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
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
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
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
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