A VINDICATION OF THE PREACHER SENT OR A VVarrant for publick Preaching without Ordination Wherein is further discovered 1. That some Gifted men unordained are Gospel Preachers 2. That Officers sustain not a relation as Officers to the Universal Church and other weighty questions concerning Election and Ordination are opened and cleared In answer to two Books 1. Vindiciae Ministrij Evangelici Revindicatae or the Preacher pretendly Sent sent back again By Dr Colling of Norwich 2 Q. warrante or a Moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the Preaching of gifted and unordained persons By Mr. Pool at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London WITH A Reply to the exceptions of Mr. Hudson and D. Collings against the Epistle to the Preacher Sent. Published By Frederick Woodal Minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk Samuel Petto Minister of the Gospel at Sandcraft in Suffolk LONDON Printed by J. T. Livewell Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1659. An Advertisement to the Reader IT is Recorded of the most holy that when the cry of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah came up unto him he went down to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry thereof before he executed judgment upon them and this is written for our instruction that where indictments are drawn up against persons or things we may not proceed to sentence upon the charg untill wee see the proof thereof We are not ignorant of cries even outcries against the liberty of Prophsying we contend about and we fear notwithstanding our former and present defence if the question be moved about it what evil hath it done the answer will be returned unto it away with it crucisie it Our brethren are preparing Spirits unto this while they represent it an Idol the City of Jericho which was not to be built a Trojan horse full of Error nonsense and blasphemy A Pandoras box whence all sorts of mischeivous soulpoysoning opinions fly out c. See their Epistles And here suffer us a little to expostulate with them Is ordination indeed as a Venice-glass that can hold no poyson are you not partial who can finde Errors Heresies impertinencyes among persons not ordained but among the ordayned omnia bene Alas what learned non-sense amongst many of them what empty notions What Aiery speculations how often are people served with bones instead of bread How oft have they froth for drink They that condemn too much Lead in a window because it hinders light might be offended with painted glasse We confesse and deny not we have seen Theeves and murtherers going out and in at this door as also in the other way who deserve indeed that their mouthes should be stopped but their evil flowes not from our principle but from the abuse thereof not from the principle as stated by us although Mr. Pool in his Epistle thinks it done very loosly because though we assert it inexpedient mischeivous and uncomfortable to preach without approbation from others yet we say in some cases for ought we know it may be so done Preacher Sent. pag. 20. wherein we might promise our selves favour for them whose principle it is that in some cases it may be lawful to preach without Ordination Mr. Pool pag. 68. 102. If they put Ordination in the place of Aprobation yet say in some cases a man may preach without ordination where is the offence But Dr. Collings doth judge that no rule of Regulation can or will be fixed by us upon this liberty so that it differs not from licentiousnesse but is a very strumpet harlot Mother of abominations c. We answer 1. If by this rule of Regulation he mean the form or patern to which all doctrine must conform which therefore is called regula regulans the Rule is fixed viz. the sacred Scriptures 2. If he mean the measure or standard for qualification the Rule needs not be fixed by us where it is fixed as in Rules of examination unto Ordination it is rarely observed and a man may be qualified for one place or people not for another 3. If he mean the order of reducement in case Error or heresie be preached or the liberty any way abused the Rule is fixed Mat. 18. 15 16. The Church hath power over preachers and over Pastors Coloss 4. 17. 1 Corin. 5. 12. Rev. 2. ver 2. Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers That Church and the Angel thereof are commended for trying of Preachers Those that may and disapprove may approve where there is cause here is a Scripture rule for approbation of Preachers and that not so much as in order to Ordination Courteous Reader we desire thee to take notice of these few following particulars 1. That we do not repeat all the words of Dr. Collings or Mr. Pool but what is most material in their Arguments which liberty they have taken to themselves in replying to us 2. That although we have cause to complain that many Arguments in our former book yet remain untouched and some but slightly wounded are buried alive with too much of the dust and ashes of reproach cast upon them yet hoping and expecting that the determining Reader will examine and compare Arguments and answers impartially we shall be silent 3. That very many of Mr. Pools Arguments and replies are drawn from the Apostles and that in matters wherein they acted as extraordinary Officers Also necessity is often urged against us whereas necessity cannot justly be pleaded to justifie actings unless it be in natural duties Their instance of the Shew-bread reacheth no further it was a natural duty to eat that for the preservation of life to kill a man in self-defence is a natural duty which may further answer what Mr. Pool saith pag. 102. about necessity we say to defend the life of a man or to take away the life of a murderer is not a peculiar work to a Magistrate but to command persons to the one and the other is the Magistrats work and this a private man may not do in a case of necessity and if they will grant preaching to be a natural duty how can they deny gifted men liberty for doing of it 4. That thou art to expect this the last thou shalt receive from us in this controversie we cannot absolutely promise it because the righteous and the wise and their works are in the hand of God Eccles 9. 1. but are very much inclined unto it amongst others upon these grounds because we have spoken fully to the matter in our former and this book and there is no end of words neither do we love alwayes to be wading in a controversie which diverteth from more practical things at present and at the last must be left to the Reader to judge and we would not by multiplying replies carry thee away from those Arguments we used in the first Book which they have left behind without any thingof
how these arguings agree we know not Object 2. No doubt they were the first-born that did lay hands on the Levites Ans This is fully answered Preacher Sent pag. 344. most that he saith from pag. 157 to 161. is either inconsiderable or answrable or answered before Object 1. We hear not a syllable of the peoples concurrence in ordination c. p. 158. Paul in all his Epistles to the Churches speaks not a word about ordination surely the Scriptures silence is Argumentative p. 159. Ans If this will stand many of his principles must fall for we hear not a syllable in holy writ of the subordination of a Church of Christ in point of Government unto Assemblies made up of the officers of other Churches nor of the subordination of Synods one to another nor of its being an ordinary Presbytery which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. Nay there is not a word in Scripture for an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over upon an ordinary Call and so the Scriptures silence is as much argumentative in case a Church hath no officers in it against Ordination by officers of other Churches our officers as against Ordination by the people Object 2. There is the same reason for the Apostles being a president for Ministers baptizing and not the people and for their ordaining and not the people pag. 158. Ans We have reasons against the peoples baptizing which are not fetched from the president of the Apostles baptizing and which speak not against the peoples acting in ordination when a Church is without officers as for baptisme being a part of worship only by institution which as worship the people are no where warranted to perform in the acts of it whereas the Essential act of Ordination is prayer which though reqâ—â—red by Gospel Rules on that occasion yet in it self is an act of natual worship which the people may perform so Baptisme is a seal of the Covenant c. Ob. 3. We never find Ordination practiced but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. Ans 1. Then 1 Tim. 4. 14. cannot speak of Ordination by an ordinary Presbytery for Timothy was an extraordinary officer and so was not inferiour to an ordinary Presbytery either this or else what he saith p. 149. 154. must be false 2. We never find Ordination by ordinary officers upon an ordinary Call out of the Churches they are over and so the case is as difficult on his part as on ours His last Argument p. 160. viz. That Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in office we confuted before And thus we have finished our reply to the chief matters in his book onely for a conclusion he accuseth us to the Reader 1. For novel and strange passages 2. For self-contradicting passages Mr. Pool p. 160. 161. 162. 163. we shall briefly answer to these 1. As to his list of novel strang passages we answer 1. Our words pag. 13. do not so much as implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Jewes as a Teacher by office That Text Mat. 13. 54. 