[Page] 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. Ʋindiciae 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 [Page] with them; Is ordination indeed as a Venice­glass 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, & [Page] 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.

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 answer offered to them, whereby it would come to passe, that the cause would appear more weak, when it wanteth no strength to support it. And as there is liberty of spirit or vanity, bewrayed even in the Drs. Title page so we meet with insulting language here and there, in both their books; all which considered, we desire thou wouldst not think their books unan­swerable, [Page] if they reply to us, and we do not answer aga [...]n.

5. If th [...] requirest after that man of God, Mr. Iohn Martin, whose name is in the title page of our former book, but not in this, know, be [...] gone to God, and by a passage, through the g [...]t [...]s of death, hath obtained rest from all his labours; who owned this cause (in which he was ingaged with us) to the last, and witnessed his approbation, and (to use his owne expression when in his last sicknesse) free concurrence with us, in so much of his book as was prepared, and came under his eve.

6. That whereas Mr Charke of Waldron in Sussex, in the latter end of his book, hath pretended to answer six arguments, which are found in the latter end of our book; the reason why we gave him no reply is, partly because of his book, we apprehend him to be of such a spirit, that an answer would only exasperate his corruption, partly because his replyes are very weak, and need no an­swer, nor are worth the answering.

This is all at present, onely, That the Lord who gives the light without, may annoint their eyes with eye-salve, and make thee see, is the prayer of.

Thine to serve thee in the work of the Gospel. Frederick Woodal. Sam. Petto.

A vindication of the Epistle.

THe vindication of our Epistle to the former book inti­tuled the Preacher Sent: Wherein the nature of a Church capable of Officers, and of being preached unto by such Office-wise, is cleared from the excepti­ons of Dr. Collings in his reply, and of Mr. Hudson in his addition or postscrip to his vindication of the Church Catholick visible.

As we saw it needful to assert (in our other book) our perswasion of the nature of a Gospel Church, for the better clearing the nature of office and of power of preaching Of­fice-wise therein; So the Dr. saw it incumbant unto him to overturne if possible, that foundation, which he calleth [...] but we [...] in this controversie an account whereof was given by us in these words; A-Church formed unto fellowship in new Testament Ordinan­ces, and is a particular company of Saints in mutual u­nion, for mutual fellowship in the meanes of worship ap­pointed by Christ, for the glory of God and edification of their own souls and the good of others.

1. This description he examineth in the six particulars thereof: That it is a company he grants, and that one cannot properly be called a Church, we accept of this, but if he thinketh by a figure one may be called so, (as his as­sertion qualified with a strictly, and properly seemeth to imi­tate) we doubt his figurative, will be found not a Scriptu­ral, but anti-scriptural sense, no better then that wherein a Prelate, a Pope claimeth the denomination, not as pro­perly, but vertua [...] so; against whose usurpations himselfe stands justly engaged; as well may one man be called a [Page] City, as one man a Church, which cannot be in any sense.

2: A particular company—Dr. C. I cannot fathom your notion of particular, &c.

Answ. That notion is not singular, a man cannot tra­vel far in this controversie, scarce in any author, but he meets it and comes acquainted with it. It is indeed oppo­sed to universal.

1. If a universal company of Saints, holding forth the word of Life, in a conversation becomming the Gospel, may be called a universal visible Church. 2. If all the members of particular Churches are, or ought to be mem­bers of this universal, yet the particular Churches them­selves, as such, are not members: That forme which gi­veth them their being as such, implyeth another union, and is attended with other Lambs, and orders then the vniver­sall is ingaged in, or obliged unto, as shall more fully ap­pear in its due place.

3. As therefore a flock of sheep, a swarme of bees being part of that company of sheep, of Bees, which is in the World, may be called a particular company of sheep, bees &c. though as a flock Swarme they be no parts, but other­wise distinguished, and so a Church of Saints, part of that company of Saints, which is in the World, may be called a particular company, and stand related to the universal: but as Saints, not as Churches of Saints, as we expressed our selves before under this head. But the controversie is not onely about a word, he now disputes for the term uni­versal to have been put in the place of particular,—Dr. C. an universal theam in Logick is that which is apt to be pre­dicated of many: Church is such a Theam.

Answ. We wonder that a man of learning should run into such a contradiction to Mr. H. unto whom we are sent for further light i [...] this controversie, and also to himselfe within the verge of the same Paragraph.

[Page] 1. He contradicts Mr. H. who expresly denies that the Church Catholick is a Genus, or universal notion and Theame apt to be predicated concerning many, in the 4th Chapter of a vindication, of the essence and unity of the Church Catholick visible.

2. He contradicts himselfe, when in the next leaf he af­firms, that the Church Catholick is Totum integrale, which we are sure is not apt to be predicated of many naturally, if the whole were predica­ted of the part, The part might be said Vind. Sheibl. Topic. Cap. 28. Sthal. Axion. Tit. 9. Reg. 9. to be the whole: The head, the body, the branch, the tree, because Animal is predicated of Homo; Homo is aptly said to be Animal. But because he sends us to Mr. Hudson, to Mr. H. we will go, and willingly as to a man that understands himselfe, whose moderation con­joyned with learning, and diligence in this controversie, (though professedly against us) we highly respect and va­lue.

1. He urgeth Scriptures where the word (Church) is used not applicable to a particular Church, Acts 8. 3. &c.

2. He useth arguments to prove, that every Officer, is an Officer to a universal, because by baptism he admits in­to it; and by Excomunication casts out of it, not into, or out of a particular onely.

Answ. The term Church in the singular number is fre­quently used in Scripture, to signifie not a universall Church, nor a singular onely, as in some of his Scriptures but this and that and the other particular (as amongst many other) in the Scriptures hereafter mentioned, Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church, i. e. this or that Church in which the of­fence was committed; Surely none will say that after ta­king one or two, the offended brother must in the next place tell it to the universal Church, where doth any such Church meet for such Acts, to tell it unto? So Ephes. 3. 10. 21. [Page] 1. Tim. 3. 5. If [a man] i. e. any man, knew not to rule his own [house] i. e. this or that house, how shall he take care of [the Church] i. e. this or that Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. in the house of God, which is [the Church] i e. in any Church where thou presidest, [...] Tim. 5 16. Let not [the Church] be charged, i. e. any Church where the any man or woman (mentioned by the Apostle) having wid­dowes doth reside.

Heb. 2. 12. In the midst of the Church. This declaring praise cannot be in the midst of the universal Church which never meeteth upon such Acts, and therefore it is not meant of this, or that particular onely.

but this, and that and the other, distinct indeed, in distinct individual formes, as Plato & Socrates are dis­tinct, but agreeing in common nature inseparable, inherent in them both.

Thus it is said (the wife) is bound 1. Cor. 7. 39, every particular wife,—(the man) is not of the Woman, 1 Cor. 11. 8. nor this, nor that man, nor any man; when the name of an Integrum is given to a part, its not so because its a part, but because of the common nature; so that the flesh of Iohn and the flesh of Thomas is all flesh, as well as the flesh of the Leg and arme of either of them: we do not think a particular Church formed unto fellowship, according to insti­tution is (as so) a part or hath its denomination for parts sake, but being of the same kind with other Churches of the same constitution its included in, and represented by the same name for kindes sake.

This may answer the argument from the Apostles, who because not officers to a certain particular onely, are suppo­sed to have been so to the universal: For the Apostles were Officers, in and over every particular, by vertue of an imme­diate call and general commission wherin they have no suc­cessors, which particulers, though not parts, (as is already expressed) may be signified by a singular word, Church, even as many common wealths, as to order and government [Page] Independent may be so signified, and it may be properly said, God appointed for a common-wealth Rulers, Judg­ges, &c. (i. e.) for this that, and the other Common­wealth; Nor is it ha [...]d to Imagin, how one may have pow­er in, and over two or three, or more, yet they have no depen­dance, one upon an other.

A Father may have ten daughters, and each daughter her family distinct, the Father hath power in each family, though the particular sisters, or their o fficers not so, Nor are the arguments more cogent taken from baptism and ex­communication;-Baptism makes not any one stand in relati­on to the Church more then the Lords-Supper, nor is it ad­ministred that persons may be members of the body, we know our brethren will not administer it to the heathens, or Ido­laters, but to persons called from Idols, (i. e.) to members (in their sense) of the visible Church.

We know our brethren qualified their Catholick notion with this terme [solemn] intending not admission, in a general sense, but solemn admission, as the enlisting or enrolment of a soldier is his admission into the Army.

But its consistency with their other principles we see not, If a soldier be casheired, he is readmitted by a new enrol­ment, If a member be excomunicate yet when absolved he is not rebaptized; We need say no more to this argument here, having occasion to meet it▪ againe and to consider the Scrip­tures, whereon its built. We rest very confident that some Parent, Master, or neighbour, who through providence is instrumental to the converting of a sinner, doth more to the entring a person into the body of Christ, then any Mi­nister ever did by Baptism, or can do.

Though baptism entereth not a member into any Church, yet, where ever regularly performed is valid to its ends uses and consequential priveledges in every Church, not by reason of the unity of Churches, but upon an other account. Suppose a man be free in London, and have the seale of his freedom in that Corporation onely, yet he is free to buy and sell in [Page] every Corporation in England, and interested in common Priveledges, where ever he is, though not in proper, as Ju­risdiction and Government. If he that sets the seal at Lon­don admits not into every Company and Corporation in the Land: If communion with every Corporation in some things doth not prove such an union among them all, as is between the members of some one Corporation; The argument upon Baptism to prove a Catholick Church, falleth to the ground.

Excomunication indeed separateth, the person excomuni­cate, from Relation to and communion with, the body from which he is cut off, 1 Cor. 55. 7. 13. But as a member forfeiting his freedom at London, is formerly desfranchi­sed there, where he was actually a member, and consequently incapacitated to claim the Priviledges which formerly he enjoyed by vertue of that freedom other where, though Lon­don and other Cities and Townes Corporate, make not one Corporation, So it is in this case.

Mr. Hudson objects postcript page 5. several Corpora­tions are constituted by several Charters &c. and but the universal Church hath but one Charter, from our Sove­raigne, under the same Systeme of Lawes, &c.

Answ. As the World according to the fellowship of Nature, hath one Jus Gentium, and Law of nature for the whole, yet according to the fellowship of Order, must of necessity be under other Lawes for the several parts thereof, in those combined fellowships; so the Church in the fellow­ship of its Nature, or the whole company called to union and communion with the Lord Jesus, hath one Law of faith, obedience, &c. For all its individuals, yet not one Law for the whole, as such for Order Policy, &c. But the Churches in the fellowship of order have Lawes suitable to their order, by the wil and appointment of Jesus Christ. Its the Law of the universal Church, that the members of it worship the Lord. Its the Law of the particular, that the members meet and worship in one place. 1 Cor. 11. 20. [Page] 14. 23. thus they walk [together] in ordinances, so that walking in ordinances with an other Church (neglecting it in this) is sinful, because every one is bound to walk with the same Church whereof he is a member. That Text is yet in controversie. 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church,—we said its paralel to God hath set the mem­bers every one in the body, verse 18, If this prove not a Catholike body, nor doth that prove a Catholick Church. D [...]. Collings replyeth the body is totum integrale. If members had been enumerated, not confined to the service of that particular, it would have proved a universal body.

Answ. The body to which the Church is compared is totum intigrale Organicum, but particulare, so is the Church. The Apostles had place and power over more then this particular, yet as Church-Officers no place in, nor power over any but particulars, It is usual to apply gene­ral termes indeterminately to particular things, as to say the wife is bound, the man is the head of the woman, i. e. This and that man, wife, &c. so set in the Church, i. e. in this, and that and the other Church.

Mr. H. replyeth further, several bodies are one body ge­nericaly not Integraty, because not united by one external bond but the Vniversal Church is united into one body by bonds of the same Soveraigne, the same Lawes, covenant, &c. pa. 6.

Answ. Either particular associations are no instituti­ons of Christ or they have several unions, Lawes, Acts and Ends; Men as men have their union, Law, Acts, &c. Men as Armies, as bodies politick have their union, Law, Acts differing; So christians as christians have their Law proper to that state; Christians, as a common wealth their Law proper to that state, and differing from the other Law.

If Church Vnion be one and that Catholick union then schism the breach of that union must be as the catholick breach; so that though a member cease worshipping with this assembly in this place, yet if he worship with any assembly [Page] part of the Church Catholike in any place, he is no Schis­matick: upon which reason the loud outcry against Sep­ration is unjust, as it is unreasonable upon an other account, we therefore yet renounce the name and thing of a Church of Churches, or a visable Catholick Church formed un­to fellowship in new Testament ordinances, (in which term we declared our sense) but do not renounce the Scripture, nor reason, much lesse our own bretheren, as Dr. Collings hath rashly affirmed. Our thoughts for this Abrenuntia­tion were confirmed in five particulars, wherein all excep­tions considered we find [...] nothing for Retractation.

1. N [...] part hath the power of a whole in it: Every particular Church hath the power of a whol in it, Ergo, No particular Chur [...]h is a part.

Exception Dr. Col. A particular Church hath not the Power of the whole, because not Power to make a Synod, nor to ordain, nor to excommunicate.

Answ. His reason from a Synod is reason'esse: The common wealth of England is a whole, and hath the power of a whole in it [...] yet a controversie arising (of what nature soe ver it be) between Eng. and another common-wealth, or com­monwealths; Eng. hath no power to constitute commissioners who shall debate determine and compose that difference, yet Power to meet in a treaty, is as much kingdome power, as power to meet in a Synod, is Church power, Ergo; ei­ther Englands power is incompleat, or the Drs. Argument is so.

His argument from Ordination and Excommunication is but named, therefore in this place we do but deny it: Where nothing is proved, nothing is found to be an­swered.

Excep. Mr. Hudson—A particular Church is a whole in reference to its own members, but in reference to the rest of the Church it is a part, as a Corporation is compleat according to its constitution, yet a member of a greater body.

[Page] Answ. If a Corporation be considered with reference to other Corporations to which it stands co-ordinate, it is a whole, not a member, not a part: If with reference to a Kingdome, to which it stands Subordinate, tis a part, a member, not a whole: So if a particular Congregation be considered with reference to other Congregations to which it stands Co-ordinate, it is a whole, not a part. If with reference to a Church to which it stands Subordinate tis a part, not a whole: But there is no such Church: The Subordination which our brethren plead for, is of the Church to Officers, not of a Church to a Church; And that Officers are not called the Church in Scripture, we shall shew, and that by their own principles, they cannot be stiled so.

2. Every whole is really distinct from every part, and from all its parts Collectively considered; no Church of Churches is really distinct from all particular Churches, Ergo, There is no such Church.

Except. Dr. C. Mr. H. There's a fallacy in the Argument,—It is a Maxime in Logick, To­tum reipsa non dissert a partibus simul sumptis & unitis.

Answ. Our Argument is right according to that Rule; Partes simul sumptae, do not constitute a Totum, except they be unite; or the whole differs from all the parts Collectively considered, though unitively considered, it differs not;—suppose ten heaps of Corne in one Room, contayning all the Corne which is in the World, which afterwards are redu­ced into one great heap; when they are ten, they are not one, and when they are one, they are not ten.

[Page] Of the supposed union of the universal Political Church, something hath been spoken already, and more will occur under the head of union.

3. There is no universal visible meeting to worship God; Ergo, No universal visible Church; for [...] signifies Congregation, or Assembly, company meeting together.

Except. Dr. Collings. There is an universal meeting of the Church Catholick visible at the Throne of Grace, &c.

Answ. We wonder at his discourse upon this Argument; for from our instance of the Church of the first-borne gathered indeed in one spirit, uni­ted unto one head, meeting invisibly in one worship, he would obtain this, That although there be no local meeting, yet there may be a visible Church; when it speakes plainly thus much, viz. as invisible union, and invisible communion is necessary unto the being of the invisible, so visible union, & visible com­munion is necessary to the being of the visible church; although we may be present with Dr. Collings in spirit, and he with us, never coming together in the same place; yet visibly present we cannot be, nor in the performance of any visible work.

Exc. Mr. H. [...] signifies a calling out, not a calling together,—the particular congregation is rather, [...] then [...].

Answ. That particular Congregations and Assemblies of people, whether civil or sacred, are in Scripture alwaies termed [...] never [...] Mr H. cannot be ignorant, what he writes, therefore is not a Corrective from the [Page] writings of weake men, but for the Scriptures of the most wise God, by which alone we desire to measure our notions and expressions in this con­troversie.

