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern And I earnestly beseech our Brethren that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies which have not as you see the least foundation either in Scripture reason or usage of any approved Authors In the mean time we will grant them that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office But if we would grant our Brethren that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate not to the work but to the Church I perceive this would not give them satisfaction unless we would also yield them that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church In opposition not only to the Church Catholick invisible viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad But to the Church Catholick visible in any notion The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion but we can by no meanes bow down unto it And therefore that 's the next thing we must bring to trial Only before we do it Give me leave to inform our Brethren in our notion of a Church though I shall better do it when I shall return to answer their Epistle The word which we translate Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetus evocatus voce praeconis of which our Brethren can make no advantage either from the Etymologie or from the usage of it in Scripture according to the first it signifies no more than a company called out it is both used by the Seventy interpreters to express the congregation of evil doers Psal 26.5 And by the Evangelist Luke to express a rout neither lawfully assembled nor yet united Acts 19.32 This word in it self as unhallowed as any other the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers company or Companies of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel Eph. 4.11 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvelous light Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into Invisible Visible The invisible Church is either Triumphant in heaven or Militant here upon the Earth The Visible Church is either Universal or Particular By the Church universal quatenus visible we mean The whole number of people over the face of the Earth called out of the Paganish world to the owning of the gospel of Christ which being an integral Body cons sting of homogeneous members or parts each part beareth the denomination of the whole hence that part of this body which is in a Nation Province parish c. is properly called the Church of God in such a Region Nation Province parish c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1.13 that is all that ownned the gospel whether in Jerusalem or in Damascus or the strange Cities Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11 all that called on Christs name whom
a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 â—te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone◠〈◊〉 â—is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the
gifts though every one had not more than one yet some might as Paul had the word of knowledge and wisdom and tongues and miracles and interpretation of tongues So I see nothing to hinder but he that had the special gift of prophecie might besides have the word of wisdom and knowledge 3. Supposing prophecie to have been a gift of foretelling things to come or explication of Scripture by an infallible Spirit without use of means yet they might speak edification exhortation and comfort which is all mentioned 1 Cor. 14.3 the Prophets of old Isaiah Jeremiah c. did all but the nature of their gift and the specifical difference of it did not lye in the thing spoken or the End but in the principle enabling them so to speak 4. Our Brethren therefore shall never prove that exhortation c. was the distinctive act of the Prophet as they would insinuate for they themselves must grant that common to Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers with them and this is an answer to their third thing For what they say before that prophecie Rom. 12.6 7 8. is distinguished from exhortation it signifies nothing because exhortation was not the act of Prophets as Prophets It was told our Brethren that 1 Cor. 13.8 the Apostle saith Whether there be prophecies they shall fail whether there be tongues they shall cease whether there be knowledge that shall vanish away Our Brethren answer ver 9 10. it shall be Page 114. when that which is in part is done away 2. Not till the ceasing of knowledge in part 1. We may as well maintain tongues not to be ceased for they also are mentioned ver 8. as things which should fail and we know they are failed and so we judge are prophecies too nor will it help our Brethren which they say that ver 9. it is not said tongues are in part for the reason is because they were perfect in their kinde and so need not be done away when that which is perfect should come but if we take perfect in a true sense for a perfection of the Saints in glory then indeed they were imperfect things serving only as means in order to that end Neither doth the Apostle speak of the coming of that which is perfect as the moving cause or reason of that ceasing of things that were in part he doth not say that which is in part shall be done away by the coming of that which is perfect but he speaks of it as a consequent The true sense is this Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church shall cease when we come in heaven we conceive by tongues and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary By knowledge ordinary gifts and offices these shall all fail at that day but some of these shall fail before others We lay no great stress upon this Text I have only said thus much to prevent our Brethrens using of it as they here do though without any just ground for the truth is it will serve neither party It was told our Brethren that prophecying 1 Cor. 14. is said not to serve for those that believed not and therefore our Brethren must keep their Gifted men to their Churches If any thing can be clear in Scripture surely this is from that Text 1 Cor. 14.22 To this our Brethren Answer 1. That it will warrant their preaching in Church Assemblies 2. That the Apostles intent seemeth to be but to deny prophecy to be a sign to unbelievers and to serve onely for Believers to edifie them but they say the Apostle acknowledgeth it to be usefull to unbelievers to convert them To which I answer 1. If there were any Prophets indeed this would warrant the exercise of their gifts to Church Assemblies but our Brethren cannot prove any such Prophets now existent But Secondly It is well our Brethren say no more than this seemeth to be the Apostles intent for the Letter of Scripture is express against them in these words Wherefore tongues are for a sign 1 Cor. 14.22 not to them that believe but to them that believe not but prophecying not for them that