57. was alledged onely to evidence that stumblers at and opposers of the word in respect of him that teacheth may be said to be taught this is all we produce it for as any Reader may see and this it clearly proveth that no meer man can be an officer to such we prove but it is by other mediums not by that Text neither can any inferrence be drawn from our words against Christs being an Officer to such especially seeing Christ was an extraordinary person even the Law-maker and determiner who men should be Officers to As to the Apostles in a large sense they were officers to heathens but not Officers over them or in a strict sense as we have shewn in this book Ch. 7. 2. The second we own if the rest of our words be added to it neither hath he disproved it we would know from whom Apollo had a probation before his preaching 3. The third is proved in the pages he quoteth and also in this book Chap. 10. Let him evidence that an outward call from man is any where in Scripture stiled a mission or sending or that any but God doth send in the sense we take it in there We do not deny that a Church is to give a Call to Office but we deny that sending is that call 4. The fourth we own neither hath he disproved it and the same we say to the sixt and seventh As to the fist about administring the Sacraments not as Pastors we desire the Reader would view our former book pag. 280. and this book Chap. 6. As to the eight ninth we have spoken to them Ch. 6. 2. As to his accusation for selfe-contradicting passages we answer 1. We can find nothing like a contradiction in our words if pag. 20 and 149. be compared For if a man may lawfully preach yet may there not be divers things pre-required unto his preaching here or there May not a man have power to preach and yet want requisites unto the exercise of that power in this or that place do not they say a man may have power and yet without the consent of some or a special call may not exercise that power in such a place Jus Div. Min. pag. 144 Doth not Mr. Pool expresly assert it pag. 6. Yea he saith pag. 48. It is true no preachers are in Scripture oblidged to preach in such or such a place c. what do we say more We may turne his words pag. 163. upon himself say how can a man preach but he must preach in this or that place quod nusquam fit non fit So that the contradiction if it be one is as much his as ours 2 It is his grosse mistake to say that we are guilty of selfe-contradiction in the other two particulars which he mentioneth pag. 163. For what he rehearseth out of our book pag. 300. to make one part of the contradiction is an objection of theirs they are not our words but the words of the provincial assembly Jus. Divin Min. pag. 133. And that which he maketh the other part of the contradiction is our answer to the aforesaid objection and so we do but oppose them pag. 302. not contradict our selves They are their words from p. 300. l. 21. to p. 301. lin 14. this he might easily have seen though it be not printed in a different Character And now we shall put Mr. Pool in mind of some of his 1. novel and strange passages 2. Selfe-contradictions 3. Repugnancies to the provincial Assembly whose case he pleadeth the Dr. 1. novel strange passages 1. He saith that a Minister may be a Minister though he have no particular Church to which he stands related p. 11. by Minister he intends an officer pag. 10. 2. He saith that heathens are a part of Christs body pag. 13. And therefore are the object and
pag. 35. denyeth the major and saith a minister is not obliged actually to feed all his flock and addeth every Apostle was a Catholâ—â—â— Pastor and so had the whole Church for his flock Mat. 28. 19 20. But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church and all Nations c. Answ 1. His denyal of the major is little better then a denyal of the very words of Scripture for the Apostle saith Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church c. Is it not plain that actuall feeding is enjoyned and that not onely some but all a mans flock is thus to be sed 2. This doth not answer our argument but leaveth us under a new seeming difficulty 3. If his reason should be wholly granted we do not see how it justifyeth his denyal of our major or taketh away the force of our argument and had he not left out the conclusion of his Syllogism he might easily have seen it himself For the utmost he can conclude from those premises is but this Ergo every Catholike Pastor who hath the whole Church for his flock was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church all Nations c. And what is all this to the purpose If every Catholike Pastor or every one who hath the whole Church for his flock was not will it follow hence that no officer is obliged actually to feed all his flock May there not be some officers who have no such large flock and may stand under such obligations If every Apostle was not yet may not every ordinary Officer be obliged actually to feed all his flock What shadow ofa consequence is here This might be enough in answer to that which he supposeth to be an unanswerable reason but that his reason taketh not away the force of our Argument we may evidence these waies 1. Because the impossibility of every Apostles looking to all the Churches is the reason which himselfe giveth pag. 7 8. why they did it not But our argument is drawne from a command to ordinary Officers fixed in a particular Church all which it was possible for them actually to feed and so the cases run not paralel And that a universal Church should be their flock the hundred it may be the thousand part whereof by reason of their fixednesse in a particular Church they can never feed and yet be commanded to feed all their flock who can Imagine it Or doth not such a comand rather determine their particular flock to be all over which they are made Overseers 2. Because the Apostles had immediate directions from God which gave them a dispensation for an actual feeding every Church 3. Because if every Apostle was not commanded actually to feed all that flock or all those Churches that they had liberty by their commissions to act as Officers towards seeing every ordinary Officer is commanded to feed all the flock he is an Overseer to Acts. 20. 28. hence his supposed unanswerable reason faileth in the main thing it should prove If Mat. 28. 19 20. were spoken to this or that Apostle singly then that being a command of actuall teaching and baptizing every Apostle was obliged actually to feed or teach all Nations and then his minor is untrue But if it were spoken to all the Apostles together v. 16. 19 20. then if every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed all Churches or all Nations yet all the Apostles together did actually feed all the Churches in that age and were obliged to do it and all officers together in after ages are under the like obligation yet no one ordinary Officer is obliged actually to teach all Nations but every one is bound to feed all the flock over which he is made an overseer Arg. 2. If Officers now were actually to feed and take care of all the universal Church then their power were as extensive large as the Apostles c. Prâ— Sent. p. 11. Obj. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation but in the independancy superiority and singularity of jurisdiction Mr. Pool pag. 36. Answ 1. If this were true yet it proved what we produced it for viz. That no ordinary Officer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the unisal Church for himselfe granteth pag. 6. that it was peculiar to the Apostles to be actually Ministers to the whole Church 2. But that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation seemeth to us very false For 1. Apostles had universality of jurisdiction Ergo Apostles had generality of relation Ordinary officers have not universality of jurisdiction Ergo ordinary officers had not generality of relation Nomans jurisdiction can be extended beyond his relation and therefore none can deny the Apostles universality of relation and that ordinary officers have so extensive a jurisdiction let him prove that will assert it 2. As Apostles had general relation so they were under obligation to actual discharge of the duty of the relation in like extent 2 Corin. 11. 28. and so were the Churches towards them But ordinary Officers are not under an obligation for the actuall discharge of the duty of their relation to all Churches as we have already proved from Act 20 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. neither are all Churches under such obligations to duty towards them as their officers either â—o submit or afford maintenance c. to them and therefore ordinary officers relation doth not extend to all Churches 3. Apostles general relation obliged them to an Itinerant execution of their office so as they could not fix in any Church but ordinary Officers are not engaged to such an execution but by Divine appointment are fixed in some one church and are bound there to reside which is inconsistent with such a relation as the Apostles had 4. The general relation of the Apostles was so special as all Churches might plead a like interest in them and call them their officers with ordinary officers it is not so our brethren themselves being judges Jus Div. Min. pag. 143. If ordinary officers be not equally related to all Churches they are not at all related to them for relations do not suscipere magis minus unlesse the subject or foundation be mutable Arg. 3. Ministers are Pastors onely to them whom they can exercise Church government towards as well as teach Obj. Then the Apostles did not preach as Officers to heathens for towards such they could not exercise Church-governement Mr. Pool p. 37. Ans If Apostles did Preach as Officers over heathens it did arise from the extraordinariness of their Office for no ordinary Officers civil or military can act as Officers toward any that they cannot govern and having the Rule over and being over others in the Lord is made the specificating distinguishing Character of ordinary Officers from such as