Be it so that the Scottish word [Kirk] and the English word [Church] comes from [...] which signifies the Lords, all assemblies are not so properly the Lords as Church-Assemblies, as [...]: yet as is the Church, so is the union thereof, so the worke and meeting thereunto; the Vniversal Church is the general assembly, Heb. 12. 23. meeting in one place spiritually, and in­visibly, they are all come to mount Sion, to the City of the living God, To the heavenly Jerusa­lem, Heb. 12. 22. They are all chosen out of the World. 10. 15. 19. (i. e.) called out of the World, else the World would not hate them, they are all gathered unto Christ, Gen. 49. 10.

The particular Church is a particular assembly, or a Society of men assembling together, for the Cele­bration of Ordinances according to Christs appoint­ments, not that their assembling thereunto consti­tutes them a Church, but it is a main end of their union, and the fruit, issue and manifestation of their constitution by such union. The meetings of the Jewish Church at appointed times, were as ex­tensive as the Church it selfe; wherefore we yet conclude, if no National meeting, no National Church, if no universal meeting, no universal Church entrusted with the administration of ordi [...]ances according to the mind of Christ.

4. There are no distinct officers appointed for such a Church, Ergo, no such Church.

Exc. Dr. Col. No need of distinct Officers, [Page] because the Officers of particular Congrega­tions, which as parts constitute the whole, have power to act as Officers in any of those parts, which united make up that whole.

The Church is one body, and as it is una, so it is unita, in one common profession, &c. To the same purpose Mr. H. Every Minister hath an indefinite Office, which is equivalent to a general. Every Minister hath power in actu primo to dispense the word in any sacred con­vention, and though not an actual Officer of the whole, yet hath an habitual power, &c.

Answ. It cannot be denyed, but in all civil policies, our argument stands good, no greater body is made up of lesser, but it hath a greater authority distinct in Law and government from the lesser; divers Townes united into one hun­dred, divers hundreds into one County, diverse Counties into one Common-wealth, are in their several subordinations distinguished by several acts and Officers appointed unto them. If diverse Churches were united into one Church, surely it would be so also. In the Jewish politie it was so; besides the Ruler of the Synagogue, be­sides the Priest and Levite, through every Tribe disperced, there was a greater authority distinct in Law and Government, in order and mini­stration from them, viz. the High Priest.

Who knowes not that a Church Catholick visible intrusted with the administration of Ordi­ nances bath been hotly contended for by the Pa­pists as a fit body for the Pope their head?

But as earnestly contended against by the refor­med; They saw no truth in what Dr. C. affirmes, viz. That a Church may be a universal visible, [Page] yet have no Officer over it, or Act performed in it, but what is particular.

Nor will it salve the businesse, to say every Mi­nister is an indefinite Officer, with habitual pow­er, &c. An Officer actu primo to the Vniversal Church, who as a Justice of peace, may be com­missioned for a County, though exercising but in a part thereof; For a Justice of Peace hath power by vertue of his commission to act in the whole County, without any other Call, & fundamentum Exercitii, which is Ans. of the Assemb. pa [...] 10. denyed a Minister; an Officer actu primo is furnished with all power needful unto, and productive of a second act. He that is general of an Army in actu primo, hath power over the Army, exercere & co­crcere, a particular Officer not so: He that is a King actu primo hath power to governe a King­dome, a Mayor of a City not so: When any thing is in the first act, it is in a capacity for a se­cond act, in nature and extent, like unto the first. If a minister hath not the exercise of power in every Church, if he hath not the foundation of the exercise in any but his particular Church, to whom he stands related as their minister, he is not a minister, actu primo to every Church.

The case of an Officer definite to some, viz. to a particular Church and indefinite to others, viz. to a Catholick Church is a strange case; instances sometimes given in Lawyers. Physitians. &c. reach it not who as so, are not officers over any, nor have they office rule to paralel it.

There is no Church greater then that, which hath power to hear and determine upon offen­ces committed, but that is particular.

[Page] Exc. Dr. C. This Argument is nothing to the Question, which is not, which is greater, but whether there be any Catholick Church or no; The particular Church hath not power of final determi­nation.

Answ. When a question is de toto made up of divers parts, it being out of question, that a whole is greater then its parts, he that proves the pre­ended whole not greater then the supposed parts, pr ves that to be no whole, and these to be no parts, and so speakes to the Question, and resolves it.

That power of final determination is in the par­ticular Church, we proved, Mat. 18. 17. which Scripture either is no rule, to bring the offence unto the Church particular at all, or is a rule to end it there: And if Christ hath placed power in the hand of seven, we may not remove it to place it in the hand of seventy, though more wise and juditious then the).

Exc. Mr. H. By the Church, Christ doth mean the Elders, The people never had any right of judi­cature among the Jewes, but the Courts where ap­peales were from three Judges to 23. and from 23. to the Sanhed [...]im, no Christian congregation was in­stituted when Christ spake, Mat. 18. 17. Its to be taken therefore in the Jewes Dialect, &c.

Answ. That the eldership of a Church is by a Synechdoch [...] called a Church in Scripture, cannot be clearly evinced from one Text, nor is it sui­table to Mr. H. his principle to attribute that deno­mination to Officers either in congregational or clas­sical, or higher assemblies: For he saith vindic. p. 126. The body of Officers is a governing body; [Page] But the whole Church whether general or particu­lar is not a governing body, Ergo, Say we. the body of officers is not the Church general or parti­cular; again, every Church (saith he) is a similar part of the Catholick, obtayning its denomination upon that account, pag. 123. and else-where, whence this is clear, that the Elder­ship of lesser or greater Congregations is not a Church.

Such a body indeed is a body of Organs, not an Organical body, though it should be supposed a part of the Catholick, yet could it not be said to be a singular part; so that upon the account of simi­larity, it should, though a particular bear the name of the universal, and be stiled a Church. That offen­ces among the Jewes were never brought before the people to be judged and sensured, but before Of­ficers meeting apart from them, we believe not, mos suit Hebraeis rem ultimo loco ad multi­tudinem, [...] i. e. eorum qui eadem instituta sectarentur producers, cujus tamen multitudinis juditia seniores tar quam presides moderabantur, Grot. in Mat. 18. 17. and this was the custome of Christians in Tertullians time (who was converted to the faith, An [...]o. Dom. 200) and had his approbation in his famous a­pology for Christians more then 1400 yeares old, who Cap. 39. denies the Christians being a facti­ous society, as they were aspersed, and shewes their manner: We make (saith he) a Congre­gation; by certaine knowledge all conspire in the service of the true God, where we live united under one discipline▪ &c. We assemble together by Troops in our prayers to God, in these assem­blies [Page] we make Exhortations, and Threatnings and Exercise Divine censure that banisheth sin­ners, and excludes them from our communion, &c.

That our Saviour in saying, tell the Church, should send his Disciples, in case of scandal (Suppose committed against Religion, and his Law) to those Courts to whom Religion it selfe was a scandal, and offence, is not by sober men to be imagined. That he should allude to those Courts, intending such like to be erected, when the Jewish politie should be taken downe, as it leaves the offended without remedy to day; So the Rule impracticable till Christ be [...]ead and risen again. It is far more probable, that as (the Temple yet standing, and the great Congre­gation meeting therein) Pharisees, Saduces, Es­senes, &c. Had their caetus proprios, their distinct Ass [...]mblies, in which they did consult the peace, and prosperity of their Order respec­tively, and sensure and judge Offences com­mitted against the Lawes, and institutions there­of.

So Christ having gathered a company under him, and made known his Law, this company did meet together, Acts 1. 21. where (with reason we may conclude) the concernments of Christianity were propounded and considered; and offences heard and finally determined, if this were the Church, of which Christ, Mat. 18. 17 doth speak, it cleares our Argument; but suppose the Rule were imprac­ticable for the present, yet he cannot so speak in the Jewes dialect, as to assert that such Courts should [...]e erected as, were amongst them; for the word [Page] Church is never used in Scripture for an Elder­ship, but for a company of visible believers uni­ted to walk together in the same numerical Or­dinances, and it is plain that Christ would have the offence told to such an Assembly as he giveth the name of Church to; And also Christs order here is quite different from that amongst the Jewes, they after private admoni­tion had not an institution for taking one or two private persons to admonish before bringing the matter to their Courts.

In the close of our discourse, for the compleat­nesse of a particular Church, and against a Universal, we minded this object. viz. Though Churches meet not in all their members, yet they may meet in their representatives, which being met, may be called a Classical, Provincial or National Church. To which we answered, that such a Church is not a true Church.

Dr. Collings replyeth, A Synod is a true Church, or our definition is not true; for a Synod is a particular company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellowship in means of worship, &c.

Answ. To say a representative is a true Church, is to speak contradictions, If it be an image, it is not a man, if a shadow, its not a substance, if the representative of a true, its truly a representative, but not that which is re­presented in truth.

A Synod (in Dr. C. sense) differs from a Church by us described, toto coelo; 1 Saints as so are fit mater for a Church but saints as gifted, are only fit matter for a Synod, Saints qualified for Synodal de­bats and determinations.

[Page] 2. Saints as united are a Church, or stand related unto it: Saints or holy men delegated, are a Synod, or stand related to it.

3. In a Church body members are united unto fellowship in meanes of instituted worship: In a Synod unto council, &c. Here is differing matter, differing form, and differing ends. But we now returne from walking the bounds of the Church, to take a further view of the buildings thereof, and of the precious stones therein; we said of this particular company, It is an Holy company, a company of Saints. This D. Collings grants, Sa [...]o sensu, as he saith upon some arguments conclusive enough urged by us, Mr. H. doth distin­guish of Saints, Some by dedication and consecra­tion, some by regeneration, and supposeth we mean by visible Saints, such as are so in the former sense: Accordingly the Dr. not dealing with our arguments but going about another way, doth deny, that a visibility of saving Grace is needful to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it, and Mr. H. saith we have no certain rule to judge of the regeneration of another. In which discourse they do in effect speak thus unto us, you do well to see that your Church members be Saints, Holy persons, but you have nothing to do to enquire about truth of Grace, nor to conclude of Saintship and holynesse from the appearance or visibility thereof: As if holinesse or saintship could, under the Gos­ple, be placed at the foot of any other account then that of the presence or appearance of Grace.

Special saving grace is indeed an invisible thing, and of it we can make no true (i. e.) certain [Page] and infallible judgement, yet we may and must make a Church judgement, and a judgement of saving Grace in order to communion in the Lords Supper, he doth allow, though he saith a judgement of saving Grace is impossible, what consistency there is in such expressions, let him consider, yea in the close of his Epistle he sits in judgement upon our hearts, but how he should diserne our secrets that doth professe against in­quiring about the inward work, let the Reader judge. The children of the members we regard as [...] 1 Cor. 7. 14. not barely from the pa­rents profession, but the manifestation of God, saying he is their God, and of Christ, saying of such is the kingdome of Heaven, they are parta­kers of that fulnesse [...] (as professors are, which the Elect and called are [...] par­takers of.

The Apostolical practice doth not evince Acts 2. Act. 4. That the thousands baptized were baptized upon a bare owning the Gospel, with­out any respect to saving grace: They which were baptized, renouncing the Religion in which educated, embracing the Gospel under persecuti­on and contempt, they were pricked in heart, they gladly received the word, Acts 2. 37. 41. a bare profession where that also is a carnal in­gagement, is not so signal in the hundred part. His easy answer to our question, concerning try­al of Grace in order to Communion in the sup­per, and not to Church Communion is in­deed, as he calleth it, an easy answer, we no where find (saith he) let a man Examine himselfe [Page] and so come into the fellowship of the Church, he thinks the 3000. and the 5000. had scarce any leasure, before their admission to do it through­ly.

Answ. Commendable was that fear, Acts 5. 11. not onely the fear of the Church, but of others also, ne laederent hunc caetum, nec contemnerent, nec temere, se illis conjun­gerent, sed qui vellent suscipi agerent hoc serio &c. Arel. in loc. Must not all our works be done in faith? All our homage to God, in spi­rit and truth? Shall men enter the Church as the unclean beasts the Ark, not knowing that they are unclean: As we hinted before, the 3000. had not onely leasure, but did evidence their be­ing pricked at the heart, &c. Acts 2. 37. 41.

Let the Dr. read over again our arguments for such a qualification of members, as is by us as­serted, and (at least until some answer be made which may plead satisfaction) not judge us in the least obstinate, if we yet sit down in this perswasion, viz. That [...] men visibly unbelieving and unregenerate are de jure no members in that society; it is to be made up of believers, of the children of God. &c.

Nor is this company so qualified a Church except a united company. Our Arguments for this also the Dr. thought fit to wave, and by an attempt like Alexanders upon the Gor­dian knot, to cut the discourse in pieces, rather then to unty it: with what successe is now to be considered.

He offers, Acts. 19. where mention is made [Page] of a company called [...] not a united com­pany, but presently he dismisseth the argument, calling the company a rout, and so do we, ha­ving determined the subject of the union, we speak of a Church formed unto fellowship.

He affirmes, That a Church inorganical needs no union but what is in profession, upon which account the company in a par­ticular house is called a Church. Coloss. 4. 15. Rom. 16. 5.

Answ. If profession be the Church union, then Apostacy onely is the separation, and In­dependents must be acquitted of Schisme until they can be proved Apostates.

No Political union is founded in profession; A Goldsmith in London, is not of the compa­ny, because a Goldsmith; when mention is made of a Church in a house, it either may de­note the company meeting in that house in the same numerical administrations, or a good part of the Church living therein: In either sense not the meer profession, but the union by con­sent to worship God in the selfe same ordinances, is the reason of the denomination.

He grants it reasonable that a Church Or­ganical should be a company united by consent, but saith its not necessary this consent be explicit, yet its very convenient it be so, and they heartily wish it might be so.

Answ. We are glad if consent be seen reasonable upon any account, if any consent, [...]ut if implicit consent be reasonable, then Explicit is so much more; A man may en­ter his Neighbours house without [Page] knocking, but tis not so orderly, or peaceable a way.

We wonder at his declamation against explicit Covenant, as if there were not the least warrant in Gods word for it, when in the next line, he tels us of many wishes for it. We suppose his members when he shall urge submission by explicit consent upon them, will say, but who hath required that at our hand? Is it from Heaven or of men? If he saith its of Heaven, God requireth it, then tis necessary he must urge it: If he say tis not of Heaven, but of men, why doth he so much wish it, or desire it?

Against our 5th and 6th particular no objecti­on is lifted up, onely Dr. Collings complaines of one passage, which almost made his head ake in studying the connexion of it, but it was the Prin­ters fault, not ours; we crave the many literal sylabycal and verbal mistakes, of which no account is given in the Errataes, be not imputed to us, who live at a great distance from the Presse, we had some thoughts when first we received the book to have printed a paper of corrections by it selfe, for the benefit of them that should peruse the Book, but have been prevented until now, and (not) re­maines in that troublesome passage instead of (now) correct that, our sense is clear, for thus the words run, Our brethren being now baptized into a belief, &c.

As to the Divine original of Presbyterial go­vernment, we are yet perswaded the Reverend Assembly was not confident of it, at least they did not intimate so much in that third proposition, nay they, suggest the contrary, saying, many particular Con­gregations [Page] may be under one Presbyterial Government. Many Cities, Townes, Countries may be under the Government of one, though no Jus Divinum be stampt upon that Government; for so they may be under a Councel of state, a Parliament▪ &c. They that suppose the forme of Church-go­vernment left undetermined, say Episcopal may be, Presbyterial may be, but they that suppose otherwise say. This or that forme must, be We find nothing more but words, and though we have reason'd this case, yet we delight not to word it, onely some ac­count is given of that kind of Querimonial Rhetorick in our▪ advertisement to the Reader.


IN the title Page line 14. r. Ministerii. l. 25. r. Sandcroft.

In the advertisement to the Reader, p. 1 l. 14. r. prophesying l. 19. r. crucifie it. * p. 2. l. 2 [...]. from them. l. 31. r. approbation * p. 3. 1, 8, [...]. his rule, 1, 27 del [...] And * p. 5. 1. 27, [...]. levity of spirit *. p. 6. l 3. r. enquirest. p. 6. l. 13. r. this book. l20 r by his book l. 27. r. thine e [...]es.