believe not but for them that believe Our Brethren would make us believe that the sense is only that prophecie was not for a sign to them that believed not but for their conversion it might be Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little and judge betwixt us 1. It is plain that if prophecying were for any sign it must be for unbelievers for believers needed no sign they had already received the Gospel but the Apostle plainly says it was not for unbelievers 2. Let any Reader judge whether those words But prophecying not for those who believe not do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to unbelievers if it were a sign at all it must be for them who believed not but say our Brethren it is denied to be a sign for them and the words are plain enough it is not for them Object Oh! But though it be not a sign for them yet it might be to convert them Answ Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convetsion now that prophecy should be for their conversion and not a sign for it seems very harsh considering that the world had no greater sign of the truth of the Gospel than Prophecies For what our Brethren say that ver 25 26. prove that prophecy is usefull for the conversion of unbelievers We grant it but it is When the unbeliever comes in to the Church Assembly not when the Prophet goes out to them ver 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place and ver 24. There come in one that believeth not or is unlearned he is convinced or reproved of all i. e. those that prophesie he is judged of all c. Mark the Prophet is tied up to the Assembly of the Church in one place If our Brethrens Brethren be of this sort of Prophets what do they travelling up and down Countreys whom they think unbelievers or intruding upon Congregations that are vacant where there is no Assembly our Brethren will own as a Church these Prophets were not by vertue of this Text to be sent out of the Church only to be heard in it This is all our Brethren say about these Prophets and although I really think their Argument from this Text the most probable of any they have yet I hope an equitable Reader will from what I have said judge it not conclusive in the case I wonder at the reverend opinion our Brethren express of their other Arguments in comparison of this But let the Reader judge Only led me add one text more to prove this prophecying an extraordinary gift not ordinary it is that Acts 19.6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text and conâ—ider whether that the Gospel-prophesying were not one
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
that a Church must be an united company if you had told us in what sense you understand united we could better have told you our minds at least I could have better told you mine concerning it People may be united by cohabitation by common profession by mutual consent this you seem to understand this again may be either explicitly by Covenant or implicitly by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell this being premised Brethren I conceive 1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company either as to an union of judgement or practice the rout Acts 19. called by this name were not 2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ called by this name in Scripture were united but neither by cohabitation nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this 3. There is no need that every particular Church if not organized and under the exercise of Discipline should be united by consent as to practice in the same numerical Administrations every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent you often read of the Church in a particular house Col. 4.15 Rom. 16.5 Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved 4. Indeed it seems reasonable that a particular Church organized and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administred should be a company united by consent for my own part I can allow you this though I know some of my Brethren will not 5. That this Vnion must needs be by an explicite Covenant or consent is neither to be proved by one Text nor yet by one sound reason and to impose this as necessary is a meer humane invention and not to be indured because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it But lastly we heartily wish that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such as seeing no command of God for it shall not think fit to submit to it Thus far I can yield our Brethren that a particular Church is an united Company And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches not as some would ridiculously fasten upon us because they live within such local limits but because they are societies of baptized persons who by a tacit and implicit consent have united themselves waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship And this Vnion holding we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches although as the Church of Corinth corrupted in some of their members and therefore not to be separated from nor disowned as no Churches but to be purged and the old leaven put out that they may be a new lump 5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ and this for the glory of God c. I freely grant nay it may be I will grant more viz. that they must be a people who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren if I tell them I have almost made my head ake with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle save one and do what I can I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse or is brought in upon any easier terms then they say The Fellow brought in Hercules viz. by head and shoulders for undoubtedly if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason it would never have come there The passage is this But we shall say no more of this Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this The Scripture doth hold forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government May be they would have said must be had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it I must profess my self dear Brethren to be so ignorant that I can neither understand the sense of this passage either copulatively or disjunctively will you give me leave to sift it a little possibly though it all looks like chaff some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it But we shall say no more of this you say Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth Of this of what You had before been speaking of the Papists making their Decrees and humane inventions equal with the ten Commandments and told us you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased and that Christ hath ceased from his work c. Now you tell us you shall say no more of this your Brethren viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven what 's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with Gods word Do any of us make them so Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books Doth the same truth relate only to what follows that we are not all of a minde as to the Divine Right of Church-Government what needed our Brethren have added this in this place or what is the meaning of those words But we shall say no more of this and then adding the other as a reason But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven They are fouly to blame then for I should think Popery as to Government better than Presbyterie if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven But it is yet more wonderfull Brethren which you tell us that the Assembly did not so believe yea expressed as much for they only say Many particular Congregations may be united and you note they would have said must be if they had so judged Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be but they have also in the same place proved that it was so both in the Church of Jerusalem and also in the
not have opposed it But affirming it is no relate to the work but only to the Church I must profess my self dissatisfied 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the Church Vniversal or only to the particular Church Our Brethren say Only to the particular Church If our Brethren would have been content with a division again that the Minister should be related to both we should have granted it or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholick Church as had constant standing Catholick Officers we know no such Church and should not have disputed de or pro non ente But as they state it I must profess my self also in this of another mind viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church And therefore to triall we must go In the opening of the term Ministry Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly domination Mat. 20.25 26 27. that those who do acts of ministration are Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words used in Scripture to express Ministers and Ministry are applied in Scripture to others beside Ministers in Office that their constant performing acts of ministration entituleth them to the denomination of Ministers and their work should be called Preaching as we usually call them Bruers or Bakers who brew or bake constantly and therefore Christians should so call them This is the sum of what they have p. 2. 3. To all which I shall crave leave to answer For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distinction which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will bite him 1. That the terms Minister Ministry and Office are of various interpretations both in civil and sacred usage is unquestionable These terms therefore falling into the questions the explication and limitation of them to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary An accurate discourse of a question requires that no signification of the terms in it be omitted in the Explication In plenâ tractatione vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda say Logicians 2. For the first term therefore Minister that it is a Latine word none can doubt nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master so called either because he is to his Master a manibus an hand servant quasi manister as Perottus will have it or because he is less than his Master quia minor in statione which is Isiodore's notion and preferred by learned Martinius In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and prophane Authors Infimi homines ministros se praebent saith Tully l. 1. de Orat and again lib. de Amicitiâ Libidinis ministri so Ovid illo dicunt Mactata Ministro Corpora 3. The holy Penmen of Scripture either moved from the congruity of the native signification of the word or the notion of it accrewing by general usage have sometimes used it to signifie one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ in the great work of Preaching the Gospel at lest our translators interpreting what they wrote in another language have done so The original words which they have so interpreted are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are of as various signification and two of them at least as variously applied by those holy Penmen as the word Minister is by other Authours The first word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who roweth in a Boat or Ship under another and thence any one who is servant to another is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testament and I think but two of those Texts can be interpreted of Preachers they are Acts 26.16 1 Cor. 24.1 In the first Paul saith God raised him to be a Minister in the latter they are called Ministers of Christ for I cannot believe that the phrase Lu. 1.2 can be interpreted of Preaching Ministers for I think they had no Text before that time but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christs words and actions and so were Servants to the holy Penmen in communicating what they saw and heard to them There are indeed two other Texts which some may mistake into this sense Lu. 4.20 Acts 13.5 In the first it is said Christ clozed up the Book and gave it to the Minister in the latter John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas Those who write about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer belonging to the Temple something I think akin to our Parish Clerks who was wont to bring and carry away the Book of the Law to or from the Priest or Levite or other person that expounded In all other Texts of the New Testament where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Mat. 26.58 Mar. 14.54 it signifieth Civil Officers either domestick as Servants or Politick state Officers such as jailers pursevants or the like in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In its native force it signifies no more than a servant call'd so either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some would have it or which pleaseth Eustathius better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect It is in Scripture applied to Christ Ro. 15.8 and the Apostle using this word saith of him Is he the Minister of sin 2. To Magistrates Rom. 13.4 To ordinary Servants in a Family Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11 Mark 9.35.10.43 Jo. 2.5.9 To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ John 12.26 Phoebe is call'd thus Ro. 16.1 Deacons by Ossice in the Church have their name from this word and it is applied to express those Officers Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8.12 It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel To Paul and Apollo 1 Cor. 3.5 To Tychicus Eph. 6.21 Col. 4.7 To Timothy 1 Thes 3.2 These again are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3.6 