their Arguments against gifted mens preaching without Ordination He rehearseth our Arguments leaving out a great part of their strength and putting in his own exceptions against them and then mentioneth the heads of their Arguments without our exceptions against them and yet pretendeth pag. 116. not to take at advantage but to set the best glosse upon our cause in which surely no Reader will believe him CHAP. XII Concerning Election as belonging to a particular Church THere are three Scriptures chiefly urged to prove the power of Election to belong to a Church viz. Act. 1. Act 6. and Act. 14. Many of our answers to objections against these proofes we have no reply to and so we shall but touch upon things here and refer the Reader unto our former Book and to our reply to Dr. Collings for a fuller answer 1. The first Scripture is Act. 1. 23. Object It was not an exhortation to chuse nor a direction in chusing here is not a word of the piety c. of the person but onely a declaration that one must be chosen c. however it was fit the people should consent pag. 120. Answ 1. Here he plainly contradicteth the provincial Assembly for he saith it was not a direction in chusing they say Jus Divin Min. pag. 127. they were guided and directed in their choice by the eleven Apostles and seek to prove it from ver 21 22. how should we answer both 2. Qualifications are set down ver 21. and the men and brethren in the meeting being spoken to ver 16. it is clear that they were the persons chusing ver 23. 2. The second place is Act. 6. Object 1. Regulation by dead Lawes and rules is no prejudice to the peoples sole power in Election but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it If the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds would they have been Deacons if not then the Essence of the Call consists not in Election Mr. Pool pag. 121. Answ 1. Paul was as much a living Judge when he did write â—o Timothy and Titus as the Apostles were Acts 6. yet he giveth Rules for â—egulation 1 Tim. 3. ver 2. 3. Tit. 〈◊〉 ver 6â— and if Ordination be aymed at here either these Rules of Regulation destroyed the power of Timothy and Titus in Ordination or else those Rules Act 6. did not destroy the peoples power of Election And we may turn his question upon him If Paul had upon just grounds refused any of those Ordained by Timothy and Titus would they have been Officers if not then according to his arguing the Essence of the call consists not in Ordination 2. If they chose persons duely qualified the Apostles could not refuse them 3. If the Apostles had a negative voyce in case persons were not rightly qualified yet that would not deny the whole power of Election to be in the Church for their affirmitive voyce might be onely causa sine qua non not causa formalis of the Election as himself telleth us pag. 13â— we may urge his instances there against what he saith here and they will be as strong for us as for him And this answereth what followeth If the Apostles refusing any chosen would have hindred their being Deacons as p. 121. or the want of Ordination would have made Election null as he saith pag. 122. yet the Essence of the Call might consist in Election for their approbation or Ordination might be onely Causa sine qua non they might not be Essential though they could not be without them But it is he that forgets not we for the present question is about the peoples power of chusing not about Election as Essential to a Call nor of Apostles power in Election As to what he addeth pag. 123. about arguing a minori ad majus affirmative we answer It is Mr. Pool that runneth upon the grosse mistake for our Argument is fetched from the same Canon that there 's is as any one may plainly see Preacher Sent. pag. 224. And whether the Argument from the greater to the less affirmatively be not urged in the Scriptures we mentioned pag. 226. let the Reader judge Object 2. There is another Canon and that is this Quod competit minori competit eâ—iam majori If Ordination was required to the meaner and less considerable office which is that of the Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office and this was the Argument used by the Assembly Mr. Pool pag. 123. Answ Our Argument will stand upon this foot he can get nothing by this for the Canon will serve us what he saith of Ordination we may say of Election If the peoples Election was required to the meaner and lesse considerable office which is that of Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and mighter office 3. The third Text is Act. 14. ver 23. To his exceptions we answer 1. That the usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to chuse by suffrages and without special reason we must not recede from that and many reasons we gave against its denoting a chusing or ordaining onely by Paul and Barnabas 2. The word being applyed to God Act. 10. 44. it must needs be taken figuratively and as there it doth not denote chusing by suffrages so neither can it be taken for Imposition of hands for God hath no hands to lay on 3. The word is but once more used that we know of in Scripture and then it s applied to the Church so that according to the Scripture use of it the advantage is on our part 2 Cor. 8. 19. He thinketh the people did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Object 1. They are said to ordain them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to themselves Mr. Pool pag. 125. Ans He confesseth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore this cannot deny it to be the peoples or Churches Act. Object 2. The same persons are said to ordain in several Cities and Churches and so had an authority over several Churches pag. 25. Answ 1. If the persons were the same yet 1. They did not as the manner of some is ordain in one Church â—or another at Lystra for Antioch but in every Church respectively it was not all upon one day 2. They are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who go before others and are chief in chusing 2. It is not evident that the persons were the same Iâ— a Parliament were to be chosen and the Supream Magistrate should send men into the several Counties to observe the peoples Elections it might be said as it is here and when they had chosen them Parliament men by suffrages in every County c. though those men so sent had no hand in the Elections So if Paul and Barnabas had been onely Spectators and eye-witnesses of the several Churches Elections yet all might have been said
correlate of the Pastoral office ib. 3. He saith of an excomunicate person that while he repents not he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person or as an heathen yet when he doth repent he needs no new baptism forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former baptism pa. 27. 4. He saith that the difference between Apostolical and pastoral power lyes not in the extent of their relation pa. 36. 5. He saith Vzzah was punished not principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his heads but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders pag. 99. which is against 1 Chron. 13. 10. 6. He is not positive in it but giveth it as his opinion that Apostles had not their commission as Apostles till Mat. 28. pag. 105 106. 2. Self-contradicting passages 1. That a man is made a member of the Church by baptism is none of our Assertion pag. 23. 1. What a monstrous Paradox is this baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church p. 28. In Scripture there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission p. 25. 2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church eject him out of all other Churches or he is juridically ejected out of other Churches and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce c. pag. 24. 2. It may be said that an excomunicate person ordinarily is a member a Church-member though diseased p. 26 3. If a Religious General in speaking to his Army principally aimes at the salvation of their Souls yet this is not preaching though his end in speaking be their salvation pag. 41. 3. Speaking of Paul he saith the end of the actor or speaker is purely solely the salvation of their souls so it is trâ—ly and may properly be called preaching p. 41 42. 4. The lesse is called of the greater pag. 138. we never find ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament but by persons in authority towards their inferiours pag. 160. 4. He saith it is not any prejudice to the extraordinarines of Timothies Office that it was conâ—ered by ordinary officers pag. 149. what more ordinary both in state and Church then for a person to have an office conveyed to him viz. Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him p. 149. 3 Repugnancies to the Provincial Assembly and Dr. Collings 1. Every Minister by excomunication ejecteth members out of the Church Catholick visi ble Jus. Divin Min. pag. 139. 1. It may be said an excommunicate person ordinarily is a member a Churchmember though diseased Mr Pool pag. 26. 2. They i. e. Apostles and Evangilists were virtually Pastors and Teachers they differed nothing from them but the extent of their power Dr. Collings pag. 105 2. The difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation Mr. Pool p. 36.  And he maketh Pastors power as extensive as as he supposeth their relations to be pag. 6. Questions discussed Pr. S. noteth the Preacher sent Vind. noteth the preceding treatise The number directeth to the page in either of the Treatises where the question is resolved 1. Whether there be a universal political visible Church Or whether there be a Church of churches a visible Catholick Church formed unto fellowshiâ—p in new Testament ordinances Negat Epist to Pr. S. p. 4. 5. Vind. of Epist 2. Whether visible Saints be the onely fit matter for a visible Church Aff. Epist. to Pr. S. p. 6. 