In the vindication of the Epistle, p. 1. l, 12. r. incumbent upon him. l. 17. dele and. l. 25. r. intimate * p. 2. l. 16. r. lawes and orders. l. 23: dele and, p. 3. l. 10: r. Vid. Scheibler. p. 4. l. 1. r. know not how. l. 11. r: unto such acts and it is. l. 15. r. inse­parably. l. 34. r. particulars. p. 5 l. 17. r. qualifie, l. 33 r. privi­leges. p. 6, l. 2. r priviledges. l: 3 r. the seal. l. 12. r. 1 Corin. 5. 7. 13l. 13. r. is formally. 20 dele and. l. 21. r. one Soveraigne. l. 31. r polit [...] p. 7, l. 13. r. integrale. p 7 l34r a Catholique p 8 l 5 r visible l 6 r terms, 18 r brethren, In the book it self p. 3. l. 7. r. terminated. p 4 l 8 r. Magi­strate [...] 8 r shew, p 5 l 5 r Office being l 19 dele if. p 6l 2r [...] receptacle l 5 r naturae l6r consequent, l21r que. p 9 l31r [...], p. 10l. 28r [...] * p 11 l35 r over. p 13l 15r is possible l27 r polity l32 r in it, p 15l 28 r relation, p 16 l 2. r Officers, [...] 17 l 9 r confine it, p 19 l 35 r challenge, p 20 l 6 r terme of, * l [...]4 r formal cause, p 21 l 2 r alledgeth, l 27 r theirs is, p 23 l 10 after chose, add [?] p 24 l 34 r acts [Page] p 25 l 26 r two acts, p 26 l 34 r for any, p 27 l 25. r improbability; p 28 l 6. r plerunque, l 11 r Superstiosi l 12 r Migistrate. p 30 l 25 r theires, * p 33 [...]4 r from Gospei, l [...] r be valid p 34 l 27 r commanding p 35 l 11 r office-making l 29, r. conveyed. p 36 l 22 r misrepresented l 34 r granteth. p 42 l 21 26 r Spetie. p 43 l 26 r fallacious but firme Argument, l 29. r prophesying. p 44 l 1 [...] r trifling, l 30 r Text only proveth the prophesie, l 32 r is enough l 34 r intended, p 45 l 14 r sim­ply l 36 r any other, p 46 l 9 r women. l 13 r syllable. l 23. r revelati­on. l 25. r either. p 47 l 16 r prophesie. l 29 r weighing. p 48 l 27 r ex­cept he interpret. l 25 r 1 Corin 145 p 49 l 22 r indifferent, p 53 l [...] dele Arg. 1 l. 10 dele arg. 2 p 56 l 7 r notion. l 8 r one Church. l 23 r conversi­on. p 57, l 21 r Candid. l 25 r gratious p 58. l 1 r different from, l 32 r unnecessary, p 59 l 28 r doctrinally, p 60 l 14 r enquireth p 67 l 7 r bre­thren, p 68 l 21 r efficaciam l 25 r efficacia, l 26 r manifestato, l 33 r Iohannis, p 69 l [...] r ex [...]rnum l 8 r patres l 10 r efficatia, l 12 r separatim l▪ 13 r humanitus, l 14 r tramite & Augustine, l 17 r vocis l 18 r rem p 70 l 36 dele as. p 71 l 21 r alleadgeth. l 27 r have no l 31 r chuse. l 35 r naught, p 74 l 13 r negatively l 30 r fun­damentale formale. p 76 l 3 r argument. l 5 r distributively p 77 l 13 r pro subjecta mareria, p 78 l 32. r may intimate, p 79 l 8 r which is r suffragia r particulars. l 35 r enquireth, p 80 l 9 r dessented, p 81 l 7 r inference. p 81 l 4. 9 dele [be the act of] and add [belong to] l 29 r know, p 82 l 14 r brethren l 15 r women. p 85 l 19 r runneth thus. l 24. r transcendenta [...]. l 32 r strictly, l 33 r a general. p 88 l 24 r Officers p 90 l 25 dele by, p 94 l 13 r supposeth p 96 l 31 r from the p 97 l 8 r [...]. l 9 r [...]. l 10 r Luke 14. 32. p 99 l 6 l 29 l 34 r conversion. p 100 l 4 r conversion. l 6 r arguments, p 104 l 21 r pre-requisite, p 106 l 2 r labyrinth, l 6 dele to, l 32 r naught p 107 l 11 r priviledges. l 1 [...] r help him, l 22 r his baptisme l 31 r mans ceasing▪ p 109 l 32. r [...]entrance l 35 [...]r their. p 110. l 23 r visibly, p 111 l 35. r priviledges p 113 l 17 l 30 r organical p 116 l 7 r constitutive, p 117 l 5 r acts, p 120 l 33 r have p 128 l 13 and 19 r Sphear. l 23 r reason p 134 l 5 r woman l 12 r alleadgeth p 135 l 25 r illatio l 30 r [...] p 141 l 14▪ r satisfied in ours p 144 l 9 r syllable p 146 l 31 r Officers l 35, r serviceable p 149 l 3 r prophesying p 151 l 32. r present tense, p 156 l 17 r Scriptures, p, 158 l 9 r from that sending p 59 l 15 r of an officer, p 160 l 26 r, should, p 169 l 5 r may privately exhort, p 170 l 11 r extraordinary p 180 l 13 dele and p 181 l 6 r Schooles p 182 l 28 dele [2] p, 184 l 21 r maintenance p 186 l 26 r affirmative, p 187 l 30 r weigh­tier office p 191▪ l 10 r presentation p 191 l 27, r challenge 132 r ex­ercise p 193 l 17 r separate p 194 l 6 11 r tacit p 195 l 8 r accepta­tion l 15 r after officers add [.] p 196 l 27 add [...] p 198 l 35 r are to be p 200 l 12 r probability, p 204 l 5 dele or answerable l 22 r as officers l 31 r from baptism p 206 l 3. [...] r approbation p 207 l 34 r his hands p 208 l 10 r not juridically l 25 r conferred p 209 l 10 r Evangelists l 14 add, in l 16 r relation p 210 l 4 r its Correlate, p 211 l 26 r. Rom. 10. 15.

Of Preaching without Ordination.


Wherein is briefly shewn, that Office hath nei­ther the work of the Ministry, nor a Ʋni­versal Church as its Correlate, in answer to the first Chapter of Dr. Collings Book, called Vind. Revind.

IN his first Chapter to pag. 10. He endea­voureth to open the terms, Minister and Ministry, and to shew the signification of the Originall words whereby the the former is expressed, and all this to deny the name of Minister unto gifted men.

To all which we shall say but this.

The term is a Generical term divided.

  • 1. According to the subject matter of the Mini­stration, into 1. Civil. Rom. 13. 4. 6. 2. Ecclesiasti­cal. 1 Cor. 4. 1.
  • 2. According to the manner of Ministration into.
  • 1. A Minister ex officio, which is past dispute.
  • 2. A Minister ex dono.

We did not argue the denomination from Mini­stering in genere▪ but from Ministering in the word.

We grant it is an appropriated terme, and do use it according to its appropriation, it being usual to say, There is the Minister of such a place, speaking [Page 2] of one that ordinarily Preacheth there, whose Preaching and Ministering in the word, is the reason of the denomination, Preacher, Mini­ster.

We have proved that gifted men have a Divine allowance to Preach, and that may aptly denomi­nate them Ministers i. e. of the Gospel, because they Minister unto Christ therein.

But if he liketh not to have them bear this name, let him call them (as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 14.) by the name of Prophets.

In our Book we have this Position.

Posit. 1. That Office is not a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as its Cor­relate.

After some unbeseeming Language he levelleth two Arguments against this Proposition.

Argu. 1. If the Office of the Mini­stry either hath its whole being in Ʋind. Revind. Pag. 12. relation to the work, or be any o­ther way referred to the work, then the Office and employment according to Logick are relations.

But the Office and work of the Ministry have at least one of these references each to another. Ergo,

Ans. Office is some way referred to employ­ment, and so hath some relation to it; we expressely say, That Office is a relation which respects em­ployment as its end, Preacher sent. p. 4. and Dr. Collings repeateth these words as ours, Vind. pag. 11. and therefore here he disputes against what he knoweth his adversaries do not say, which he would blame us for, Vind. pag. 25.

If this whole Argument be granted, nothing is gained by it against the Proposition, for his con­clusion [Page 3] is onely this, Ergo the office and employ­ment according to Logick are relations; whereas if it had concluded the question, it must have been, Ergo Office is a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as its Correlate.

Arg. 2. The Correlate to any relation is, that wherein the subject is termniated, Ʋin. Revi. But the office of the Ministry is terminated pag. 12. in the work; Therefore the work is its Correlate.

Answ. 1. An illogicall argument [...] in the major, the subject of the relation is remembred, in the Mi­nor it is forgotten, and the relation it self put in the place thereof.

If it were in form, it must run thus; The Corre­late to any relation is that wherein the subject is ter­minated: But the subject of office relation is ter­minated in the worke. Ergo, work is the Corre­late.

Answ. 2. If his major be understood universal­ly, viz. That the correlate to any relation is any thing wherein the subject is any way terminated, we may fairely deny this without denying all Logick. If it be taken particularly, it is not conclusive against us; we grant that the Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is so terminated as the es­sence or being of the relation is introduced by its termination; as a Father is so terminated in a Son or Child, that he hath his being as a Father in having a Son or Child, and therefore a Son or child is Correlate, & so in other such relations. But the Cor­relate to any relation is not that wherein the subject is terminated as the end of the relation; for the ends cannot be attained until the relation it self hath an actuall existence, and exist it cannot without a Cor­relate. As the relation of a Father is terminated in [Page 4] the worke of a Father as its end, yet there must be a Son or child in being before the doing of that work; and the same may be said of other relations, as Master and servant, Husband and wife, &c. and thus the work of the Ministry being the end of that relation, there must be a Correlate in being, before that worke can be performed, and so work cannot be the Correlate; If this will hold good in relations, secundum esse, that is enough in this matter to evi­dence his argument to be false, for that runneth ge­nerally, the Correlate to [any relation, &c.] and be­sides it doth not yet appear that officers are relations secundum dici.

2. As to his Minor we say, The office of the Mi­nistry is not terminated in the work considered absolutely, but respectively, as the office of the May­or of Norwich is not terminated in the work of a Mayor or Magistracy absolutely, and so for Justices of the peace or other civil officers, if they go out of the city, Corporation or county whereunto they are limited, they cannot act as officers, and therefore their office is terminated in their work in such a place or amongst such a people. And thus the office of the Ministry is terminated, not in the work in general, but with respect and reference unto such a people, or such a Church, Relata sunt aliorum. Dr. Collings pro­ceedeth in a reply to our four arguments, which shews that worke cannot be the Correlate to the Office; In answer to the two first, he saith,

Ob. 1. Officers are, Relata secundum dici, not Relata secundum esse, nominal relations, not those that Logicians call real relations, Vind. Revind. pag. 14. 15. 16.

Answ. We suppose Dr. Collings is the first that hath ranked officers, (who are to be over others) a­mongst those that are Relata secundum dici; we [Page 5] have not met with any Logicians that have done in before him, & the Rules upon which our arguments are built, are known (by all that are acquainted with Logick) to be true in such as are Relata secundum esse.

Answ. 2. Against its being a Nominall Relation we shall offer an argument or two.

Arg. 1. If the office of the Ministry hath no abso­lute being, nor doth appertain to any other predica­ment besides that of Relation, then it is (according to Logicians) a relation secundum esse, or a real rela­tion. But the Office of the Ministry hath no abso­lute being, nor doth appertain to any other predica­ment besides that of Relation; Ergo, The office of the Ministry, is (according to Logicians) a relation secundum esse. The major none that is acquainted with Logick can deny.

The Minor appeareth, because there is no other predicament that it is reducible to; let him shew to which, if it may be referred.

We yet adhere to Aristotle in this, and Seton who giving an instance of predicamental relation, giveth it in the office of Magistracy, & we suppose the office of the Ministry is in the same predicament with that.

Arg. 2. If officers qua officers have their whole being in respect and reference unto others, then office is a Relation secundum esse, but officers qua offi­cers have their whole being in respect & reference un­to others, Ergo, office is a relation, secundum esse, The major he cannot deny, The Minor he excepteth against.

Ob. But the Essence of office lyeth not in its re­lation, but in that authority wherewith the person is cloa­thed by his ordination, Vind. Revind. pag. 14.

Answ. 1. Authority hath no Causal influence into office, but floweth from it, and followeth after it; therefore the essence of Office doth not consist in it.

[Page 6] The London Ministers say, Church Officers are the [...] the first recepticle, or subject of Church authority, Jus. Divin. Regim. pag. 163. If so, then officers are before authority, at least priorita­te nature, and then authority is but an adjunct, which though a necessary concequent, yet is no constitu­ent: consider Master and Scholers, a Tutor & pupils &c.

Ans. 2 If this were true, then it were possible for a relation to hold, though every thing in the world should cease which it should stand referred to: There might be a relation, and yet nothing be rela­ted to, or else ordination in such a case must be lost.

It is not proved that a person can stand cloathed with the authority of the Ministerial relation, if there be no Church that he standeth related to.

Ob. 2. Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being.

A man is not actually an officer when he cannot do his Office, but the habit remaines, Vind. Revind. pag. 14.

Ans. Zabarel whom he mentionethis against him, who saith, Non est relatio nisi interea que sunt actu, non est enim pater nisi qui actu filium habeat, quo fit ut sem­per necessarium sit uno relativorum existente, alterum quo­que existere. Zab. de fac. an. cap. 3.

Consider Job, to day he hath children, he is a Fa­ther, consider him to morrow, he hath no children, he is no Father when he hath none; it is possible he may afterward; shall we say therefore he is po­tentially, or habitually a father? His dividing an officer into actual and potential, is as the dividing Ens, into Ens & non Ens. His instance about the Mayor of Norwich is nothing to his purpose; we grant that though he be sick or in prison, and so can­not execute his Office, yet he is not only potentially but actually an officer still.

But suppose the City of Norwich should either by [Page 7] fire, or sword, or famine, or any such sad provi­dence, cease to exist, if the Mayor should be left alive, we ask whither he could be deemed a Mayor or an Officer still when there were no City of Nor­wich existing to be the correlate to him as a Relate? The like we say in the case in hand, how can a man remain in the Office of the Ministry, if there be no Church as a correlate for him to stand related to? Either he must be an Officer or no Officer. If there be no Church existing that he is over, then no Of­ficer existeth, for they exist and perish together, as to the same degree of being.

What he meaneth by habit of Office, we know not. He intends not (we suppose) the indelible cha­racter, which Bellarm. saith is qualitas absoluta, as every habit, excepting the tenth predicament. Of­fice cannot be proved a qualitative habit, forasmuch as it is not any thing inherent in body or mind, but something adherent onely.

And now (Christian Reader) thou mayest see Dr. Collings dealeth not kindly with thee, in perswading that Officers are nominal relations; Is it not more likely, that Office should be such a relation as is between a father and child, master and servant, husband and wife, Magistrate and subject, then such a relation as is between scibile & scientia, a thing to be known, and the knowledge of this thing.

Object. But may not a man be in the Office of Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment, nor consequently the goverment of them? it is his Commission makes him an Officer, Vind. Revind. pag. 15.

Ans. This is but a similitude and so proveth no­thing; and it will serve our purpose as well as his, for his Commission doth not make him an habitual Officer, nor give him a power in actu primo, to act [Page 8] as a Colonel in the goverment of all Regiments in the Army, but limiteth him unto one particular Regiment, and so will speak as much against a mans being an Officer to any but a particular Church, as it may seem to speak for the actual existence of a relation without a correlate.

2. Here is a begging another question, viz. That Ordination doth Commissionate men to be Officers; this being denyed there is no parity in the cases, and so no strength in the objection.

We have proved that Election with acceptation doth make men to be Officers, and so the correlate, viz. the Church electing, doth exist as soon as the Officer.

3. We would know, whether a Licence given a man from his Prince, whereby he is impowered to keep so many servants unto such an end, and so to govern them, doth make a man a Master, when not one servant is engaged by him or related to him?

4. A Colonels Commission before he hath a Regiment, doth authorize him to raise one, & giveth him right unto a Colonels pay, and so maketh him an Officer nominal and Titular: but it is the Assign­ment or submission of a Regiment unto him, that maketh him an Officer reall and actual.