Of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.15 Of Christ 2 Cor. 11.33 Of the Church 0.0.0.0 Our Brethren p. 2. tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often applied to Saints no Officers But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1 for that so they may consider that no Preaching Saint in Scripture who was no Officer was ever so called though if he had it had not signified much as to the present question for any one that served but his Masters Table was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our Brethren do only urge the common usage of the word then they do but play with an Equivocal term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies in Scripture The third word used is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most restrained word of the three both in civil and also in sacred writ yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate Rom. 13.6 To the Minister of the Gospel Rom. 15.16 to a publick Person but ministring in a private manner Phil. 2.25 To Angels Heb. 1.7.14 To Christ himself Heb. 8.2 Some note that it is alwayes a title of publick performance but Philip. 2.25 It is otherwise used Yet there are that think that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office and in that ministration to Paul so acted if any credit may be given to civil Authors for the proper usage of this word it signifieth both a publick office and a sacred Service So Suidas and Scapula assure me and the Etymology of the word as much It is true in civil Authors it is sometimes used otherwise but Suidas saith it is abusively I think we may say there is this difference betwixt this word and the other that whereas other words primarily signifie ordinary private civil Service this word ptimarily signifies sacred publick Service and in all holy writ is not applied to a private person Sure I am that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as publick persons in sacred Services 5. But though both Minister in the Latine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Minister in our English tongue are equivocal terms Yet we must cum vulgo loqui speak according to vulgar usage not according to equivocal notions of the word Gifted men cannot in propriety of Speech be called Ministers We will grant to our Brethren that the persons they plead for may be called Ministers if they do but wait at their Masters Table or be but under-Commissioners to the State or the like though they should never Preach according to the signification of the words but as the Church of God hath in all late ages used the term Minister we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be called a Minister we do not deny but that every General of an army may be called Imperator and was so but as the term hath lately been used and is used we deny he can be called an Emperour we do not deny but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer we do not say but our Brethren though not ordained may be such Ministers as you read of Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5 but not such as you read of 1 Cor. 4.1 Acts 26.16 And by vulgar usage such only for a long time have been so called to distinguish persons in office from such as only do acts of Service Civil or Sacted I must confess I must commend people for keeping that term still as distinctive if every one should be called Sir John or Sir Thomas such a one in time there would be no difference betwixt a Knight and a begger and names are given for distinction sake If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench should say there sit a dozen Ministers people would not understand what they said and according to vulgar speech it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment yet if our Brethrens Argument were good that gifted men should be called Ministers because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would justifie that new dialect in other things as well as this For Magistrates are called Ministers and Magistrates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am much against this removing of the Antient Land-Marks which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with and think it a very ill design which would produce nothing but confusion Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture where a gifted man not ordained is called a Minister of the Gospel a Minister of Christ c. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much Preaching without ordination p. 3. Nor will a general course of acting as they would hint entitle them to that name It is true constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker for neither of them are titles of office But suppose now a Rebell should overcome his Prince and for seven years together exercise the Acts of his place he would not yet by bare acting be entituled to the name of a Prince or King The Conclusion is that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense according to later ages restriction and constant usage of the word Minister be called Ministers they may be called Speakers if you please Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister and of the Greek words so translated Second Term Ministry let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry imports And this also we shall find Homonymous 1. Every one will conclude that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie their service or ministration and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to express that in Scripture which we translate Ministry I mean two of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first onely in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple the latter very often Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 c. And indeed I think this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture to signifie the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers Acts 1.17 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18 Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Gospel perform in Preaching administring Sacraments c. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church who more strictly are called Deacons Rom. 12.7 1 Cor. 16.15 though there be some question upon that Text So Christs execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry And the old service of the Priests and Levites is called a Ministry Heb. 9.21 But in this sense I take not Ministry in the Question yet if our Brethren contend for words I can state the question so viz. Whether that work of the Ministry which the Scripture mentioneth eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel be the work of persons meerly gifted 2. But there is another usage of the word which use at least hath procured it according to which we call the Ministry A certain order of persons set apart according to the will of God for the dispensing out of Publick Gospel Ordinances In Analogy to the description of the High Priest described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the description thus The Minister is one taken from amongst men and ordained for men in things pertaining to God for the dispensation of Publick