3. Who are visible Saints Epist to Pr. S. p. 7. 4. Whether a union by covenant consent or agreement be necessary unto member-hood in a visible Church Aff. Epist to Pr. S. pag. 9. 5. Who may be stiled Ministers Pr. S. pag. 2 Vind. p. 1. 6. Whether Office be a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as is correlate or to a Church Preach Sent. 4. Vindicat. pag. 2. c. 7. Whether Office be a relation secundum esse or secundum dici Vindicat. p. 4. 5. 8. Whether Officers stand in relation as Officers to a universal Church Neg. Whether to a particular Church onely Aff Whether to Heathens and such as are of no Church Neg. Pre. S. 288. Vind. p. 12 13. c. p. 86. c. 9. What is office Pr. S. 14. 10 Whether there be a difference between Preaching ex Officio and ex Dono Aff Preach S. 18. 11. Whether unbelievers may come into Churchmâ—â—â—ings to hear the word Aff. Pr. S. 18. 12. What is preaching Pr. S. 20. 13. Whether it be Preaching when in private Aff Pr. 8. 21. 14. Whether it be preaching when it is not in a sacred assembly Aff. Pr. S. p. 22 23. 15. What is authoritative preaching Preach S. 25. to 28. 16. Whether persons who have preaching gifts and Graces may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publick assemblies though they be not ordained Officers Affirm Preach S. 29. to 216. Vind. pag. 21. c. 125. c. 17. Whether Election ought to precede ordination Aff. Pr. S. 30. 18. What call is sufficient to the exercise of preaching gifts Pr. S. 37. Vind. 26. 19. Whether from gifted mens preaching it will follow that gifted women may preach or that men gifted for any civil or military imployment may Act therein without any further call Neg. Pr. S. 38 39. Vind. 29. 20. Whether it belongeth to the Sphâ—re place and calling of gifted men to preach Affirm Preach S. 40. 21. Whether the Baptism of Iohn and the Baptism of Christ be distinguished and how Pr. S. 69. 70. Vind. 66. to 71. 22. Whether Teaching and preaching be in scripture phrase the same Aff. p. 79. Pr. S. 23. Whether necessity be a good plea against the Argument from Acts 8 And whether the supposed necessity maketh officers or no Pr. S. 86. to 88. Vind. 33 34 35. 141. 24. Whether the prophesying 1 Corin. 14. be a gift or an Office Preach Sent. 90. Vind. 37. 145. Whether it be a gift still continuing Aff. P. S. 96. Vindicat. p. 41. 148. Whether those Prophets speak by extraordinary Revelation Neg. Preach S. 104 105. Vind. 46 151 152 153. 25. What is not and what is the mission or sending Rom. 15. Preach Sent. 121 to 138. Whether mission be ordination Neg Pr. S. 123. Vindic. 63 64. Whether mission authorizeth or giveth a Call to be an Officer or to preach Neg Pr. S. 121. Vindicat 156. 159 160. 26. Whether the examples of Sauls offering sacrifice or Vzzahs touching the Ark do forbid gifted mens preaching Neg. Pr. S. 154 155. Vindicat 164 165. 27. Whether gifted mens preaching doth mak Officers void or un-necessary as to that act Neg. Pr S. 156. vindicat 55 56 57. 28 Whether if gifted men may preach will it follow that they may administer the Sacraments Neg. Pr. S. 165 Vind. 169. 170. 29. Whether gifted
him If they be under a general obligation to Preach when opportunity or a call is offered so are gifted men If he will say they can command it let him prove it whom they may require to hear when Churches are full of Pastors We urged diverse Arguments for the Preaching of some men without Ordination Argu. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination Preacher Sent. p. 29. Obj. Dr. Collings knoweth no need of any Preaching in order to election but onely twice or thrice to try a mans utterance and denyeth the election of a particular Church as necessary to precede Ordination c. Vind. Revind pag. 45. 46. Answ A tryal what gifts a man hath for Scripture interpretation and of the sutableness of a mans gifts to such a people c. maketh ordinary Preaching necessary in order to election as well as the tryal of utterance 2. Election did precede Ordination Act. 6. vers 5. they chose Stephen vers 6. And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them Dr. Collings asketh whether we think that the election there was by the whole multitude We answer yes for it is expressely said v. 5 the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen c. they who chose the Text answereth the whole multitude Their being divided because some widows were neglected in the daily ministration did not hinder their agreeing together in the chusing of Deacons which was propounded as a means purposely for the healing of those divisions neither doth the number if it were so great forbid it for more have met We expected his attempting to give some Text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election but he waveth that altogether Argu. 2. From Gospel commands 1 Pet. 4 ver 10. 11. Hebr. 10. 25. Preach sent p. 32. Obj. Dr. Collings his chief exceptions against this are 1. If any one who hath ability may dispense the the gift then gifted brethren may administer baptisme and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text. Vind. p. 50. 2. The context speaketh of the good things of this world pag. 50. 3. If the ability to Preach be the gift only meant he that never had the Oracles of God committed to him cannot speak them as the Oracles of God And however this was when the Church was in a scattered state pag. 51. 4. He inclineth to take it in the latitude for any communicable gift but it must be ministered in a due way and order and upon a regular Câ—lâ— Vind. Revind pag. 55. Ans 1. We do not limit it to the gift of Preaching but say that is one special gift intended 1 Pet. 4. v. 11. If any man speak c. and so it cannot be restained to this worlds goods And the foregoing and following exhortations being left in general amongst the Saints and a note of universality being used here v. 10. as every man c. hence the generality of those that have grace and the gift of Scripture interpretation are commanded to Mister that gift and hence gift cannot be restrained to Office seeing many are so gifted who are no Officers And the gift of Preaching being a publike gift i. e. such as fitteth for and is mostly laid out in a publike way hence it is very probable that an use of it in publike Assemblies is that which the Apostle driveth at especially seeing other Texts do warrant gifted men in such publike actings as Hebr. 10. 25. Act. 18 26. 28. 2. Neither may every one that is gifted administer Baptisme and the Supper by vertue of this Text. For 1. The gift of Preaching is particularized 1 Pet. 4. 11. the administration of Sacraments not so 2. Some Preaching is an act of meer charity no ministering of Seals is so Every friend of the bridegroome according to his ability may serve the Bridegroome in acts of charity but none can serve him in those rites wherein mutual engagement is Sealed but one appointed especially thereunto 3. Dr. Collings is at liberty to Preach many Sermons without the knowledge or expresse consent of his eldership but not to suspend one member from the Supper or admit one thereto there is then some difference between the dispensation of the word and the administration of Sacraments 4. Baptisme and the Lords Sâ—pperare act so purely of institution that they would never have been duties nor could have been known to be so without Scripture-light and so are not to be dispensed by any though gifted without an allowance thereunto by the institution which is the onely determining rule about the Adminstrator and Administration But as prayer is a natural duty though commanded over in the Gospel and many rules laid down to regulate direct in the performance of it So Preaching in it self is an act of natural worship if there had been no Scripture rules laid down about it yet man by natures light might have learned it to be a duty to publish the will God his Creator unto others according to ability and opportunity and therefore the Law of nature doth firstly lay gifted men under obligations to Preach and this is seconded by Gospel rules as in the Text alledged 3. It is nothing to his purpose if gift be understood of Alms or Office unlesse it be exclusive and that it cannot be limited to them onely we proved in our former book and he inclineth to take it for any communicable gift Vind. Revind pag. 55. and so he cannot restrain it unto Alms or Office But if his Arguments did prove it very probable that by gift is meant Office which they do not they were equally strong to prove that Alms are not the gift chiefly intended It might then be said the gift is to be administered as Stewards and to acts of Office are instanced in ver 11. and therefore it is meant only of Office not of Alms which many men out of Office may give and when some of his Arguments will serve as answers unto others or when he is found answering himself let the Reader judge whether that childishness which he mentioned Vind. Revind p. 49. be to be found in our replies or in his Arguments 4. The Church was not in such a scattered state but that it had Officers in it for it s said 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort c. If gifted men may Preach in Churches that have Elders in them much more may they do it elsewhere 5. The main stress is upon the Call Quest What gives a Call to Preach Ans 1. That which maketh an habitual Prophet Preacher c. although we allow not actual and habitual in relations yet otherwise we allow it justifies the actual except the hearers be incapacitated as to that priviledge If men be Prophets in the collation of grace and a gift through the use of means who will forbid them prophecy but rather wish as Moses Num. 11. 29. 2. Christs command concerning a work is mans Call to do