Many Captains and Colonels retain Commissions and former Titles, when Wars are ended, and Companies are disbanded, yet are no Officers, but as is expressed. If he will yet contend that a Colonel as is instanced, is an officer; we say further, In ordi­nary cases a Regiment is Assigned to him, and if he hath none, he can be but an extraordinary Officer, answerable to Apostles having Commission from the General of the Army, as the Apostles had their call and Commission immediately from Christ, not from [Page 9] men, Ergo there is no parity in the cases, and so the instance is vain.

Obj. 3. To our third Argument he saith, The Gospel owneth the Church as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry, Acts 20. 17. 28. But not alone, he saith it owns the work too, Ephes. 4. vers. 11. 12. and Ephes. 4. is as much Gospel as Act. 20. 17. Vind. Revind. pag. 16.

Answ. In the Major of our third Argument no­thing is wanting, not alone or onely; for the Church alone or onely is the correlate to a Church Officer: should we say a wi [...]e is the correlate in wedlock, not onely, but cohabitation, &c. Or a Son not onely, but Education; whatever we might be for Logicians, yet in this our Logick would not be good, In divid­ing between the correlate and the end, non dividimus componenda sed distinguenda, which upon second thoughts he will not blame us for.

That Ephes. 4. is Gospel, we grant, but that it owneth the work as the correlate, we deny. It own­eth the work of the Ministry as one end of Office-gifts, not as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry.

It is said he gave some to be Apostles &c. and if it be enquired for what end? the answer is [for the work of the Ministry.]

Obj. 4. To our fourth Argument he saith, ‘It is a feeble Argument Vind. Revind. pag. 17. 18. which is drawn from names and titles.’

If we say that [all] their titles have the Church onely as their correlate, he desires to know whether [...] & [...] have so, 1 Tim. 27. &c.

He saith every rational creature, yea God himself is the correlate; and therefore they are called the Mini­sters of God, &c. He desireth us to shew one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called the Minister of the Church; he addeth that we speak no Scripture phrase, [Page 10] when we call Ministers (i. e. preaching Ministers) Ministers of such a Church, &c.

Answ. 1 An Argument from Names and Titles surely is as feeble when our brethr [...]n use it, as when we use it against them: doth not D. Collings argue from the name of Officers to their acts, and particularly from the title of Teacher, Vin. pag. 34. yea in this very book, Vind. Revind. pag. 89. lin. 1, 2, 3, 4. 5. Also to prove the Office of the Ministry of divine in­stitution, the London Ministers argue expressely from their Names and Titles, Jus. Divin. Minst. pag. 8. 9.

2 So far as Nomen is notamen rei, so far definitio nomi­nis is definitio rei; Consider Father in a naturall sense, and the definition of the Name is the defini­tion of the thing. The names of Pastor, Teacher, Elder, &c. Notifie the relation, and so are forcibly Argumentative for a Churches being the Corre­late.

3. The intendment of some names and titles is not to expresse what is the Correlate, but some thing else about a relation: as Officers may be called Mi­nisters of God and Christ, onely to intimate who is the Author and institutor of their office. Ministers of the Word, to intimate what is the subject of their preaching, Cryers or preachers (as in the Texts he mentioneth, 1 Tim. 2. 7. Rom. 10. 14. where [...] & [...] are used) to signifie their declaring or publishing their message as Cryers or Heralds use to do. Some names and titles are not intended for the discovering what is the Correlate to the Office of the Ministry, but for other ends; and therefore our Argument is firme, though all titles have not the Church onely as their Correlate.

4. We judge his first answer which he calleth most proper to this Question, To whom are they [Page 11] Officers? most improper, For it is this, to Jesus Christ.

Should a King passe through a street, and it be en­quired what or whose King goeth there, and one should answer Christs King, he should give a very improper answer, and leave the enquirer in the dark; but he that informeth that he is the King of France &c. leadeth into light. So for a Mayor, its impro­per to say, there goeth the Protectors Mayor, but there goeth the Mayor of Norwich, is proper.

5. Whereas he saith, (p. 18.) every creature is the Correlate to office as well as the Church.

1. If so, then the Elders of the Church are the Elders of the World; Angels of the Churches, An­gels of the World; then Pastors and Teachers set in the Church are set in the World too; but where did he ever read of Elders of the world? &c.

2 We would know what is the foundation of the relation between a pastor and the world: is it foun­ded in nature, as that of Parent and children, or in Will or consent, as that of Husband and wife, Ma­ster and Servant, or in some third thing?

3. Then its more proper to call Officers World-Officers then Church Officers; as to call the Protec­tor, Protector of England rather then of London, be­cause of the extent of authority and office-power. Nor is that reason in the least cogent, viz. Officers are appointed to gather out of the World, members unto Christ.

Suppose an Embassador from England be in France dispatching businesse for his master there, he is not thereby related unto France.

So an Embassador for Christ in the world, is not related unto the world as his Correlate, but onely to the flock he is ever in the Lord.

[Page 12] He saith moreover, That God is the Correlate, that God is the Author and institutor thereof we ac­knowledge, upon which account there ariseth a Me­taphysical respect between Officers and God, and they are the Ministers of God: but as the Correlate of a King is a subject, and only that in predicamental relation; he who is to be governed, Ruled, and not God: So the correlate of a Church Officer, is the Church, and onely that which is to be watched over, prayed for, instructed by vertue of a special bond in which the Officer is engaged unto it. The duty of a relation terminates upon the correlate; God were to be governed, if he were the Correlate of a Governour.

6. Preaching Ministers are expressely called El­ders of the Church, Acts. 20. v. 17. He sent to Ephe­sus and called the Elders of the Church. And this is as much as to say, The Minister of the Church, if not more; for Elder is the name of Office. They are called by that Church whereunto they are related, Revel. 2. v. 1. Ʋnto the Angel of the Church of Ephe­sus—v. 8. Ʋnto the Angel of the church in Smyrna, so v. 12. 18. and this is as much as to say, the Ministers of such a church; for what is it to be the an­gel of such a Church, but to be the Minister thereof? And whereas he beseecheth us not to endeavour to abuse simple Souls with such wofull falacies,—Vind. Revind pag. 19. Now let the Reader judge who hath gone about to abuse him most, Dr. Collings or we. Whereas he saith this is no Scripture phrase to call preaching Ministers, Ministers of such a Church.

Our second position is this.

Posit. That Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely, not to an universall Church. Dr. Collings insi [...]eth upon an explication of the word Church, and some other premises from [Page 13] pag. 19. to pag. 27. or 29. to which we shall not give any further reply at present then he meeteth within the answer to his Epistle.

Ob. 1. In his reply to our first Argument, He com­plaines of fowl disputing, because we take away the sub­ject or suppositum of the question.

Answ. When the question was, whether the Pope were the supream Officer of the Universal visible Church, Learned Protestants denyed the being of the Universal visible Church; disputing fully against the adversary, not fowlly as he saith.

Ob. 2. He tels us (Vind. Revind. pag. 29.) what we say may be granted, and yet nothing is proved by it.

Answ. This we confesse, we understand not how it was possible that the subject or the suppositum of a question can be taken away, so as nothing should be proved if the whole be granted, we desire to know of him by the next.

But what is his reason?

If the Gospel knowes a Church Ʋniversall under any notion, though not under a Political forme, it is enough, Vind. Revind. p. 29.

Ans. No Organ is related but to a body Organi­cal; hands and feet, armes and legs as so, are not related to flesh and blood as so, but as so formed. Rulers are not related unto men as so, but as formed in societies, and reduced under policy and Govern­ment; as he referreth us to Mr. Hudson, so we may refer him to Mr. Hooker, Mr Stone, and to our owne Epistle.

Our second Argument he putteth into a form of his own, under a pretence to mend some faults it it, and is not satisfied with that forme which himselfe put it into, but then putteth it into an other, and thus findeth himself work. Surely this is not fair dealing, he might have shewn us the faults of our argument, [Page 14] and lest it to us to mend them, and not cast them into his own form, and then spend time in answer­ing them; we shall onely say this in way of an­swer.

Answ. 1. As he hath formed the Argument, the Office of the Ministry is made the correlate, where­as we assert the Church to be the correlate; let the Reader now judge whether he doth not wrong him­self and us, by this way of proceeding.

2. Our Argument proceeded upon those Relative names and Titles which the Scripture expresseth Of­ficers by, and which they cannot lose without losing their Office, and which are used upon the most special occasions, and these Titles forbid a Uni­versal Church to be the correlate unto Office as is shewn, Preacher sent. pag. 10. 11. &c. As to Acts 20. 28. It concludeth that an Officer is commanded to feed [all] the flock that he standeth in the relation of a Bishop or Overseer to, and so denyeth a Uni­versal Church to be that flock which he is an Of­ficer or Overseer to; for he is not commanded to feed [all] the Universal Church. And this sheweth that the terms Pastor and Teacher, when used to expresse Office, are taken in a strict sence to denote onely a relation to a particular Church; for, Bishops, Pastors and Teachers are the same officers, under different names:

3. If we were convinced that there were such a Uni­versal visible Church made up of all particulars, we should then grant that the Office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister, had that Church of Churches for its correlate, as much as the Office of a Justice of peace (which he instanceth in) as it resides in the whole number of Justices hath the whole nation as a correlate; but still we should think that every particular Minister were limitted in his [Page 15] Office to a particular Church, as a Justice is to a particular County; Dr. Collings useth three Argu­ments to prove that the Office of the Ministry re­lates not onely to the particular Church, but to the Catholick Church, viz. that they may do acts of Office and Authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more espe­cially set.

Argu. 1. Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Vind. Revind. pag. 33. Christ, are related to the Universal Church. But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ, Ephes. 4. 12. 13.

Ans. 1. This Argument from, Eph. 4. v. 12. 13. for the substance of it, is answered, Preacher sent p. 295.

2. This Argument doth not conclude the questi­on, if such a Universal Church could be proved, we might grant them to be some way related to it, yet not as Officers. His Argument, if it were to the purpose, should conclude not onely that Pastors and Teachers are related to the Universal Church, but 1. As Officers. 2. As to their correlate; whereas if a Universal Church were the body of Christ there intended, the place alledged, Eph. 4. doth only specifie that the edifying of that body is one end of giving Pastors and Teachers, and a correlate must be exist­ing before the end of the relatoin can be attained, and so that body may not be the correlate to Pastors and Teachers.

In his following this Argument there is an alter­ing of the phrase, from the Universal visible Church or body, about which the question is, unto the mysti­cal body of Christ.

If we grant that Pastors and Teachers are related to the mystical body of Christ which is made up one­ly [Page 61] of the Elect, yet we may deny them to be related to it as Offices, or that to be the correlate to their Office: They may be given for the edifying of that body, although they have no work appointed them by Jesus Christ to do, but onely in a particular Church; that body is edified if any member of it be edified.

Argu. 2. Those whom God hath commissionated to Preach and Bap­tize Vind. Revin. Pag. 34. all Nations, are not related onely to a particular Church, but to the Catholike Church, yea to the whole world.

But God hath commissionated his Ministers to go Preach and Baptize all Nations, Ergo,

Ans. 1. His major may fairly be denyed if it speaketh to the question as stated by himself, Vind. Revind. pag. 33.

We say, those whom God hath commissionated to Preach to and Baptize all Nations, are so related to particular Churches, as that they may not do acts (materially and formally) of Office and Au­thority, beyond the bounds of the particular Churches they are over. As the whole number of Justices of Peace in this Nation are commissionated to perform the acts of Justices in all Counties and shires in England, yet the office of a Justice of Peace, as it resides in this or that particular person (as himself observeth, Vind. Revind. pag. 31. 32.) is limited by his Commission to such a County, and he cannot act as a Justice beyond the bounds of that County of shire. So the whole number of Church-Officers may be commissionated to perform acts of Office in all Nations, yet the Office as it resides in this or that particular person is limited to a particu­lar Church, so as none may do acts of Office beyond the bounds of that particular Church which the per­son is over.

[Page 17] 2. To his minor we say, The commission (Mat. 28. 19.) was not onely for the Apostles in the substance, but in the Universality it was for them onely.

Apostles as such were extraordinary Officers, and had no successors. Were this Commission ours in the Universality, we see not how we could fix with a good conscience. As warrantably might a man confine his ministry to a family when appointed to a Church, as confined to a church when appointed for all the world.

Our granting that the commission reacheth Officers now in the substance of it, is enough to evidence how far we are from shaking hands with Socinus, Smalcius, &c. though we deny their Office to have the same ex­tent that the Apostles had.

Argu. 3. His third Argument is drawn ab absurdo. Vind. Revind. p. 35. There are five absurdities which he layeth at our door, against which we have sufficient­ly justified our selves in the body of our discourse; out of the womb of two principles he mid-wives forth these.

Pr. 1. That the Authority of him who Preacheth, is that which makes the action of the hearer duty.

Pr. 2. That an act of Office cannot be done by him who is no Officer. Vind. Revind. pag. 35.

Ans. The latter of these is fully spoken to, Preacher sent. pag. 278. 279. 280.

And in the same book we have largely proved this principle, That many gifted men (who are not in Office) have Authority or a command and warrant from Christ to Preach. From which joyned with

Dr. Collings first principle afore­mentioned, it will appear that the ab­surdities Vind. Revin. Pag. 36. he talketh of, are pitiful non sequiturs. For, hence it followes,

1. That where there are no particular Churches formed, yet the people are bound to come to hear; [Page 18] because many gifted men (not in office) have au­thority to preach, and it is the authority of the speaker (saith he) that maketh the action of the hearer du­ty; and this taketh off his first absurdity.

2. That in England where there is neither Church nor officer, yet they may wait upon that publike meanes which is a special appointment of Christ to save their souls; for gifted men (not in office) have authority to preach; and so his second absurdity com­eth to nothing.

3 That where a particular Church is formed, when their Officer preacheth not on the Lords day, yet the members are bound to hear, though gifted men (not in office) preach, for they have authority from Christ to do it.

4 That persons not of that Ministers Church who Preacheth, may go in faith; for he hath authority as a gifted man to preach unto those that are not members of his Church; and so his fourth absurdity is taken away.

His fift, Concerning giving the Sacrament to one that is not a member of his Church, we have spoken sufficiently to elsewhere. And here let us expostulate a little, can Dr. Collings see a mote, and can he not be­hold a Beam? doth he strain a t a Gnat and swallow a camel? Are there not greater absurdities in his way?

1 Is it not an absurdity to engage a man by of­fice to preach, when none are ingaged to hear? sup­pose ordination make an officer, sinetitulo (which may be in Dr. Collings judgement) a Pastor, Teach­er or overseer, to whose charge no man or compa­ny of men is committed, to whom none are bound. Where ever this pretended officer Preacheth upon the Lords day, the people may leave him and goe to other Ministers (especially if ordained also) whom [Page 19] they preferre before him, who yet is bound to preach, and none to hear.

2 Is it not an absurdity solemnly to set a man a­part to the work of the Ministry, wherein neverthelesse he shall not be engaged to work, but turning aside to a School, Physick, &c. may say to them that ask why he standeth idle as to preaching work, no man hath hi­red me?

3 To make an Officer to every rationall creature, when no creature can rationally say, this is my Mini­ster, nor he say, this is my people; As if a Justice should marry a man to woman kind, and leave him to act as an husband where he could find a woman that would entertain him.

4 To determine a relate and relation actual, and the Correlate potential onely.

He excepteth against our description of office, pre­tending that two Rules are offended by it.

Ob. 1. The former rule he supposeth to be broken, by our bringing a particular Church into it, and our leaving Or­dination out, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 38.

Answ. In our former book, and also in this, we have proved, that a particular Church is the Correlate to Office, and that Ordination is not of the Essence, but onely an Adjunct of Office; and what Logick teach­eth to leave the Correlate out, or to put an adjunct into the description of a relation?

Ob. 2 His second rule supposed to be offended, is mentioned, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 38.

Answ. In his explaning himselfe he doth not onely oppose us, but a multitude of ancient and modern Po­pish and Protestant divines, yea Scripture and reason; That a man should be set apart for the work, though at present he hath no place; be put into office when there is not a man in the world whom he can challinge by vertue of office to submit to him. It is not onely [Page 20] rational and prudential for a man to stay his corona­tion till he have his Kingdome, but orderly and just; but when a man will cause himselfe to be crowned, and cannot tell whether ever his kingdome will come, it is a disorder, nor is he a King, though crowned. The terme is of the relation as laid down by us, he doth deny, which we yet assert, and let the Reader judge between us.