of three former senses it will not serve our brethrens turn for extraordinary gifts are ceased For telling one another what God hath done for us or distributing to those in want we allow it to private persons If by gift Office is meant then none but those in office have received the gift As to the last we grant that he who hath received the gift of utterance and knowlege may impart it and ought to do it in his place and station but this may be done by private conference admonitions exhortations c. But this lies upon our Brethren to prove 1. That the gift here meant must needs be the gift of preaching in the publike Assemblies of people and that they may do this without Ordination We have told them it may be understood 1 Of Office As any one hath received any office so let him minister in it as Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 Or of common gifts of providence The good things relating to this life 2 Cor 1 11. then it is a command for alms according to the connexion v. 10 11. Our Brethren must shew us good reason why it must be understood of spiritual gifts and this gift of preaching 3 Or if he be understood of the gift of opening Scripture it may be understood of the extraordinary gifts of prophecy or at least must be limited to a due time place manner Or lastly it may be understood by the gifts called by this name 1 Cor. 12.9 28 30. We do not say it can be understood of all these as our Brethren seem to hint out of a fondness to find a contradiction in mee not of Alms and office too this is but a childish reply of theirs in their first answer to my first objection p. 35. of their book it is enough for us if it be understood of one of these For if I understand any thing of sense or reason those who affirm this text to be a precept for the exercise of preaching gifts as our Brethren do must prove either 1. That that gift is specially meant here or Secondly 2. That the precept is general and not to be limited to this or that gift but understood in the latitude of any gift to be improved for the good of others Now which of these our Brethren will stand to by their answer I cannot learn for one while they tell us the next words are Exegetical of the former another while they tell us Preaching is one of those gifts But let them take which they please Is this then our Brethrens sense That the import of that text is That it is the duty of any one who hath received any gift that is any ability to do good to his brother should do it 1. Why then p. 32 33. do our Brethren come in with their i. e. Spirituul gift by the same rule they restrain the text to spiritual gifts we restrain it to Office as Rom. 12.7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 Or to outward good things the word is so used in Scripture the Context is as much for us as for our Brethren ver 10. Vse hospitality one to another that is out of question meant ver 11. If any man minister let him do it of the ability God giveth Object But this say our Brethren is not the manifold grace of God Charity is but one Grace Answ Though Charity be but one grace yet there be manifold Free gifts of God by the distribution of which we may exercise Charity The gift of Miracles was but one gift yet Heb. 2.4 you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 various or manifold miracles The body of lust is but one body of death yet there are many lusts 2 Tim. 3.6 A man may minister from the grace of charity by giving money meat cloaths c. and every one of these is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift of God to him 2. If any one who hath ability may dispense the gift then gifted Brethren may administer Baptism and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text for there is no doubt but many of them have an ability to do all that which is to be done materially in those acts but this our Brethren will not allow And why Because these are Acts of Office say our Brethren so say we is the Preaching we contend about Our Brethren may see by this a necessity of restraining this Text Either as we contend 1. To such Gifts as other Scriptures authorize them to administer Or 2. To an Administration of this Gift according to due Gospel Order which we say cannot be without preceding Ordination Will our Brethren take the Second and say That an ability to Preach is the Gift here only meant and this Text will warrant a Ministring of that gift without any more ado 1. Then we ask them by what authority they impose this upon us why may it not as well be expounded by the words immediatly going before as those immediatly following after then the Gift is the good things of this world The sense of the coherence will not constrain this interpretation it makes as much for us as it doth for them nay more 2. For the next words limit him that speaks to a speaking as the Oracles of God but he who never had the Oracles of God committed to him is not like to speak the word as the Oracles of God he may speak the Oracles of God but he cannot speak them as the Oracles of God because not sent by God 3. Suppose we should allow this that the Gift of opening and applying Scripture is here meant How doth this Text prove either a Liberty for or a duty to d◠this in publike Assemblies otherwise our Brethren know we allow it 4. Lastly to whom doth Peter speak this read ch 1. v. 1. To the strangers scattered through Asia Pontus Galatia Capadocia Bythinia Our dispute is not what may be Lawfully done in the scattred state of the Church where no Ministers are at hand but what may be done in ordinary Cases to which this Scripture speaks nothing If it be so to be understood we do not doubt but in such a persecuted state of the Church a private person Gifted may Preach and people ought to hear as well as the Levites might kill the Paschal Lamb at Hezekiahs passeover but blessed be God that 's not our Case Thus the Reader may see how inconclusive our Brethrens Argument is from this Text upon more accounts than one Our Brethren have entred exceptions against two material things which we insist upon for the interpretation of this Text. 1. Against what we say that if this Text may be understood of the Gift of Preaching or Speaking yet it may be done privately 2. Against what we say That by Gift very probably is meant Office Let us consider what our Brethren say to either of these They say first that private exercising cannot satisfie this precept nor can this exercise be justly so limited 1.