Preachers or were not the Apostles constant Preachers Mat. 10. 10. and will he say those Elders 1 Tim. 5. 18. were not constant preachers Or in this and the former argument doth he intend only thus much that the Scriptures do not speak expressely of a constant preaching or that 2 Tim. 2. 2. do not speak expressely de modo If this be all he aymeth at let him shew an expresse Scripture to prove that all preachers must be ordained or that none may preach without ordination or else give over such arguings His minor indeed was neither true in the matter or for me he faith pag. 109. It is true by a slip of his pen instead of the Church to which they preach he put in the Church in which they are but it is the same thing for admit that they may Prophecy he proved before he faith from 1 Cor. 14. 23. that they had no warrant to goe out of their Church to do it To which we answer 1. He that is so subject to false Logick himself might be more cautious of accusing others especially without ground 2. This which he calleth but a slip of his pen was the very thing which his argument had dependance upon and falleth with let any peruse his former book Vind. pag. 40. and they will find it so for he asketh whether any will say that a Church is tyed up to that duty which no Church is able to perform He supposeth there may be twenty poor men well gifted and ten rich men meanly gifted in a Church and enquireth whether any will say that it is Gods ordinance that these ten rich men should allow a competent maintenance to the twenty others So that his argument taketh its force from their inability to maintain them in the Church where they are Whereas the Churches to which they preach may be able though not the Church wherein they are We would not have mentioned this again if he had not minced the matter and concluded it the same thing still 3. His assertion which he groundeth that conclusion upon viz. their not being warranted to goe out of the Church to Prophecy 1 Cor. 14. 23 we disproved before but how he is consistent with himself in asserting these Prophets to be extraordinary officers pag. 65 and yet to be confined in their exercise to a particular Church pag. 73. 85. 109. we know not Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is taken from Rom. 10 15. concerning mission Vind. Revind pag. 109. Because many build so much upon that place we insisted largely upon it he replyeth very little to what we say but bringeth an Argument to prove that gifted men as gifted are not sent and it riseth to this They are neither immediately nor mediately sent Ergo not at all He concludeth that we must say they are sent immediately for if it be mediately it must be by his Church commanding Electing or Ordaining If it be immediately then by Christs own voyce or by a sign from heaven but he faith we have found out two others wayes 1. By his revealed will in his word 2. By his providence c vind Revind pag. 112. Ans 1. We say that God sendeth by the meâ—ns of his word and providence but we no where call these an immediate mission We use these words it is not an immediate mission but mediate by the word Preacher Sent. pag. 130. 2. Gods commanding men to Preach is his sending Jer. 14. ver 14. 15. I sent them not what is that neither have I commanded them His not commanding is his not sending therefore his commanding is his sending so Mat. 10. 5. Mat. 28. 19. Christs commanding them go Preach is his sending We have proved that gifted menare commanded to preach and that proves that God sends them by his word Let him prove that Ordaining or any act of a Presbytery is Gods sending unlesse in the sence we mentioned Preach Sent. pag. 137. which will not at all serve his purpose because no Authority to Preach is conferred by the mission we there speak of We do not say that Gods commanding men in his written word to believe repent c. is called sending yet such commands in the word are mediate Calls to such works though no men should urge such duties upon those that are to perform them So his commanding gifted men to Preach by his word is a mediate Call and his saying by that word go is a mediate mission though no Presbytery by Ordination or otherwise faith go 3. That sending makes them Officers we deny That no man can send another but he is in Office as to that whereabout he is sent in a large sence we grant but that sending setteth men over those to whom they are sent or maketh them Officers in a strict sence we utterly deny neither doth any thing he faith pag. 113. prove it The Kings Ambassadour is his officer in the former but not in the latter sence for every Officer properly so is superiour to those that are the object or terminus of his Office so are not Ambassadours unto them to whom they are sent and however unlesse the mission Rom. 10 15. could be proved to be Ordination the Argument thence cometh to nothing And many more words are spent about the travelling of Paul and others from place to place and many other matters also which were no greater Gospel mysteries then this though it be understood of a mission of those who before were made Preachers and not of an office-making mission especially seeing their sending was to the Gentiles which was a thing in those dayes so much questioned by the Jews His other exceptions pag. 114. against a providential sending viz. 1. That none can run before they be sent 2. That then the creep houses 1 Tim 3. 6. were sent must needs be vain seeing in the same page he confesseth that we do not own a bare providential sending without a command by the word 4. What he saith Vind. Revind p. 115. giveth no evidence that Ordination is the mission intended 1. That the command of God in his word is sending we have proved And that Act. 13. 3. cannot in the least prove Ordination to be mission he might have seen proved Preacher Sent. pag. 253 254. 2. That Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending proveth that Ordination is not mission If as in the case of Deacons Act 6. there may be Ordination without mission then these are separable each from other and so are not the same Pag. 115. He saith the mission mentioned Mat. 10. ver 5. 6. 7. and Mat. 28. was extraordinary mission It is true they had it immediately from the mouth of Christ men in these dayes mediately and so the way is different but the mission may be the same still Christ by his own voyce commanded his Disciples to watch Mat. 24. ver 42. and 25. 13 and 26. ver 41. and the same which were immediate commands to them
p. 2. pag. 432. Trelcatius Instit Theol. l. 2. pag. 204 205. Duae sunt causae cur inter suum Christi baptismum distinguat Priâ—r ut notet differentiam inter baptismum extrenum aquae baptismum internum spiritus altera ut distinguat inter personam officium suum inter personam â—fficium Christi c. Qui patris de discrimine utriusque baptismi egerunt aut de circumstantiis modo patefactionis Christi egerunt tantum non de substantia aut efficatia ut Origines Justiâ—us Nazianzenus Chrysost Cyrillus aut de baptismo sive externo Johannis sive interno Christi seperatim ut Basilius Tertul. Cypria Hieron aut humanitas a veritatis trumite aberrarunt ut Agustinus pag. 206. in answer to the Papists objection from that very place Acts 19. v 3. 4. 5. he useth these words ex ambigua significatione vocas baptismi nihil sequitur Nec enim baptismus a quam solum significat sed aut re baptismi aut ipsam Johannis doctrinam Mr William Lyford in his Apologie for the publike Ministry by way of reply to this very argument from Apollo's preaching without ordination pag. 26. useth these words The baptism of Iohn and of Christ distinguished Acts. 19. v. 4. 5. are not two baptismes of water but onely one with water which is called Iohns baptism Acts 19 3. and the Lordâ— baptisme Acts 8. 16. But Christs baptisme in distinction from Iohns was the pouring forth of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles and others in those daies as St Peter does expound it Acts 11. 15. 16. c. From all this it is evident that although some Protestant writers as Calvin Piscator Spanhemius and others have strongly asserted the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be â—â—e same as to the substance and essence oâ— them yet even they and many others before them as Cyprian Tertull. have asserted that the baptisme of Iohn and Christ were distinguished at least in Circumstances secundum modum patefactionis Christi And the aforementioned Mr. Lyford though he was against preaching without ordination yet granteth the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be distinguished in that very place which we alledge for it Acts 19. 4. 5. Wollebius Theol. pag. 126. saith there is baptismusfluminis seu aquae luminis seu doctrinae Mat. 3 11 Mat 22 25 Acts 18 25 And Scharpius Symphon pag 37. saith baptism is taken Synecdochiâ—e cum non tantum pro externo baptismo sed etiam pro tota doctrina sumitur ita in baptisma Johannis baptisati dicuntur ita Mat. 21. 25. baptisma Ioh. quod fuit pars Ministerii pro toto ministerio vel ut sigiâ—â—um pro tota doctrina obsignata sumitur And thus our assertion may divers waies hold true for Iohns water baptism Mat. 3. 