The causes of the relation we declared viz. principal, God, instrumental, the Church or flock.

His answer is the efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church, but not the flock.

Answ. 1. We desire to know what difference there is between Church and flock, or how they can be dis­tinguished, Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock, to feed the Church of God, &c. In the very same verse Church and flock are used Synonymously.

2. What one Scripture doth call officers the church in the necessary sense thereof? See Park. de Polit. Eccles. l. 3. cap. 15. upon this question; An soli Sacerdo­tes sint Ecclesia? which he answereth in the negative, saying, no place in the scriptures or Fathers can be found, where it is said, officers by themselves conside­red are the Church. The former cause he asserts to be Mission; of which in the special controversy there­about; He finds fault with our Logick (Ʋind. Revind. pag. 39.) in arguing from the lesse to the greater Af­firmatively.

We wonder Dr. Collings should trouble the Reader with such objections that are fully answerd in the ve­ry book he is replying to. In what sense we argue from the lesse to the greater, and how far we are from arguing from ability to do the lesser, to ability to do the greater, and how full the scripture is, (as Mat. 6. 26. 30.) of such Logick as we use, he may see, Preacher Sent. pag. 224. 225. 226. having blamed us for arguing [Page 21] aminori ad majus Affirmative; To prove preaching for tryals sake he alleageth, 1 Tim. 3. 10. and (saith he Ʋind. Revind. pag. 40.) we may argue, a minori ad majus negative, If the lowest Officer of the Church must be first proved, then much more the higher offi­cer, I meane ordinary officers, &c. We deny not that Officers are to be proved, but we wonder Dr. Col­lings is not ashamed to accuse others causelesly for u­sing false Logick, when in the very next page, him­selfe doth so grosly mistake. He pretendeth to argue from the lesser to the greater negatively, and yet there is never a note of negation in his argument. If the lowest Officer must,—then much more the higher-Surely no man will reckon this a negative proposition.


Wherein a brief answer is given to the exceptions against our two first arguments for the preaching of gifted per­sons without ordination.

DR. Collings in his second Chapter chiefly telleth us what he understandeth by authoritative preach­ing. He saith the authority of the preacher, 1. Ob­ligeth him to preach, 2. Obligeth people to hear.

Our arguments for the preaching of gifted men being built upon a command of Christ, a Gospel pro­mise, &c. will evidence that they are obliged to preach, and that souls sin in neglecting to hear them, & that there is an authoritative preaching in that sence­whereas (pag. 45.) he opposeth it to precarious preach­ing, in which the preacher may beg, but cannot com­mand either auditory, or attention.

We answer, His colonel which he mentioneth (Vin. pag. 15.) may beat his drum and none are bound to follow him; So that a Colonel is no officer, or this [Page 22] instance sheweth it to be no sin not to hear an ordain­ed man, as well as not to hear a gifted brother.

We would know whether a man who hath submit­ted to the Ordination which Dr. Collings pleadeth for, can command either Auditory or attention when none have desired him to Preach to them, or no particular Church hath by Election made him their Minister? or, whether the Minister of one Church, can com­mand another Church to be his Auditory, and to give attention to him without or against the consent of the Pastor thereof?

If he will say, he cannot in such cases command Auditory or attention, then it followeth that it is not Authoritative Preaching out of a mans own Con­gregation, or to any but those that call him; and so it is Preaching ex dono, not ex officio to others, and then it is election or the desire of the people, and not Or­dination that maketh it Authoritative Preaching in that sence; for a man is ordained and yet is not ob­liged to preach to any, nor any people obliged to hear 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 [Page 23] 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 C [...]l [...], Vind. Re­vind. pag. 55.

Ans. 1. We do not limit it to the gift of Preaching, [Page 24] 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 S [...]pperare act so purely of institution, that they would never have been duties, nor could have been known to be so, without Scri­pture-light; [Page 25] 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 its said, 1 Pet. 5. 1. The Elders which are [among you] I exhort, &c. If gifted [Page 26] 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 it, as in hearing, praying, fasting, &c. Dr. Collings doth suppose in some time the bare command of Christ may make an Officer, Vind. Revind. pag. 63. We sup­pose at all times a preacher▪

The commanding every man that hath preaching gifts and graces to minister with them, doth deter­mine that the Oracles of God are committed to them, and that it is Gods way and order that they should be exercised in the work of preaching.

As to what he saith, pag. 52. 53. we answer, the command of Christ being a Call, it warrants their preaching on the Sabbath or Lords day, as well as at other times; and whether gifted persons preaching be a publike Ordinance for saving of souls, let the Reader judge by our Arguments.

It was allowed of and desired by the Reformers of Scotland; for, in their Petition to the Queen they did ask. 1. That they might have prayers publikely in their vulgar Tongue. 2. That if any hard place of Scripture were read in their meetings, it might be law­ful to any qualified persons in knowledge, being pre­sent, to interpret and open, &c. Hist. of Reform. of Scot. [Page 27] pag. 128. which practice was of use in the Jewish Con­gregations Grot. in Mat. 4. 23.

The instance of a Magistrate is not paralel. 1. Gifts make not powers. 2. This instance will destroy pri­vate preachers, none may do the Act of a Magistrate privately, but a Magistrate. That the Administration of publike Ordinances is peculiar to publike Officers; and that those who have publike gifts and imploy­ments are meerly private persons, let him prove; will he deny Synodical determinations to be adminstrations of publike Ordinances? it is certain that those who were no Officers, even the multitude did publikely act in that Synod, Act. 15. see vers. 12. 22. 23. Surely no judicious Reader will think that there is weight in these exceptions. As to Heb. 10. v. 25. who can question its being a warrant for ordinary Church Assemblies? was it not a Church or Churches that the Epistle is written to? will he deny Church Assemblies to be publike meetings? is not exhortation the work en­joyned in them? are Officers onely put upon this work? what syllable of proof is there in the Text for any such assertion? where do we alleadge this place for private meetings?

It is asserted by some, that by gift probably is meant Office; after shewing the improbillity of it diverse waves, we add these words (Preach. sent. p. 59.)

[The Apostle speaketh indefinitely [a gift] and an indefinite proposition is equipollent usually to an Uni­versal, and so it may be extended to all gifts in gene­ral, and therefore cannot without some special reason be restrained to one particular gift, viz. Office.]

Dr. Collings seemeth to be much disturbed at this, he bringeth it up, Vind Revind. pag. 55 and 87. and af­ter misplacing [usually] and adding [most] he cryeth out, it is no Logick.

Let him again look into Keckerman. Syst. Log. l. 2. c. [...]. [Page 28] who saith, A Universal proposition, is either definite or indefinite.

Indefinitae est quae habet subjectum universale sine nota; and he giveth this Canon about [...].

Est & indefinitarum usus ad significandum quod prae­dicatum subjecto insit, non quidem semper, sed plermun­que. Seu ut graeci loquuntur [...] ut matres sunt in­dulgentes [...]imium liberis: cretenses sunt mendaces. Interdum significatur non maxim [...] quidem ex parte, sed multis tamen convenire praedicatum ut Heroum filij noxae: His­pani superstitio & insolentes, &c.

We did not say, that an indefinite proposition is [alwayes] equipollent to a Universal, but [usually;] and whether Keckermans [plerunque & [...]] do a­mount to as much as [usually] let the Reader judge. Is not the Scripture full of such Logick? 1 Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop must be blameless. i. e. every Bishop, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself. i. e. every man who partaketh of the Supper.

If the rule holdeth onely in materia necessaria, that is enough to prove that it is frequently [usually] or often of such a general importance, and so gift can­not (without special reason) be limited here to one gift, viz. Office.


Containing a briefe answer to the exceptions against our arguments for gifted persons preaching, from a promise, and the examples of Apollo and the scattered Saints, and the prophecy mentioned, 1 Corin. 14.

WE urge other arguments for the preaching of of men without ordination.

Arg. 3 From a Gospel promise; Mat. 25. 29. For [Page 29] unto every one that hath shall be given, &c. Preacher Sent. pag. 62.

Ob. Dr. Collings would infer that then men not commissio­nated for the Magistracy, nor ordained to the Ministry (ha­ving a talent or ability) may execute Justice and admini­ster Sacraments, Vind. Revind. p. 57.

Answ. 1. Talents or gifts may be considered as acci­dentia absoluta or relativa. Absolute accidents alter not the state of the subject; relative make a superiour and inferior.

Aptitude to govern is an absolute accident, and ma­keth not a Migistrate.

2. Talents or gifts which are absolute accidents are to be improved according to the nature of such talents or gifts; he that is apt to governe may helpe in go­vernment by council and advice, without pretence of power over those whom he doth direct. A skilfull sea-man may direct the Pilate, not stepping into his place; we must distinguish, Ministerium circa Ecclesiam quae jam in corpus collecta est & manet, a ministerio circa illos qui colligendi caritativa admonitione sivelint, as Voctius tells Jansenius, Desp. Caus. Pap. l. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. 10.

3. A particular exception is enough to limit any general rule; Some Lawes of England run in gene­ral termes, yet by some particular proviso; the Uni­versities or some Corporations are exempted from obe­dience to them; all others (not excepted) will be liable to the penalty, if they transgresse the Law. So if a King promiseth a reward to every subject that shall do some notable service, except those of some particular Corporation, it is plain that all (not excepted) have allowance to do the work, and thereupon may expect the reward. Now the promise, Mat. 25. 29. running in general termes, hence every man (not excepted) is to use his talents. If by a particular exception the [Page 30] administration of sacraments be limited unto office yet this doth not deny a liberty to use other talents, and to expect the benefit of this promise in the use of them, seeing it is said, [unto every one that hath, shall be given.] He granteth that men may preach di­vers times as probationers, when they are no officers, but may not do the worke of a Magistrate, or administer Sacraments without those offices. Ergo, the exercise of preaching gifts is more separable from office then the other.

We fully answered this objection, Preacher Sent. pag. 39. 40. 162. and therefore let not the Reader expect any further answer from us, though Dr. Collings often cal­leth this in to help him.

Arg. 4. Our fourth argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples, Act. 13. 25. &c. Apollo preached publickly, yet was not ordained, and the scattered Saints, Act. 8. Dr. Collings may see (Preacher Sent. p. 66.) that we intend not Gospel presidents by an extraordinary call; and therefore what [...]he saith (Ʋind. Revind. pag. 57. 58.) about Apostleship, the holy Kisse, &c. is but to raise a mist before the Eyes of the Reader.

Ob. In these instances there is not a parity.

1. In the species of their gifts, there might be office or extraordinary gifts; Apollo is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3. 5. and was mighty in the Scriptures; It is plain he preach­ed onely in order to office, p. 59. The scattered Chris­tians were of the 8000. who were filled with ex­traordinary gifts. Acts 4. 31. pag. 60.

2. In the Acts nothing found to evidence that they, Acts 8. did preach in publike assemblies, p. 6.

3. In the state of the Church, it was an infant state, and a persecuted state, they might be under a necessity o [...] precept, those extraordinary gifts might be attended [Page 31] with a praeceptive impression, Acts 4. 31. there was necessitas medij, there was no other ordinary meanes of Salvation for these people, Ʋind. Revind. p. 61. 62.

Ans. 1. Apollo's gifts were not of an other species; Adam and Abel, not two species of men, though Adam by creation, Abel by generation: nor the habits in Adam a divers species from them in Abel, because they infused these acquired. If Apollo's gifts had been infused (which yet is not granted) this would not prove them of a divers species; but his being mighty in the Scriptures, maketh it probable that he received them in an ordinary way, as now a dayes, viz. by the Scriptures and not otherwayes, as the Doctor ar­gueth.

He wrongeth himselfe and us, in affirming (pag. 59.) that we say nothing to this; but let those who say it prove it, the contrary may be seen: Preacher Sent. p. 71. 72. 73. yet it being an endlesse work to answer the groundlesse [...]urmises of men, we had rea­son to desire proof.

But Apollo knew onely the baptism of Iohn, Acts 18. 25. Ergo, Apollo neither had extraordinary gifts, nor did preach in order to office or ordination; for without knowing more then the baptisme of Iohn, he could not know these which belong to the baptism of Christ, Mat. 3. 11. He (i. e. Jesus Christ) shall baptize you with the holy Ghost. And that he should preach as a Pro­bationer to a woman, Priscilla, and that at Ephesus, in order to Office at Corinth, how unlikely is it? As to the Scattered Christians; If all mentioned, Acts. 4. 31. had extraordinary preaching gifts, and were 8000. in number, (which yet we do not grant) then the Gospel knoweth occasional preachers; for, so ma­ny could not have opportunity for constant preach­ing in that Church, neither can it be proved that they [Page 32] did it else-where before the scattering. Also then he must say that here was a whole Church of Preachers, which is more strange then that, in these dayes there should be in Churches some gifted men, (besides Officers) who may Preach.

Some think that the speaking the word with bold­nesse, mentioned, v. 31. hath reference to the Apostles as an answer of that prayer for them, v. 29. 30. but we say it cannot be proved that they were the extra­ordinary gifts of the holy Ghost that they are there said to be filled with, and so the objection vani­sheth.

2 As for parity of Acts, Apollo preached publikely in the Synogogue, and Christians heard him, Acts 18. 26. and this he did not with the allowance of the Jewish Church onely, but of Christ. And if afterward he were an officer (which we know not but he might, though upon his proofs we do not conclude it) yet now he was none.

The scattered Christians went every where preach­ing, Acts 8. 4. and therefore they acted publickly, as well as privately.

He must assert an order of private preachers, who may goe every where, preaching in private houses, but may not do it in publick, or else this exception (Vind. Revind. p. 61.) is vain.

3. As to the state of the Church, as it was an infant state, so Christ provided extraordinary Officers, as Apostles, and gave extraordinary gifts, for the nursing of it up in infancy; but (as we have proved) Apollo had no such gifts, and the Dr. saith (p. 59.) its plain that he preached onely [in order to Office] by which he plainly granteth, that for the present he was no Officer at all of a Gospel Church. And let it be proved that any others had an allowance in that infant state, to act in Gospel-administrations (which [Page 33] were at other times peculiar to office) as Apollo had; if preaching were so, all presidents or examples re­corded in the New Testament refer to that infant state of the Church; and therefore no argument; for Gospel presidents could be vailed, if the infancy of the Church could hinder it, because that may be alleadged against all, & that some presidents have the force of a rule, him­selfe granteth, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 58. and others Jus Dinin. Min. pag. 160. 161. as for those Acts 8. there being in a persecuted state will not make such a case of necessity as he speaketh of; for it doth not appear that all these scattered Saints which preached had such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; & however such extraordinary preaching gifts are to be used in the most tranquil & setled state of the Church, though many Ministers ordained be present, and therefore persecution (about which we are now speaking) could not put them under any such preceptive impression as might render their preaching lawful now, which in a setled state of the Church would be unlawfull.

And upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people, no such necessity as he talketh of will be evinced from it.

If Churches had lost their Officers by persecution, there were a greater colour for such a plea, but here the case was otherwaies, for the Apostles (who were Officers) were not scattered, neither was it the perse­cuted Church that was preached to, but others. How mens being persecuted from their habitations can ren­der their preaching Lawful, which otherwise were not, or lay them under either a natural or moral necessity to preach in their travels, beyond what they should have, if their occasions did lead them to the same places without persecution, we understand not.

And the Apostles (who were by Christs appoint­ment [Page 34] to preach, not onely in the Regions of Judea and Samaria (where this scattering was, Acts 8. 1.) but in all Nations, Mat. 28. 19.) were neither scattered, nor necessitated (that it appeareth) to stay where they were, by the persecution; and therefore there was o­ther means of salvation for those people, though these scattered Saints had not preached, when the Lord had Officers of his own near, viz. Apostles, yet he would honour gifted persons in the work of preaching, and this sheweth that neither his necessitas praecepti, nor necessitas medii can weaken the force of this argu­ment.

We are at as great a losse to find any ordination of an ordinary officer without a precedent Election by a particular Church, as he is to find it before the ordina­tion of Paul, Barnabas and Timothy, who were extraor­dinarily or immediately called to Office, and so needed not such Election.