it was given to them as their concernment it says not It saith Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly the crowd of names present was an hundred and twenty the word signifies a company of persons a multitude Mat. 4.25 Matth. 5.1.7.28 By Disciples ver 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant who are very often in Scripture distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multitude as Matth. 13.34 Matth. 9.36 37. and in many other Texts Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles and said to them in the hearing of the multitude I know the term disciple is sometimes taken in a larger notion but it seems to be here distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure I am our Brethren can give no sufficient reason to shew that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles not exclusively to others but emphatically and more eminently than others called Disciples as in many other Texts and if this sense be allowed they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two verse 25. according to our Brethrens own Argument 3. But lastly It is a plain case God here chose for two stood forth or were set forth when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle till God made the choice Hence it is plain that from this Text nothing can be concluded 1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor 2. It doth not say any chose them But they stood 3. If any did choose probably they were only the Apostles called Disciples by way of emphatical distinction 4. The truth is it was God who made choice If therefore our Brethren could prove that the Brethren set these two before the Apostles and as they say in doing that did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer yet this was just nothing for nothing was needfull from them in that Case Their second Scripture is that Act. 6. v. 1 2 3 4 5 6. where it is expresly said that the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples and said Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report c. In the former Argument our Brethren argued thus If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer then they ought to choose the less Here now they argue quite contrary If they ought to choose the less then they ought to choose the greater Surely both these Arguments cannot hold being both made affirmatively But as to the present Argument stated thus If the Church mentioned Act. 6. v. 3 4. c. ought to choose Deacons then a particular Church now ought to choose her Pastors But the Church Acts 6. chose her Deacons Ergo. 1. We deny the consequence 2. We deny the Assumption I will offer Reasons for both 1. For the denial of the Consequence 1. It is plain that Church Acts 6. was the universal Church as well as a particular Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all mankinde nor is this nonsense for by universal Church I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth in which were Catholick Officers it was furnished with twelve Apostles 2. It is plain that the persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning Spirits Act. 2. Act. 4.31 No particular Church now can pretend to any such thing 3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative from the lesser to the greater particularly it will not hold in this Case That in most cases it will not hold is evident none can argue thus if a man can carry a thousand weight much more an hundred thousand If my Friend will give me a nights lodging he will much more give me his house and land or a lodging in his house as long as I live On the other side it is true in some cases it will hold But not to run into a Logical dispute The present Question is How far it is lawfull to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another Our Brethren will grant that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God Now as to this I say 1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawfull to choose the greater and yet unlawfull to choose the less as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choose Parliament men and yet not Lawfull for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace and so again to choose the less and not the greater as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choose a Constable of a Parish and yet not lawfull for them to choose a Colonel of an Army or a Justice of the Peace so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law but the Law of God must justifie the Consequence so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is 2. It is probable that the Lord who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage Our Brethren must say no more than it is probable And then we answer 1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scripture is not a certain Rule for us to walk by 2. We say it is not probable because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon than of a Pastor 2. Because this Church was more able to judge â—f both than any Church is now Our Brethren see what they are come to 1. They â—rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church to other Churches the least members of the universal Church not in the least measure so gifted from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight 2. When all is done they argue it but probable â—nd this probable hath a great improbability attending â—t too 3. From a choice limited as to the persons to be chosen Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose yet the Argument is a lamentable Non sequitur But to their Minor Are our Brethren sure that either the whole or the major part of the Church here made the choice Our Brethren have to prove it ver 2. The twelve called the multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude in the Original all the multitude