11. is distinguished from Christs baptism with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit Acts 1â— 5. And the baptism of Iohn i. e. his doctrine is distinguished from the baptism of Christ i. e. from those doctrines which may be called the baptism of Christ wherein are contained many things about Gospel Churches Gospel Officers and Ordination c. which neither Apollo nor any other could know by the baptism of Iohn the revelation of them being in order of time after Iohns baptism and this difference is sufficient to cleare our argument We neither deny as the Papists do that grace might be conserred by the Spirit of Christ in or with the baptism of Iohn nor do we assert as the Papists do that all who were baptized with the baptism of Iohn ought to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ Nor are we yet perswaded that those Acts 19. were rebaptized with water-baptism though Musculus and learned Zaâ—chy and others who were neither Papists nor Socinians were of that judgement as we say with Dr. Ames Bell. Enerv. t. 3. l. 2. p. 297. Si rebaptizati fuerunt non fuit hoc propter imperfectionem baptismi Johannis sed propter aberrationem scioli alicujus a quo baptizati fuerunt Yet we are not perswaded that v. 5. is a continuation of Pauls narration of Iohns baptism but we shall not for the present contend about that We shall add but this who hath most cause to be ashamed we for bringing such an argument or Dr. Collings for giving such a reply let the Reader judge The residue of his book is spent about the three Scriptures which we bring for Election viz. Acts 1. Acts 6. and Acts 14. and the peoples ability to choose Iohn 10. we shall reply very briefly 1. As to Acts 1. v. 15. 23. how much it speaketh for the peoples Election may be seen Preacher Sent. pag. 1â—7 c. In answer to his objection we say 1. Himselfe useth a like argument from a greater Officer to a lesse Vind. Minister Evang. p 31 32. for ordination he alleageth Acts 13. 3. and useth these words Their being Apostles makes but the argument afortiori better If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostles that were most eminently gifted with the holy Ghost should yet be solemnly set a part to the work of the Ministry how much more requisite is it for those who hath no such gifts and indowments We may now turne his reply to us Vind. Revind pag. 122. upon himselfe and say because all the people of a countrey may choose Parliament men by the Law it will not follow that they may châ—se Justices of the peace c. and the answer is as strong against his argument from Acts 13. 3. for Ordination as it can be against our Argument from Acts. 1. 23. for Election and so either his own argument must be nought or else ours is good for both stand upon the same foot we may put in Election for Ordination and use his own words thus If God in his wisdom thought it fit that his Apostle that was most eminently gifted and indued with the Holy Ghost should be chosen by the people how much more requisite is it for Pastore and Teachers who have no such gifts and indowments as to his instance we say The people in choosing Parliament men to make them Lawes either choose Justices of peace who are established by their Lawes or abridge themselves of a liberty to choose them 2. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated and two stood as he rendreth it pag. 122 it must be by Gods direction else it would not have been followed with Gods approbation in that after Election v. 24. 26. neither could they have prayed in faith v. 24. that the Lord would shew whether of these two he had chosen if that act v. 23. had not given them a knowledge that one of these two and not any other of the company should be chosen which must be by some visible tokens thereof And if God witnessed this to them mediately we know not of any other meanes besides the Election of the people which we
answer they could not partly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an act of many especially when in an Assembly partly because whatsoever is put to suffrages may be determined by the major voice in case of dissent but this was impossible where there was but two for Paul could not out-vote Barnabas nor Barnabas out-vote Paul If Paul had given his voice for one and Barnabas had discented and had given his voice for another against Paul we aske who should have carryed it When the word denoteth the act of the indivisible God Acts 10 v. 41. it is not taken properly as it is in Acts 14. 23. but figuratively as God is said to have eyes eares hands c. So by a metaphor he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this answereth his second particular Vind. Revind pag. 129. 130. 3. The greek is as strong for us as the English translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth the peoples Election by suffrages and is not so clearly in apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he supposeth but rather in di-junction it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the article 〈◊〉 habet locum in divisienibus according to Grammar And if the praying and fasting related not to the constitution of the Elders as the Dr. saith pag. 130. but to the Apostles departure then the whole verse may refer to the people for it was the usual practice of the Churches to commend the Apostles unto the grace of God by solemn prayer in such parting 's Acts. 14. 26. Acts 15. 40. And Paul chose Silas and departed being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God 4. We had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken for Election or choosing by sufferages and not for orâ—ination and thence infer that Paul and Barnabas could not be the only persons that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our argument for that inferrence is this That which is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas onely But the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages is never in Scripture given to the Officers and is undoubtedly given to the people Acts 6. Ergo The powe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to choose officers by suffrages cannot be the act of Paul and Barnabas only And whether this be a begging the question or a proving what we assert let the Reader judge He bids us Vind. Revind pag. 131. see if there be one word in the Epistle to Timothy or Titus for the peoples choice We turne it upon himselfe let him see if there be one word in those Epistles for the officers choice or for the giving the power of election unto Officers What he addeth Vind. Revind pag. 132 133. is to deny that every particular Church is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister We have proved their ability from Iohn 10. v. 4. 5. See Preacher Sent. pag. 225. 237. Ob. 1. How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince againsaying Socinian or Arminian or Papist who know not what any of them hold Vind. Revind pag. 132. Answ 1. It is possible for those to judge whether a man be able to convince gainsayers who knowes not what many of them hold The Bishops or Presbiters who were administrators of Ordination in England 10. 20. 30. or 40 years ago could not know what Quakers and other blasphemers would hold yet surely he will not say that they could not judge whether those which they Ordained were able to convince gainsayers And why may not a Church as well be able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gainsayers though it knoweth not what Socinians or Arminians hold 2. Although some Church members know not errors by the name of Socinians c. yet if they hear them broached they are able to judge that they are contrary to sound dostrine As for those which turne from the faithful word in matters fundamental as they are unfit to judge of a Ministers qualifications so they are not duely qualified to be Church members Ob. 2. What belongs to Christs Sheep as Christs sheep belongs to every sheep but this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ. Ergo I hope our bretheren will not say this belongs to the woman yet are they Christs sheep too Nor that every man hath ability if they do and will give us leave we will pick them out Twenty out of every hundred c. Vind. Revind pag. 133. Answ 1. If it doth not belong to every sheep of Christ to judge of ministerial ability yet the reason may be because some want a word or institution of Christ to empower-them thereunto as in the case of women not because they want ability about which the present question is 2. It must belong to every sheep of Christ if Iohn 10. v. 5. reacheth so far as he concludeth it doth pag. 133. For such sheep as are hearers are there asserted to have both ability and liberty to judge what teachers they are to follow and who they are to avoid That one sold v. 16. is one specifically Jews and Gentiles have one kind of Church order not one Numerically all do not make up one Church of Churches But how he can reconcile his owne expressions upon this Text and make them agree in one we know not for he telleth us The Text saith my sheep not my fold what is here made to belong to sheep belongs to every sheep Vind. Revind pag. 133. If our Brethren say the Text is to be understood of Christs sheep as folded together in the Church we grant what they say but say it is meant of the one fold ver 16. Doth not one of the expressions deny it to be Christs fold and the other grant it to be his fold that is there intended 3. Although this or that Church-member taken singly may want ability to judge of ministerial qualifications yet all the members of a Church formed according to Christs institution being gathered together in Christs Name to wait for counsel at his mouth in such a matter will be able and so it may well belong to them to judge whether a man holdeth fast the faithful word be apt to teach and be able by sound Doctrine to exhort and convince gain-sayers CHAP. VI. Shewing that Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to a Vniversal Church in way of reply to Mr. Pooles exceptions in the three first chapters of his Book THere came lately to our hands a Book entituled A moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons written by Mr. Poole at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London in way of reply to some part of our Book intituled The Preacher Sent. We shall give some brief animadversions upon the most considerable passages of his Book and