Ob. And whereas he saith, that in such cases of neces­sity they may be said to preach by extraordinary authority, which the word of the Lord hath given them, which may be called a Mission, and they may be officers as to that time and state, yet it will not follow, but in another state of the Church, Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister, Vind. Revind. pag. 63. 64.

Answ. Here he hath found out a Mission by the word which is not by the Church commanded, Electing or Ordaining; and so either his objection, or else his Argument (pag. 112.) or both, must needs be naught, and he be guilty of selfe▪ contradiction; let his words be compared.

Those who preach in such casesof necessity, where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear, may be said to preachby an extraordi­nary authority, which the word ofThat Gods revea­led will in his word is called sen­ding (as his word is now written) is
of the Lord hath in such cases gi­ven them, which may be called a mission, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 63.not proved nor can be proved. Ʋi. Revind. pag. 112.

He asserteth pag. 63 a mission by the word, and denyeth (pag. 112.) that any such mission can be pro­ved. His officer in case of necessity hath no mission either mediately [...]or immediately by any of the waies he mentioneth, Ergo, not at all; thus might we urge his argument against himselfe.

2. He hath given no proof for his extraordinary Office, making mission in such cases of necessity; and where nothing is proved, nothing need be answe­red.

3. If there were such extraordinary Officers by ne­cessity; then

1. They must be greater then ordained ones; for extraordinary Officers are greater then ordinary.

2. They are not to be ordained afterward, though the Church cometh into an other state; or else Ordina­tion is not the constituting office-making act; for (saith he) they were officers before.

3. They must be either Apostles, Evangelists or Prophets, and these he concludeth to be ceased; Or else they are Pastors and Teachers; for the Gospel owneth no other preaching Officers but those afore­mentioned. And that ordinary officers (Pastors and Teachers) should be made by an extraordinary call, will hardly be proved.

Or that such ordinary offices can be convved without Ordination; if that in ordinary cases be essen­tial to such Offices, we suppose can never be proved; for, it is as much as to say, such offices have a being, without that which giveth being to them.

A thing may have a being without some necessary accidents, but that there can be any case so extraor­dinary [Page 36] as a thing should have a being without that which is essencial to it, we find not.

Arg. 5. Our fifth Argument is taken from Gospel Rules about Prophecying.

All that are Prophets way ordinarily and publikely preach, 1 Corin. 14. v. 23. 24. 29. 31. Dr. Collings saith (Ʋind. Revind. pag. 64.) no such gifted men as now live are prophets.

To prove our minor, that some men, (i. e. now living) who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets, we lay downe three propositions.

1. That Prophesie is a gift, not an office.

2. That Prophesying is a gift still continuing.

3. That some men who are not ordained officers, have that gift of Prophesie, Preacher Sent. pag. 90. Dr. Collings (pag. 65.) repeateth three of our arguments, and telleth the Reader, that we bring them to prove, that Prophesie is a gift, not an office, and cryeth out of a pittiful non sequitur, &c. whereas we use those arguments to prove the last position, which is about the un-necessarinesse of Ordination for prophets; Thus are we mis-presented, as if we brought arguments to prove one Proposition, which we use to prove an other, and whether great wrong and injury be not offered to us and the Reader, by such dealing, let any wise man judge? We neither argue in this place against their being extraordinary, or ordinary officers, nor against their being furnished with extraordinary gifts, other mediums we use else-where that way, and therefore his pittifull non sequitur is of his own making: but the main question was about preaching without ordi­nation, and so we proved (Preacher Sent. pag. 90.) that ordination was not necessary for Prophets, which here he graneth.

We knew not which part of our argument would be denyed, and therefore left no part unproved.

[Page 37] Whereas he enquireth (Vind. p. 65.) who ever said these Prophets were ordinary Officers? we answer Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt. declareth it to be his judgement; that this is a pattern of a Col­ledge of ordinary Prophets.

But neither of the Arguments which he is replying to, speak one word about their being ordinary officers, and therefore we wonder how that question should be started here.

Prop. 1. The prophesying spoken of, 1 Cor. 14. is a gift, not an Office. 1. Because all who have the gift of prophesie are Prophets, and they must have the gift before they can be made Prophets by Office. 2. Be­cause this prophesying ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth, and so of any other Church, whereas Office might not be so coveted by every man who was a member of a Church. 1. It is not promised. 2 Not possible to be obtained, &c. Preach. Sent. p. 91. 92.

Obj. Dr. Collings (pag. 66. 67. &c.) saith. 1. That God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordi­nary authority, and furnished them with an extraordinary gift, so he did Jeremy, Amos, &c. 2. That the same argument will prove it was no gift, except a promise can be shewn thereof. 3. Things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will &c. 4. They can­not be Officers to that Church, but may be in time Officers to other Churches, there is no impossibility in this at all, yea (he saith) they ought to labour after such a perfection. Besides Ʋniversal holiness may and ought to be laboured for, yet it is not promised, nor can be attained, &c. 5. All doth not include every individual alwayes, &c.

Ans. 1. No ordinary Officer can be orderly made, unless those gifts which furnish for the Office be first found in him, Act. 6. 3. 1 Tim. 3. And that not extra­ordinary, but ordinary Prophets are intended, 1 Cor. 14. [Page 38] we have largely proved, Preach. Sent. pag. 100. 101. 102. and so our Argument is valid, though extraordinary Officers, as Jeremy and Amos, should have the gift and Office together; yet there, the gift in order of nature at least doth precede the Office, which authorize to such an exercise of the gift.

2. There is a promise of the very gift of prophesie, which is of far larger extent then office. Joel 2. 28 I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, & your sons and your daugh­ters shall prophesie, &c. This [all fl [...]sh] cannot be limited unto Officers. This promise began to be fulfilled, Act. 2. but its full accomplishment is not yet, as ap­pears, Joel 3. ver. 1. The captivity of Judah and Jeru­salem is not yet recovered, the Jews not yet convert­ed, and this shall be [in those dayes] i. e. wherein the pouring out of the spirit shall be, for those were the daves before mentioned.

Both sons and daughters still have a gift of Scri­pture-interpretation, which is a gift of prophesie. And this promise of the gift of prophesie being so general, hence our Argument will not prove that it was no gift, as he saith.

3. Prayers for the gift of prophesie, or any other mercies which are to be begged with submission to the will of God, cannot be in duty or faith, without they be limited and bounded by some Divine word or promise: for it is a humane faith which hath not a Divine word to bottom upon, and if it were other­wise, any man might pray that he might be made a King, an Emperour, or to have an estate of many thou­sand pounds per annum, or to live many thousand years on earth, or what he pleased, and this might warrant him therein, that he prayed for them with submission to the will of God.

If a Divine word be the boundary of such supplica­tions, then a particular mans recovery out of sickness [Page 39] may be owned as a fruit of Promise, and then there must be some Divine word for every mans becoming an officer who was a member of the Church at Corinth, else they could not in duty or in faith covet it; and it cannot be imagined that such a word should be limit­ed to Corinth, and therefore it must extend to the Church of Ephesus, Smyrna, and any other Gospel Church; and so it must amount to thus much, That all the men who were members of any Gospel Church were bound in duty and might in faith covet to be Church officers, and how likely it is that this should be a truth, and how well it agreeth with our brethrens Principles who deny the Preaching of gifted men, let the Reader judge. And if he liketh not our Argument from a promise, he may take it from a precept, and then he must say, That every man who was a mem­ber of the Church at Corinth, and so of any other Gospel Church, was commanded to covet to be an Of­ficer, if prophesying were an office; for every man was commanded to covet to prophesie, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 1. 5. 39.

4. We apprehend there is an impossibility (in re­spect of the revealed will of God) of many mens be­coming Officers, who are Church-members, hinted in that place, 1 Cor. 12. 7. which we have (according to his wish) thought upon, but although it seemeth to deny that all members of the Church can attain un­to the same Office, gifts, or measure of them, yet it doth not deny that there may be a joynt concurrence of all in matters of common concernment, nor the use­fulness of the suffrage of the meanest members.

And by several passages in his book (pag. 2.) we are apt to think, that he doth not encourage the members of his Church to covet to be Officers either there or in other Churches, though (pag. 68.) he saith (if we mistake him not) this is such a perfection as they ought to labour after. The London Ministers are of another [Page 40] mind; for Jus Div. Min. pag. 85. they deny it to be a common duty to study Divinity, in order to Preach­ing, Universal holiness is promised, Ezek. 36. ver. 26. A new heart will I give you, ver. 29. I will save you from all your uncleannesses. If he meaneth Universal holiness in respect of degrees, it is promised to, and shall be injoyed in another life, and so the attain­ment of it there is to be sought for here.

We are to labor for the highest pitch of holines which is attainable in this life, and this is promised. But that which is impossible to be attained, is not to be co­veted. And it is considerable that no Church is ex­horted to covet to be Apostles or Evangelists, or Pastors, or Teachers, but a Church is exhorted to covet the gift of prophesie, and therefore that gift may more generally be coveted, then the lowest of those Of­fices.

5. The term all doth include the generality of those spoken to, and that is enough to our purpose. He granteth (pag. 69.) that priority of order is no infal­lible Argument where there is any other Scripture, or any found reason to evince it, no intention of the holy pen-men; and that both are found in this case, our Arguments for their being ordinary Prophets do suf­ficiently prove.

We do not conclude that those Texts, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. 12. are meant of extraordinary Prophets, but upon this supposition that they [must be Officers] we think it will not follow, that those. 1 Cor. 14. must be so also. As if he lay upon the catch, he cryeth out, we take them at their word, &c.

But seeing its not impossible that the one place should speak of one fort of Prophets, and the other place of another, we might use an [it may be] about it, for that often denoteth but a possibility, and leaveth the matter dubious, Ezek. 2. 3. Jerem. 36. 3. 7. Luke 20. 13.

[Page 41] Prop. 2. That some have the gift of prophesie, or that prophesying is a gift still continuing,

This we prove. 1. Because there is no Gospel rule for the ceasing of it. 2. Because it was ordinary.

Ob. So say the Prelates for Archbishops, and Bishops, where is there any now that Vind. Revind. pag. 70. 71. can without study & meditation infallibly give the sence of Scripture from Revela­tion, or can foretell things to come? we have experience that those pleaded for, cannot do the first, and the year 1657. being come and gone, and the Jews not converted, proves that John Tillinghast—-cannot do the latter. St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate, &c. was a cer­tain proof, that this prophecying is ceased. The gift of tongues and bealing in those dayes were ordinary, yet none of them is continuing.

Answ. 1. It is not proved that the prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. was a gift of infallible Revelation, or of foretelling things to come, and therefore the ceasing of such gifts, and the charging Timothy to study and meditate are far from proving that this prophecying is ceased.

Mr. John Tillinghast neither pretended to such an extra­dinary gift of foretelling things to come, or infalli­ble Revelation as he speaketh of, and therefore is very impertinently alleadged here. The first stirring of the Jews he thought in probability and greatest likelihood (from Scriptures numbers) would be in the year 1656. vid. Generat. work. p. 50. Key to Myst. N. pag. 248. Know­ledge of the times. pag. 97. he doth not speak of it as certainly and infallibly to come to passe, that yet we find; and if he had, many worthy men have been mistaken in the mystical numbers; and therefore it is an unworthy act to seek thus to blemish his name af­ter his death. That which he speaketh of Prelates, is but to cast odium, for neither Arch-Bishops nor Bishops [Page 42] can shew any institution of Christ for their office: they have not an immediate vocation, or infallible directi­on, or power for miraculous operation, and there­fore they cannot rationally pretend to such a general Commission as Apostles and Evangelists had.

2. If by ordinary he intendeth Common, in that sence the gift of Tongues and healing in those dayes were ordinary, though the way and manner of con­veying those gifts, and the end of them was extraordi­nary, Act. 2. ver. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 22. Tongues are for a sign.

But that was ordinary which had not a temporary reason for its use, or which did not require an extraor­dinary Call, to enable to, and warrant in coming up to it, or which men are commonly in after ages gifted for, even unto this day, and whose nature, acts and ends were not extraordinary; And whether our Arguments do not prove prophecying in these respects to be ordinary, and so still continuing, let the Reader judge. Mr. Rutherford saith, that these Prophets and our Pastors differ not in species and na­ture, and that to him, this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets. &c. which still rendreth us per­swaded that Mr. Rutherford thought the gift of Pro­phesie was ordinary; for surely he knew that an ex­traordinary gift did make one differ in species & nature from ordinary Officers; Only he judged that the way and manner of conferring that gift was extraordinary, ordinarily it is acquired by study and industry, then (he supposed) it was infused, But as it was an ordi­nary visive faculty (as other mens) which was con­ferred upon the man born blind, and wine of an ordi­nary species which was made, John 2 though the man­ner of production was extraordinary; so the gift of prophesie was ordinary in his account, though by a maze of words. Dr. Collings would perswade the Reader [Page 43] otherwise. We proved this prophecying to be an ordinary gift, and so still continuing, because, 1. The Rules to regulate the work are ordinary. 2. The de­scription of it ordinary, 1 Cor. 14. 3. 3. One great end of extraordinary prophecying (viz. to be a sign) is denied to this, 1 Corinthians 14. 22. 4. Women are forbidden this publike prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet extraordinary publike prophecying is allowed to them, Luke 2. 36. 38.

Obj. 1. The act may be ordinary, and yet the gift not so. Extraordinary Officers, and gifts were to come under general rules of order. 2. So far as it is a description, it is a description of the act, not of the gift,—-onely such ends of prophecying are expressed as were common to that with other Ordinances and duties. 3. This Text onely proves that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not.

The onely end of foretelling things to come was not to be a sign. Their chief act (as be conceiveth) was their infalli­ble interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift, which indeed to them that believed not the Scripture would be of no use. 4. Women prophetesses are not mentioned, 1 Cor. 14. 34. we do not find that Anna, Luke 2. 36. spake things to come; and this liberty was restrained, 1 Cor. 14. 37.

Ans. 1. Extraordinary acts will follow extraordi­nary gifts; for operari sequitur esse. That the work of prophecy is ordinary, is not a fallucious, but a firm Aru­ment to prove the gift to be ordinary also, and still continuing; none but ordinary rules are mentioned to regulate prophecysing, nothing in the description of the work but what is ordinary, and a large chapter is spent chiefly in directing about prophecying, and no­thing extraordinary is predicated either of the gift or act in the whole chapter, and surely this will prove an ordinary gift or work of prophesie to be here in­tended, as strongly as the enumerating onely of Of­ficers or persons extraordinarily gifted, Eph. 4. 11. 12. [Page 44] 1 Cor. 12. 28. 29. (if granted) can prove extraordinary prophesie to be there intended, as he would have it, Vind. pag. 70. 77.

And extraordinary directions were given to re­gulate Apostles, and Evangelists in the exercise of ex­traordinary gifts, Mat. 10.

2. The act (and so the description of it) must be sutable to the gift. Exhortation is here assigned unto prophesie, and also, Act. 15. 32. Being Prophets, ex­horted the brethren with many words, where the act of prophesie is denoted by it, and that here onely some common ends should be expressed by it, how unconceivable is it? Is not exhortation an act? Edi­fication and comfort are not so; and therefore what triflling is it to say the Text proves them to be the act as well as the other? or will not the words, as rendred by him out of the Greek, serve as well to our purpose, as the Uulgar translation? and can the sence be per­fect without [to] or some such word? we know not to what end his high words here serve, but to make a flourish.

3. That the extraordinary gift or act of fore-telling things to come cannot be the prophecying spoken of, 1 Cor. 14. we prove, because one great end of prediction, viz. to be a sign, is denyed unto this prophecying, and that denial is to be found, ver. 22.

Our Argument was not taken from a denial of the act (as he reporteth. pag 73.) but of one end, which indeed by consequence denyeth that to be the gift or act. He faith this Texthat believed not that prophesie was no sign to them that believed not. We answer, this (which he granteth it doth prove) enough to evidence, that fore-telling things to come is not the prophesie here intend, for that was a sign to them that believed not, Mat. 16. ver. 3 4. The sign of the Prophet Jonas was given to convince a wicked and [Page 45] Adulterous generation. Neither is there a word in the chapter to prove that the prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. was a sign to such as believed, or that the infallible inter­pretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift was the act of those Prophets, both which he suggesteth.