Ordinance appointed for his good is according to Mr. Poole a Church-member But he who is excommunicate for blasphemy denying Christ c. is under a Church-Ordinance for his good Ergo According to Mr. Pool he who is excomunicate for blasphemy denying Christ c. is a Church-member And that the same ordinance of excommunication doth passe upon some and cut them off from Church-membership and passe upon others and leave them members still let him prove 4. Neither they in their Jus Divin Min. nor we in our former book do speak of the ceasing of baptism as to the actual priveledges of it or as to mens account onely or chiefly but about the ceasing of the water baptism it selfe And therefore what Mr. Pool sâ—ith p. 27. is altogether besides the question Neither doth his instance of circumcision help him for if any turned heathen or Idolater and renounced his circumcision yet he remained a circumcised person and his circumcision might be a witnesse against him though he were to be reputed as a heathen while such And so we apprehend though a baptized person ceaseth by excommunication to be a member of any visible Church yet this baptism ceaseth not but if it did really cease as they say it doth rebaptizing would necessarily be inferred 5. If baptisme it selfe about which the question is did cease upon the cessation of membership in the visible Church that upon the persons Repentance the Lord should impute his former baptism to him is such a notion as to use his own phrase in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem of any such thing 6. If a man ceasing to be a member of a particular Church should make his baptism cease upon its being the door of admission into that as they assert then a pari a mans ceasing to be a member of the catholick Church by excomunication or otherwise would make his baptism ceasesupon its being the door of admission into that so rebaptizing must follow upon re-admission so that this falleth heavie upon their principles But it toucheth not us because we deny baptism to be the door of admission into anâ— Church and this answereth what he saith pag. 27. He saith pag. 28. we grant that baptism was a sign of a mans admission to the Church Reply He much mistaketh us for we do not grant that its Sacramental use is to be a signe of admission into the Church But in regard Church-member-ship is pre-required unto baptism hence as things consequential are signes of what is antecedent and fruit a signe of a tree so baptism if orderly administred is a sign of admission into a Church We grant it to be a signe of ones being ingaged for the profession of the Name of Christ He asketh pag. 28. what is a Church but a company of men professing the name of Christ Reply 1. We speak onely of a subsequent sign which presupposech his being admitted into the Church and being engaged for the name of Christ and so is not the door of admission 2. A company of unbaptized persons may profess the name of Christ Ergo According to Mr. Pool they are a Church and then baptism cannot be the door of admission into the Church We said baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church by which we intend onely this that baptism doth not admit a man into any Church Mr. Pool pag. 28 calleth this a monstrous paradox which should not have been dictated without any proof c. Reply We have not meerly dictated it but have given clear proof for it Preacher Sent pag. 284. 286. 292 293. himselfe granteth that both infants and otners are Church-members inchoate before baptism pag. 24. Church-membership is a relation and as it were grossely improper to say that a man is a Father or Master c. inchoate but not a compleat Father or Master so its improper to say that one is enchoate only a Church-member and therefore they are admitted not by but before baptism But that baptisme doth not make men members of the Church is largely proved in the answer of New-England Elders to the 32. Questions pag. 12 to 20. Ob. 1. We are all baptized into one body 1 Corin. 12. 13. By which it is most evident that baptism gives a man relation to some body c. Mr. Pool pag. 28. Ans The whole stresse of this Argument dependeth upon translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into whereas it is frequently used to signifie in is Mat. 2. ver 23. He came and dwelt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a city c. So 1 Peter 5. 12. Acts 2. 27. Luke 11. 7. Mark 1. v. 9. were baptized of Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jordan and hence v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the River Jordan That which is expressed by iâ— in one verse is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other All which clearly sheweth that no argument can be grounded upon its signifying into and if it be rendred in as often it is in other Texts then his argument commeth to nothing whether it be the visible or invisible Church that is there intended for it runneth thus by one spirit we are all baptized in one body then they are first in that body baptized after so baptism is not the door of admission or doth not give relation to that body 2. An Antecedent enterance into a relation is usually expressed by a subsequent adjunct of that relation as an enterance into Kingly government is expressed by Coronation and Gen. 45. 10. The Scepter shall not depart c. i. c. there shall be one to bear the Scepter There becoming governours is denoted by a Scepter which is a subsequent signe of Governement so if 〈◊〉 be rendred into yet it may be onely an adjunct priviledge of Church-membership and not that which maketh to stand in relation to any body or Church 3. There are different gifts and graces in the members of the mystical body of Christ and therefore these cannot prove it an Organical political body yet what doth the Apostle say more of this one body But whatever the body be the relation thereto is not proved to be by baptism as Mr. Cartwright observeth on Gal. 3. 27. where we are said to put on Christ by baptism it is the usual phrase of the Scripture which giveth that unto the Sarcrament which is due unto the thing whereof it is a Sacrament So here Ob. 2. That which makes a man visibly stand in relation to Christ that makes him visibly to stand in relation to the Church but baptisme makes a man visibly to stand in relation to Christ Ergo Answ Both Propositions are false 1. His major is untrue because a visible relation to Christ must precede or goe before a visible relation to the Church for none but visible Saints or believers are to be admitted into Church relation Acts 2. v. 47. They were saved ones i. e.
at all prove muchlesse beyond contradiction that to preach publickly is an act of authority and inconsistent with a state of subjection As to 1 Cor. 14. 34. All in a state of subjection are not forbidden Preaching by that reason but onely women no man was in such a state of subjection as women hence the Apostle comparing Sex with Sex preferreth the man before the women 1 Cor. 11. ver 3. 9. and by a covering ver 5. 6. signifieth the subjection of women and ver 3. 7. denyeth men to be in such subjection Ministers or Pastors state of subjection to Magistrates doth as much forbid their Preaching publickly as womens subjection doth forbid gifted mens doing of it And the Text he alleadeth speaketh not a word of mens but onely of womens being in a state of subjection Womens being under obedience may be a reason against their Preaching publikely and yet Preaching be no authoritative act in his sence the unsutableness of it to such a state may make that a reason against it and unsutable it may be though Preaching be no act of authority i. e. no act of Office As to 1 Tim. 2. 11. 12. it neither giveth this as a reason why they must not teach in publike because they must not usurp authority nor doth it assert Preaching to be an authoritative act for the words are but I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but more of these Texts afterward His grounds thus vanishing what he addeth p. 53. about constant and occasional Preaching must needs vanish with them And as to that he saith about Alms that a private man giveth his Alms publickly is enough to prove that publickness maketh not an act of Office That the publick work of a Schoolmaster may as he confesseth be managed by any men gifted for it this speaketh it to be a fit parallel and as he saith pag. 53. that work is not restrained either by Divine or humane Law so we say the Preaching of gifted men is not restrained but commanded by a Divine Law We grant that a mans self-designation for the Ministry is not enough to justifie his doing acts of Office but it is sufficient being duely qualified and approved unto the exercise of Preaching gifts and this answereth what he saith pag. 54. For Heb. 5. 12. The Apostle denyeth the Hebrewes they being but Babes in Christ and asserteth onely Christians of long time and much experience to be Teachers in the sence be intendeth stileth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there is nothing in the Text to limit or restrain it as Mr. Pool doth to private teaching of their families or heathens all which argueth a publike Teaching to be intended especially seeing all Babes in Christ have ability in some measure privately to teach their families yet have not ability for this Teaching The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the addition of any other to it frequently notifieth publike Teachers as Act. 13. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 7. yet would this be a sufficient answer to those Texts a genere ad speciem non valet illutio affirmativa Surely the usual acceptation of the word for one species of Teachers will deny it to be a genere ad speciem And whereas the Apostle saith they ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teachers Mr. Pool would turn the Apostles word and would have it onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt or fit to Teach if such interpretation of Scripture may be allowed him he may turn the word of God which way he will and this answereth what he saith p. 54 55. and let the Reader judge who wresteth the Scripture Mr. Pool or we Thirdly For gifted mens Preaching in publick we alleadge Heb. 10. 25. Object If this place prove any thing to our brethrens purpose it will prove that it was the duty of every one gifted or not gifted to Preach in the publick Assembly c. Their Assembling together is not the modification of the exhortation but the matter of it they are to exhort one another even to this that they would not forsake the Assembling c. pag. 56. Answ 1. Those that were not gifted could not exhort in publike Assemblies to publike edification and therefore it cannot be supposed that they are required to do it but this command being left in general amongst the Hebrewes hence none that were gifted were exempted from doing of it 2. Exhorting one another is a work for publick Assemblies and is commanded from them by way of opposition unto others sinful forsaking such Assemblies and therefore it was to be done in publick Assemblies If a Corporation or any other society were perswaded to keep up meetings and there should be added immediately an excitation to a work usually performed in such meetings none would deny that it was to be done there and for Mr. Pool to make this the meaning exhort one another that they would not forsake the Assembling themselves together is such a conceit as as deserveth not answering That which he addeth pag. 57. 58. 59. about its being understood 1. Of Office 2. Of Alms hath very little weight in it Let any indifferent Reader peruse our former Book and he may easily see that it cannot be meant of Office And we have proved in this that there is a connexion between ver 10. and ver 11. and therefore it cannot be restrained to Almes and so all his pains pag. 58. 59. to prove that grace may sometimes be taken for temporal effects of grace is lost CHAP. IX Wherein our third fourth and fifth Argument for gifted mens preaching are vindicated from Mr. Pools exceptions laid against them Argu. 3. OUr third Argument is taken from a Gospel promise Mat. 25 29. Master Pool replyeth every one is to exercise his gifts according to his capacity and place and upon a Call c. and these things we have answered under the foregoing Argument and nothing is needful to be added Arg. 4. Our fourth Argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples we instance in Apollo Act. 18 24. and the scattered Saints Act. 8. c. Mr. Pool waveth our Argument as urged Preacher Sent. pag. 68. 69. 70. from the instance of Apollo which alone is enough to prove the warrantableness of gifted mens preaching and that publikely without Ordination But he is forced to flee for refuge to and seek shelter under the wing of a few groundless objections Obj. 1. That Apollo had extraordinary gifts is very probable 1 Cor. 1. 12. being ranked with persons so qualified pag. 61. Answ 1. Paul is ranked with persons but ordinarily gifted Act. 13. 1. and ranketh himself with the least of Saints and what more common then to mention ordinary and extraordinary gifts together Rom. 12. 1 Corin. 12. 28. 29. Ephes 4. ver 11. 12. Yet were it a probable Argument that Pastors or Teachers had extraordinary gifts because ranked with Apostles who had such gifts surely no. And that Apollo had such
this Mr. Pool again would answer with necessity but that in any case they may preach but may not administer the Sacrament it speaketh their Argument invalid We tell him Mat. 28. is no commission authorizing them to preach and baptize and so their being joyned together there is no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize Object 1 Mr. Pool thinketh that they were not Apostles nor had their Commission as Apostles till Mat 28. 19. 20. this he saith is probable by these three considerations 1. That an Apostle was a new Testament Officer and the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ 2 They had not Apostolical gifts before the death of Christ 3. They wanted Vniversality of jurisdiction c. Mr. Pool pag. 105. Ans 1. When we urged Mat. 28. 19 20. he taketh it for a mission that doth not authorize to a work p. 87. else his answer cometh to nothing and yet here would have it be the Apostles Office-making Commission how he is consistent with himself herein we see not one of these replies must be naught 2. Long before the death of Christ its said Luke 6. ver 12. 13. He continued all night in prayer to God and when it was day be called unto him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom also he named Apostles We prove that they were Apostles before Mat. 28. 19. 20. by these considerations 1. Christ imposed the name of Apostles upon them Luke 6. 13. before Mat. 28. Ergo They had the Office of Apostles upon them before For surely Christ would not put the name of an Office upon them if they had not the Office that answered that name The seventy were sent out to preach yet had no such title put upon them but the name of Apostles was constantly given to the Twelve before the death of Christ Luke 17. 5. Luke 22. ver 14. Mat. 10. 2. and therefore Mr. Pool is too bold with Scripture to put other names upon them as Prophets or extradinary Teachers when the Gospel never knoweth them by these names but by the name of Apostles 2. Christ chose them before Mat 28. the name of Apostles being at the same time put upon them hence they were chosen to be Apostles Luke 6. 13. and this was after solemn prayer Ergo They were Apostles before for Election is the constitutive act of their office 3. They had Apostolical gifts though not in so full measure before the death Christ Mat. 10. ver 1. He gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease And this answereth his second consideration 4. Matthias was put into the same Office that Judas was in before the death of Christ for it s said Act. 1. ver 25. He is to take part of this ministry and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell Now Matthias undeniably was an Apostle Ergo so was Judas and the eleven before the death of Christ Yea this Text calleth the Office both of Judas and Mathias an Apostleship and to be sure Judas was not an Apostle after the death of Christ for he did not onely betray his Master but also hanged himself 3. To his first consideration we answer The new Testament if taken for the doctrine of the Gospel as 2 Corin. 3. of which they were Ministers was begun long before the death of Christ Luke 1. 78. and 2. v. 10. as also in other acceptations of it but suppose the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ Baptisme is a new Testament Ordinance and this he cannot deny seeing he maketh it the onely door of admission into the new Testament or Gospel Church p. 25. and it is easie to prove it upon truer and better grounds Yet baptisme was administred by the twelve long before the death of Christ Job 4. ver â— 2. and to multitudes by John the Baptist And the first constitution of Apostles new Testament Officers might as well be before the death of Christ as the first administration of Baptisme a new Testament Ordinance might be before it If after the new Testament began Apostles became officers and Baptisme an Ordinance thereof yet as it was the same Baptism so they were the same officers viz. Apostles before and after And this also may answer his third consideration If those that were Baptized before the death of Christ were Church-members then there was a Church which the Apostles might have jurisdiction over if they were not why might not they be Apostles without jurisdiction as well as persons be baptized without Church-membership if Baptisme be as he would have it a door of admission into the Church Officers he saith they were and to be Officers without any jurisdiction as he saith these were is as strange as to be Apostles without Universality of jurisdiction And if all this were not enough the extraordinariness of their Call or that time might better be alleadged in this case then it is in many against us Object 2. It must needs be granted that it is a renewing confirming and enlarging of their former Commission and this double work being equally imposed upon them must by like reason be equally restrained to them unless better grounds can be shewn to the contrary c. Mr. Pool pag. 14. Answ 1. Any impartial Reader may see enough in our former book Preacher Sent pag. 168. 169. to take off this reply It was an enlargement of the Apostles Commission to the Gentiles making them capable of being preached to and baptized but it s no proof that onely those may preach who may baptize If it should be said to Elders and Deacons Go teach Rule and distribute to the Church in such a place would the joyning of these together in an exhortation prove that every one who may Rule may Teach or that none may distribute but he that may Teach Surely no. Thus Mat. 28. 19. 20. It s said to Preachers and Baptizers Go Preach and baptize all Nations yet this cannot prove that none may preach but those who may baptize it onely sheweth that such as had power to Preach might now lawfully Preach to the Gentiles and such as had power to baptize might now administer baptism to the Gentiles which before they might not He imposeth the works on those that had power for them doth not restrain the power to perform the one unto them that had power to perform the other The intendment of this Text is not that it can be proved to shew that all who may Preach may Baptize but to warrant such as may do those works in their Preaching to and Baptizing the Gentiles 2. Let it be observed what their Argument is come to it should prove that none may Preach but those who may adminster the Sacraments and at last it is unless we can shew reason to the contrary the works are equally strained we have given reasons enough to the contrary and so