4. If he intendeth onely, that women Prophetesses are not [expressely] mentioned, 1 Corin. 14. 34. we might answer all his arguments at once with this; for the Scripture doth not [expresly] command all preachers to receive Ordination; If he will say they are no way mentioned or intended.

Then, 1. He contradicteth the London Ministers who use these words, [by women here are not meant wo­men simple, but women Prophetesses in opposition to men Prophets formerly spoken of Jus. Divin. Min. pag. 100.] yea contradicteth himselfe; for he faith [it is to be understood of women that had or pretended to have the gift of prophesie, Vind. Ʋindiciarum, pag. 119.]

And by this the Reader may see that it is a hard task for us to answer both the the London Ministers and Dr. Collings, seeing they contradict one an other, and the Dr. will rather contradict himselfe, then want a reply for us.

2. There is no appearance of truth in it: for, this Chapter speaketh chiefly about the gift of prophesie, stiling it [speaking] v. 29. yea, a speaking publikely is forbidden to women, v. 34. 35. and that speaking in way of prophesie should be excluded (without cogent reason to infer it) who can imagin it?

And if the publick speaking in way of Prophesie be intended (as doubtlesse it is) then women prophetesses are mentioned v. 34: and our argument standeth firm; neither would the force of it be much abated, if it were granted (which yet it is not) that Anna (Luk. 2. 36.) was called a prophetesse, or that an othery [Page 46] were called Prophets from an extraordinary faculty by Revelation to interpret Scripture; and so what he faieth is nothing to the present purpose, for we may argue thus,

That Prophesying which was an interpreting of Scripture by an extraordinary faculty from Revelati­on was permitted unto women, Luke 2. 36.

But the prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. was not permitted unto woman, v. 34. Ergo, the prophesying. 2 Cor. 14. was not an interpreting of Scripture by an extraordinary faculty from Revelation, which Dr. Collings would have to be the Prophesying there intended, pag. 74.

There is not one sylable of proof, that foretelling things to come is the prophesying intended, 1 Cor. 14.

We have proved (Preacher Sent. Pag. 103.) that this liberty is not restrained by the Apostle; the Dr. asserteth that it is restrained, 1 Corin. 14. 37. yet hath given nothing but his bare word for the proof of it.

And this is enough to shew the weaknesse of his answers to our arguments; we shall onely hint a few things in answer to what followeth in this Chapter.

1. Prophesying is as much distinguished from Revea­lation as from doctrine, 1 Cor. 14. 6. except I shall speak to you cithes by Revelation or by prophesying or by doctrine: And therefore as easily we may conclude thence, that Prophesying is not Revelation, as he may (pag. 76.) that it is not speaking by doctrine. If he wil grant that it is not Revelation, then he contradicteth him­selfe (pag. 66. 74.) and also the London Ministers, (Jus Div. Mini. pag. 98.) and consesseth the va­lidity of our answer to the present objection. If he faith it is Revelation, we may say, the Prophets speak not by Revelation, that was another thing, and we have as good proof of it, v. 6. as he hath there, that they [Page 47] spake not by doctrine, and therefore he can get no­thing by this arguing.

The London Ministers (pag. 98.) would prove from v. 26. 30. that these were extraordinary Prophets, ha­ving extraordinary Revelations: And what is it to the purpose, if they did not speak by doctrine? or if Christians ordinarily had not such Revelations as they might publikely and ordinarily communicate them in Church Assemblies, might not many unor­dained men have such Revelations? or how is this to the businesse in hand? If prophecy should be expres­sed by Revelation, v. 26 (which is not proved) yet seeing (as he consesseth) there is ordinary Reve­lation, it may be understood of that: and the joyning of it in the same verse with doctrine which is ordinary, would as firmely prove the prophet to be ordinary, as the joyning of it with some thing extraordinary, would prove it to be extraordinary.

2. His granting (pag. 77.) that the note of singu­larity will not prove the gift was extraordinary, is enough to justifie our answer, and to shew that it can­not prove what he produced it for, Ʋind. Min. pag. 50. nor doth it prove either that the Prophets were Officers, or the gifts extraordinary, but onely a not common gift wherein they are distinguished from o­ther members who have not that gift.

3. Whether Prophets in all the old and New Testa­ment signifie some in office, let the Reader judge up­on a weighting, Mat. 13. 57. Luke 4. 24. Mat. 10. 41. Acts 15. 32. [...] doth not necessarily denote Office, its used, Acts 14. 12. [...] we read of another Judas, then the Apostle whose house was at Damascus, Acts 9. v. 11. The Apostles at that time abiding at Jerusalem, Acts 8. 1. yet the Dr. would de­ny that there was any Judas (pag. 79.) besides the a traitor and the Apostle; and how doth it appear, that [Page 48] Judas and Silas were of the 120. and not of the thou­sands that were afterward converted?

And seeing exhorting often is preaching, and is the worke of Prophets, 1 Corin. 14. 3. that it should be said Acts. 15. 32. [being Prohets, they exhorted the brethren—] and it should not prove that this act was performed by them as Prophets, who can imagin it? If it were said Steven being a Deacon, distributed, would it not be concluded that he distributed as a Deacon, distribution being a work of a Deacon, as exhortation is of a Prophet; and what addition then is it to Scripture to say, their exhorting was because they, were Prophets, though [...] doth not signifie because? How 2 Peter 1. 19. 20. fights against us we know not; if he thinketh that it denyeth the interpretation of Scripture to belong to private men, as some have conjectured, let him read Dr. Ames and others on the place, and he may be informed otherwise, if officers rightly ordained do give a humane exposition of Scrip­ture, or such as is not according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, that is a private interpretation, which may answer his allegations, pag. 78. 80.

3. It is not proved that prophecy is prefer­red before the gift of Tongues, in case he that speaketh with Tongues did interpret, 1 Cor. 14. 15: greater is he that Prohesieth, then he that speaketh with Tongues [except the interpreter]—he doth not say he is greater when he doth interpret; and there­fore when that reason, viz. edification failed, its with­out proof, that another must be found. If the Prophet were less in another respect (as he said p. [...]1.) how this helpeth to prove the extraordinarinesse or rarity of the gift of Prophecy, we see not.

4. That the [ordinary gifts] of pastors and Teach­ers are useful to the edifying, Comforting, Convincing, and Converting of Souls, is enough to shew that Pro­phesie cannot be proved to be [an extraordinary gift [Page 49] or office] by its usefulnesse to such ends, and this was it he would have proved by it, Vind. Min. p. 51. and his reply (Vind. Revind. p. 81.) doth not hinder its proving as much as we produce it for.

Neither doth what he saith (p. 82.) about a word of wisdom and knowledge prove that Prophesic was an extraordinary gift or office, nor answer our reasons, and so its nothing to the purpose.

We cannot but wonder at what he saith, pag. 84. 85. in one page he calleth in any indifferent Reader, and then any Reader to judge, and addeth that the let­ter of Scripture is expresse against us, 1 Cor. 14. 22. and rehearseth the Words: one would think such a heap of high words should not be used with such con­fidence, unlesse it were to usher in a discovery of some grosse Error or mistake, which he had found in those which he writeth against.

But upon perusing those pages again and again, we cannot find any such Error on our part; nay, we think that he hath rushed himselfe into divers grosse self-contradictions.

Let any indifferent Reader search our former book, (Preacher Sent. p. 115.) and find out, if he can, how v. 22. is against us, and that expresly in the letter. Have we either denyed Tongues to be for a sign to them that believe not, or affirmed them to be for a signe to them that believe? have we asserted prophesying to serve for them that believe not, otherwise then the Apostle doth? v. 24, 25. or denyed that Prophecying serveth for them which believe? If not, what shadow of truth is there in what he faith?

He telleth us we would make them believe, that the sense is onely, that Prophesie was not for a signe to them that believed not, but for their conversion it might be. This he would have the Reader weigh a little, [Page 50] and then judge betwixt us; we desire it may be weigh­ed.

Reader, which part wilt thou deny? Wilt thou say,

That Prophesie was for a sign to them that believed not? This Dr. Collings himself (pag. 73.) denyeth, using these words [This Text (viz. v. 22.) onely proves, that prophesie was no sign to them that belie­ved not.]

Wilt thou say that Prophesie might not be for the conversion of them that believe not?

Doth not the Apostle prove it might, v. 24. 25? and doth not Dr. Collings consesse it, when the unbe­liever goeth into the Church Assembly? pag. 85. If he supposeth that we grant Prophesie to be a sign, but not for their conversion, he is much mistaken, he may see it denyed, Preacher Sent. p. 102. neither is there a syl­lable that way, pag. 115. to which he is now reply­ing.

We may conclude from his words, and v. 22. that it is not a sign at all; for that verse plainly denyeth it to be a signe to unbelievers; and he saith (pag. 84.) if it were a signe at all, it must be for them who believed not, and this confirmeth our argument, pag. 102.

And let the Reader judge whether Dr. Collings hath not run into a self-contradiction in the following expressions of the same book.

1. The antithesis 1 Cor. 14. 22. (he saith) lyes here, that tongues were for a sign to heathens that believed not, but prophesying was a sign onely for such as believed, viz it was an act onely to to be performed within the1. It is plain, that if prophecying were for any signe, it must be for unbelievers; for believers needed no signe, Vind. Revind. pag. 84. Now that prophecy should be for their (i. e. unbe­lievers)
pale of the Churth; this text onely proves, that pro­phesie was no signe to them that believed not, Vind. Revind. pag. 73.conversion, and not a signe for it, seems very harsh, Vind. Revind. pag. 85.
2. Let any Reader judge, whether those words—but prophecying not for those who believe not—doe not plainly exclude the ordi­nance from any relation to unbelievers, -Vind. Revind. pag. 84.2. That v. 25. 26. prove that Prophesie is useful for the conversion of unbelievers, we grant it, but it is when the unbeliever comes in­to the Church assem­bly, Vind. Revind. Pag. 85.

We hope Dr. Collings understands by Prophecy, such Prophecy as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, otherwise we may tell him as he doth us (pag. 65.) he deceives his Reader with an equivocal word. Yea our present question is onely a­bout the Prophecy spoken of, 1 Cor. 14. and we deny that this Prophecying was for any sign either to believers or unbelievers. As ordinary preaching is now for the conversion of unbelievers, yet is not a sign for it, so was that Prophesying for their conversion, yet not a signe for it.

Whereas he saith (pag, 85.) ‘Prophecy is useful for the conversion of unbelievers, but it is when the unbe­liever comes into the Church Assembly, not when the Prophet goes out to them, v. 23. 24. and addeth, mark, the Prophet is tyed up to the Assembly of the Church in one place, and then blameth some for travelling up and down the countrey, and so pag. 73. 109.’

We consesse we wonder that Dr. Collings should professe himselfe to be of this mind. Is not this char­ged to be Independentism in the height of it, to tie [Page 52] up some Gospel-administrations to the Assembly of the Church in one place? Is there not as much, ver. 23. 24. to tie up from going out to any other Church As­semblies, as from going out to unbelievers? yea, is there not as much, 1 Cor. 11 17. 18. 20. 33. to tie up the Lords Supper to the Assembly of the Church in one place, as there is, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 23. 24. to confine pro­phesie to it? yet would he not blame us if we should say, a Pastor may administer the Lords Supper to be­lievers of other Churches when they come into the Church Assemblies, but must not go out to them?

The Assembly speaking of administering the Sacrament to members of another Church, tell us, surely he (i. e. an Elder) may as well do it when he goes to them, as when they come to him for it: Answ. of the Assem. pag. 7. and may not we say, that the Prophets may go to unbelievers, as well as they come to them? If the prophecying, Act. 19. 6. were an extraordinary gift, or conferred in an ex­traordinary way, this proveth not either that all prophecying, or that mentioned, 1 Cor. 14. was so.


Containing a short reply to what Dr. Collings saith in defence of his own Arguments.

OUr Arguments for the Preaching of some persons ordinarily in publike Assemblies, without Or­dination, being now cleared from those exceptions which he laid against them, Hence it appeareth that there are some Gospel Vind. Revind. p. 86. to p. 90. Precepts and Presidents which allow the ordinary publike Preaching of some gifted persons without Ordination, and this answereth his first Argument.

[Page 53] Argu. 1. None of the Scriptures he alleadgeth do prove that all Vind. Revind from Pag 86. to pag. 90. those that are to Preach the Go­spel, should be so solemnly set a­part for that work. And hence, some who are no Officers, nor extraordinarily gifted may ordinarily Preach in publike Assemblies, and therefore Preaching is not an act peculiar to Office, and this answereth his second argument, p. 90. 91.

Arg. 2. In our former book p. 199. we say distribution is materially an Vind. Revind. Pag. 90. act of a Deacons Office, but not for­mally; Barnabas and Saul distributed the Churches stock, Act. 11. vers. 29. 30. yet they were no Deacons.

That probationers (who are no Officers) may Preach, if it should be not ordinarily but occa­sionally, or onely once; seeing they will not al­low them to Baptize so much as once, this is enough to prove (from their practice) that if Bap­tizing be an act peculiar to Office, yet it will not fol­low, then Preaching is such; and also that Preaching is not peculiar to Office; and so, his excepting them out of the question cannot hinder the overthrow of his argument (pag. 92.) thereby.

That proper acts quarto modo (as he saith these are, (pag. 90.) should admit of so much as one exception, is strange Logick, and as much as to say they are pecu­liar to Officers, and yet not peculiar to them; and therefore his exceptions (pag. 93,) cannot help him. As to, Mat. 28. ver. 19, 20. We do not yet find that it was an Office-making Commission, but an enlarge­ment of the Commission of Officers to other persons, viz. to the Gentiles. If a man hath two Commissions to the same work, the latter may make him an Officer to more persons, but doth not make him more an Of­ficer [Page 54] then before; and his instance (pag. 94. about ejecting scandalous Ministers by one Commission in Norfolk, by another in Norwich, amounteth to no more; nor his second reply (pag. 94) we may grant that this Commission empowred them, yet not to be Preachers and baptizers, but to Preach to and baptize the Gen­tiles. They did not of non-Preachers become Preachers by this Commission, and such a Commission onely is to the present question about gifted mens Preach­ing.

His third reply consisteth partly of his meer con­jecture, and partly of what is truth, but not against us. The promise proveth that some in all Nations to the worlds end may warrantably be Preached unto and baptized, but it being a promise of Christs pre­sence with some in the work of Preaching, hence it presupposeth them to be empowred to Preach before the promise can be theirs, and therefore cannot consti­tute them Preachers.

As to pag. 95, 96. we were speaking onely of acts of Religious worship, which men were warranted to perform. And is a high-way-mans pronouncing the same sentence the Judge doth, allowed by the Laws of men for the same end that the Judges act is; as exhort­ing and admonishing are allowed to men out of Of­fice by the Lawes of God for the same end that Of­ficers perform them? or can the sprinkling and power­ing water on the face of Children, or the breaking of bread and giving it to them, be deemed any acts of Religious worship, or are men allowed by the Lord to perform these acts for the same ends that an Officer doth, in administering baptisme and the Lords Sup­per? if not, how doth this take off our answer about exhorting and admonishing? In what way and man­ner men out of Office may perform these acts, we have proved elsewhere.

[Page 55] Argu. 3. As to his third Argument, from the uselesness of the Ministerial Vind. Revind. Pag. 96. Office, as to its chief act, if this practice be allowed.

We utterly deny it. The Ministerial Office is not set up as to that act in vain, though many out of Of­fice may Preach; neither doth his instances (pag. 99.) in Justices, Colonels, Captains, &c. prove it. For the main end of establishing Justices of the Peace is, the conservation of the peace, which others may en­deavour who are no Justices.

The main act of Colonels, and Captains, and the main end for which they are established is, fight­ing with an enemy, and every common souldier is bound to fight even in open field as well as they, yet their Office is not set up in vain as to that act. If he shall say, others do not act as Justices in keeping the peace, or that common Souldiers do not Command a Regiment or company in fighting; we answer, no more do gifted men Preach to a Church as Officers, as Pastors to it.

And Reader, know that he offereth thee and us much wrong in telling thee (pag. 99.) that we say [the Preaching of a man in Office, is an act peculiar to Office.] If this be not sence, the fault is his whose words they are.

Our words may be seen, Preacher Sent. pag. 203. If we say Preaching in it self is no act of Office, surely therein we deny some Preaching to be the main or chief act of Office, and so do speak directly to his argu­ment. Yet we may grant that there is Preaching which is a main and chief act of Office. Whereas he desireth to know the difference between these wayes of Preaching; in the fore-cited place of our former book he may see it.

[Page 56] That which is a main act of Office is a preaching as under a special relation to them that are preached to, as being over them in the Lord, and having them committed to ones charge for feeding with the word, Act 20. v. 28. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. The other preach­ing is not after this manner. And this is not an emp­ty motion (as he calleth it, pag. 102, 103) but a real difference; for, if an officer of our Church preacheth to many other Churches often, yet he is not over, nor hath the charge of many Churches committed to him, onely Episcopal men will assert that. So whosoever preacheth to unconverted heathens and Indians, cannot (with any Scripture evidence) be said to be over those Infidels in the Lord, or to have them committed to his chaege; onely a Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood is capable of such a commitment, Acts 20. 28. and therefore it is one thing to preach, and another thing to preach as over those in the Lord,—that are Preached to, and this may answer what he saith, pag. 102, 103. We say gifted men by Christs appointment, do the same acts materially, that Officers performe in their preaching, and that for those ends he mentioneth of Conviction, Convertion, and Edification; yet there is a vast difference between their actings.

And that Christs appointing both the one and the o­ther, should make their authority the same (which he asserteth, Vind. Revind. pag. 102.) is strange, Colo­nels, Captaines, &c. may have commissions from one man, yet have different authorities. Another may be appointed by a master of a house to do some work, yet not have the same authority that the steward hath. Our Examples do plainly shew that different relations do empower for and lay under obligations to the same acts materially; and thence it followes that the belonging of such acts to one relation, can be no [Page 57] Proof that the other relation is vain, uselesse, or un­necessary as to those acts.

The parental relation is not vain and uselesse as to instruction, if other relations or friends be under some obligations to give instructions to the same children; Nor will it speak the bayliffs office in a Corporation to be uselesse and un-necessary, if the free-men may put forth some of the same Acts which they do. No more will the Lords establishing standing officers for the work of preaching or Governement (both which we mentioned, Preacher Sent. pag. 203, 204.) argue that none else may act herein, nor wil officers be useless and un-necessary as to those acts, if gifted men may preach, and the Church act in government. And this answereth divers of his exceptions, pag. 103. 104. only we shall add; that his straining one of our similitudes to make it run on four feet, for the drawing this out of it [That gifted men may preach, or may let it a lone] and then adding many lines (pag. 103.) to disprove what himselfe hath wrested out of it, is far from a canded dealing with us, especially seeing the very words of our similitude do plainly deny this sense of it, and these words he hath concealed.

Our similitude runneth thus, A Christian friend or neighbour may and [ought] to give gratious, and whol­some instructions, &c. If he had rightly applyed the si­militude, he must have said, so gifted men may and [ought] to preach,—and then he would not have used so many words to prove that they are not at their li­berty, whether they will preach or no. Likewise our words are [the one is under a standing obligation by the parental relation to performe such acts, the other not] He giveth our words thus;

The one is under a standing obligation, the other not, Whereas our words do not deny friends to be under an obligation to such acts, but assert their [Page 58] obligation to be indifferent from that which is paren­tal.

He granteth (pag. 105.) that our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture, and whether there be any ground in Scripture for the preaching of gifted men, let the Reader judge. That Apostles and Evangelists differed in nothing from Pastors and Teachers, but in the extent of their power, which he asserteth (pag. 105.) we apprehend is a great mi­stake, for besides a power of miraculous operation, they had immediate inspirations and infalible directi­ons from the holy spirit.

As to their being Officers, its answered, Preacher Sent. Pag. 209. We conclude that Apostles and Evan­gelists, and Pastors and Teachers also, were needful then; but his argument seemeth to us to deny some of them to, be necessary in those dayes. We might as well say, that where Pastors and teachers were resi­dent, there was no need of Apostles or Evangelists for preaching or such ordinary acts, as he may say (pag. 106.) that when they were resident in this or that particular Church, there was no need of Pastors or Teachers, and his reason will be as strong for us as for him, because they could do all their acts.

And surely when there were many Apostles at Jeru­salem, and Prophets at Corinth, 1 Cor. 14. though all did not speak at the same time, yet none were un-ne­cessary, no more are gifted men. We may turn his argument, pag. 98. upon himselfe.

God doth nothing in vain.

But in case the preaching of Officers could render it un-ecessary for gifted men to do it, then he had done something in vain; for we have proved that he hath appointed gifted men to preach, Ergo, it is false that gifted men may not do it.

Arg. 4. His fourth argument is taken from the com­mitting [Page 59] of Gospel truths to faithfull men (who shall be able to teach others) by Gods Timothies, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Ʋind. Revind. pag. 106.

To what he saith about mens being able to inter­pret the Gospel out of the Original into their own Tongue, we answer,

1. We grant a knowledg of the Original to be a good help, yet its not absolutely necessary, as himselfe con­fesseth.

2. It is learning in Gospel mystries that the Text speaketh of, 2 Tim. 2.

2. The things thou hast heard of me, commit, &c.

As to what followeth, we say, it is a commitment, of the word, not of persons; they to whom this commit­ment was, were set over none thereby. It was to be committed [...], the Epethite of members Eph. 1. 1.

The Church in other Scriptures (not Officers one­ly) is the object of the commitment, Rom. 3. 2. cal­led therefore the pillar and ground of truth.

1. If the ability be before commitment then he must say a man may be morally able to preach before Or­dination, for id possumus quod jure possumus, and so his argument falleth; for the committing is not ordaining.

If the ability be attained by committing those things to them, Why doth he (pag. 107.) deny it to be an effect or end thereof? And seeing the Gospel owneth a committing doctrinal, and this doth make men naturally able, how will it ever be proved that a morall ability is onely intended? And unlesse that be proved, his argument is of no force; for men must be naturally able, before they may warrantably be or­dained, if that were a committing of Gospel truths to men. And that the ability is subsequent, is plain, [who shall be able—]

2. It cannot be concluded, that the future is used [Page 60] for the present-tense, but when [...]special reason doth enforce it, and none is found here.

3. Men ought to commitCospel truths unto others, doctrinally without a certaine rule to assure them who should be converted, strengthened or comforted; and as well might he do it in this case, without assurance that every one should be able; and therefore his query pag. 107. how could he know who they should be? is of no concernement.

4. It must be proved not onely that ordination is necessary, but that it is the committing of Gospel truths which is spoken of, 2 Tim. 2. 2. or else this ar­gument is of no force.

5. He required what means the restriction of faith­full men, Vind. Revind. pag. 40. We answered this in our former book, and shall add thus much; The Apo­stle careth about a succession of truth, which might be most hopefully expected from faithfull men, and therefore he would have it committed unto them, espe­cially for that end; thus the restriction, Iob. 21. v. 15. 17, feed my sheep, doth notifie that they especially are to be fed.

6. We do not grant that the other committing is meant, but if it were, the manner must necessarily be understood, else it will not help him at all.

We do not deny that teaching publikly is intended, but how he can tell us, its meant of publike teachers, and yet say, the Apostle plainly speakes de re of the thing, not de modo, of the manner of performance, Vind. Vindic. pag. 140. would be considered.

And if it be understood of Officers, that is not ex­clusive of gifted men.

Arg. 5. His fifth argument is from their requiring lawfully a maintenance, Vind. Revin. pag. 109. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 18 Math. 10. 10. Gal. 6. 6.

[Page 61] Hespeaketh very little to our replyes unto this; we say the Scriptures alleadged, speak of a constant preach­ing, he denyeth that, Mat. 10. 10. or Gal. 6. 6. hint the least of such a thing.

Why will he trouble the Reader with such words without profit? Will he allow of any occasional? if not, why doth he so much as seem to deny these to be constant 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 [Page 62] 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 me [...]ns of his word and providence, but we no where call these [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] 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 [Page 65] which were immediate commands to them, are medi­ate commands to us to watch, and the watching is the same, and so may the mission then and now be the same. And if Mat. 28. 19. were not the same mission that others have now, why doth he alleadge that place to prove Preaching and Baptizing in the same Com­mission. Vind. pag. 35. Vind. Revind. pag. 92. 94. and say that it doth establish a constant Office of the Ministry to the worlds end? And to be sure the Apostles mission was not Ordination.

As for a mission to the whole Catholick Church, which he speaketh of, p. 117. it is an unscriptural noti­on, and no reason being produced to countenance it, we should but waste paper to multiply words about it; and this is our answer to his fifth chapter.


Concerning Apollo and Johns baptisme, as also the Texts for Election.

OUr argument, from the preaching of Apollo is such as spiritual weapons being wanting to fight with it, he is fleeing to the carnal weapons of bitter words, and seeketh that way to prevail against it.

We had occasion to say that the baptism of Iohn & the baptism of Christ are distinguished each from other. Hereupon he saith (pag. 118.) This argument (as to the matter of it) is purely Popish and false, as to the forme of it, and its usage in this case is primarily Soci­nian; as to both, false, and no way conclusive. And di­verse arguments he bringeth to prove Iohns baptisme and Christs to be the same; We grant they are the same in kind, they are not two Baptismes, and [Page 66] so all his Arguments are needless and concern not us.

But that the baptisme of John is (as we said) distin­guished from the Baptisme of Christ, is generally as­serted by Protestant writers, and may appear,

Argu. 1. From the defectiveness of that knowledge which reacheth no further then Johns Baptisme, Act. 18. 25. It had been in vain to say, he knew [onely] the Baptisme of John, if there had been nothing more to be known besides what was in that baptisme: and his learning the way of God more perfectly from Aquila and Priscilla, ver. 26. doth intimate the imper­fection of it. Now if any thing be to be known, be­sides what belonged to Johns Baptisme, it must be­long to Christs Baptisme, and so proveth them to be distinguished.

Argu. 2. From clear Scripture, Luke 7. ver. 28. He that is least in the Kingdom of God is greater then he, i. e. then John Baptist. So Mat. 11. ver. 11. [...] i. e. Praeftantior, nempe quoad genus doctrinae quippe quae tum erit longe illustrior & jucundior piscat. Inloc. How could the least in the Kingdom of God be greater then John, if his Baptisme were not differenced from Christs?

Argu 3. From the non-appointment either of Ordination, or of those Officers which are to be Or­dained, until after the Baptisme of John; it was im­possible to know by Johns Baptisme that there should be Pastors and Teachers, or that they should receive such an Ordination: the institution for these Of­fices did not come until afterward, and are onely to be found amongst the Doctrines of Christ, and so prove a difference between the Baptismes, let any shew an institution for these amongst any of the doctrines of John, otherwise, Act. 18 ver. 25. Apollo's Preaching when he knew onely the Baptisme of John (which did give no knowledge of Ordination) is a full proof, that [Page 67] he did, and others may preach without ordination; Dr. Collings, Vind. Revind. p. 117. 118. useth these words; Bellarmine and other Jesuites and Papists say, that the baptism of Christ and Iohn were distinguished,-but I cannot tell that any Protestants said so, before our bre­thren. And pag. 121. he addeth these words, That our bretheren may be ashamed ever to bring this ar­gument into the field again; I must tell them, that as the Papists laid the foundation, so the blasphemous Socinian was the first I ever met with, who built up­on it.

Reader, if the odious names of Papist and Socinian can raise such a dust as to blind thine eyes, thou wilt be in danger here to loose sight of the truth, but that these charges are altogether groundlesse in the present case, may appear,

1. Because we do not distinguish them as (Papists do) in the substance, but onely in the circumstance; we did not say they are diverse kinds of baptismes, but diverse in the manner of Revelation, and in this they whom he citeth against us are for us, and Chemnitius expressely treats of, and asserts the difference. Exam. Con. Trid. can. de Bapt. Will Dr. Collings say, that nothing can be distinguished unlesse it be diversified in kind? Is not a man in a married state distingui­shed from himselfe in a single state? Is not the new Moon distinguished from the old, yet the same Moon? Surely as well may Iohns baptisme be distinguished from Christs.

2. Because many both ancient and moderne writers (who were neither Papists nor Socinians) have asser­ted the baptisme of Iohn and Christ to be distingui­shed, yea, some of them have gone further then we in this matter. Cyprian who flourished about the yeare of our Lord 250. useth these word [...] Praeparabat viam Domino Joannes lavando exterius Corpora, ut praecede­ret [Page 68] exterius lavacrum secuturum baptisma, in quo conferre­tur animarum ablutio, & peccatorum remissio. Praecessit quod er at ex parte ut consummatio sequeretur. Cyprian. De baptismo Christi & manifestatione Trinitatis, page 436.

And of the same mind was Tertullian and other of the Antients.

A [...]o Aretius saith, Ministerium suum baptizandi di­stinguit a Christi baptismo. Ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu Sancto & igni; primum fatetur baptizandi munus utri­que esse commune, sed in se plurimum differre, &c. Aret. in M [...]. 3. v. 11. pa [...]. 133.

Piscator in Mat. 3. v. 11. pag. 70. Discrimen tantum est in circumstantia temporis quia Johannes baptizavit in Chris­tum paulo post manifestandum, Acts 19. 4. at Apostoli illorumque successores baptizarunt & baptizant in Christum jam manifestatum.

Spanhem. Du [...]. Evang. par. 3. pag. 72. 73. gi­eth a distinction, and then saith, Applicatio distinctio­nis est eandem fuisse baptismi Johannis substantiam, essenti­am, significationem, efficatiam quae baptismi Christi; Discrimen reperiri tantum in circumstantiis & acciden­talibus, [...] pag. 73. in circumstantis temporis quia bap­tismus Johannis anterior, in modo significationis, quia bap­tizabat in Christum venturum, in efficatia spiritus, quae Christo jam plene manifesto major, & aliis id genus.

Calvin in Act. 19. 4. our baptisme at this day doth not differ any thing from it (i. e. from Iohns bap­tisme) save onely that Christ is already revealed, and in his death and resurrection our salvation is made perfect.

Keckerman. S [...]st. Theol. l. 3. pag. 453.

Johannes baptismus quoad substantiam idem fuit cum baptismo Christi, [...]iamsitempore, aut aliis quibusdam cir­cumstantiis fuerit [...]iversus.

[Page 69] To the same purpose speaketh Vrsin. catech. p. 2. pag. 432.

Trelcatius Instit. Theol. l. 2. pag. 204, 205. Duae sunt causae cur inter suum & Christi baptismum distinguat. Pri [...]r ut notet differentiam inter baptismum extrenum a­quae & baptismum internum spiritus; altera▪ ut distinguat inter personam & officium suum, & inter personam & [...]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, Justi [...]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 Lord [...] 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 [...]e same, as to the substance and essence o [...] them; yet even they, and many others before them, as Cypri­an, Tertull.—have asserted, that the baptisme of Iohn [Page 70] 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 Synecdochi [...]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 sigi [...]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 1 [...] 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 Za [...]chy and others (who were neither Papists nor Socinians) were of that judgement, as we [Page 71] 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. 1 [...]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 ch [...]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 [Page 72] 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 are pleading for. If it be said it was immediately and (as he supposeth p. 122.) by an extraordinary motion of the Holy Spirit, as they at least might think, as it is not like that the Spirit should so stir up two to offer themselves unto aservice, which it was certaine but one of them should be ap­pointed unto, so there is not a syllable in the Text to countenance such a conjecture. And their thinking▪ it to be from the spirit, could not have given a ground for that prayer, v. [...]4.

3. Whereas he telleth us (Vind. Revind. p. 122. 123.) if any did choose, it is not said the multitude did it, and he conceiveth by Disciples. v. 15. only the Apostles are meant, distinguished by this name from the [...] We answer it was in the midst of the 120. that Peter [Page 73] stood up and spake, for they are expressely said to be [...] in one place, and therefore not onely the Apostles, but the 120 were meant by Disciples, Acts 1. 15. for, those in the midst of whom he stood up are called Disciples.

Again, it is not said that besides the Disciples there was 120. but the number of names [...] in one place was about 120. and therefore the Apostles (be­ing in that same place as appeareth, ver. 13, 14.) were part of the 120▪ and of the [...] there mentioned.

And as it were purposely to answer this objection of the term Disciple being distinguished from [...] it is said Luke 6. vers. 17. [...] the company of [...]is Disciples. And that the directions about the choice should be given to all the 120. in that one place, and onely the eleven Apostles (who least needed such directions) should be the onely choosers, who can imagine it?

4. Whereas he saith (pag. 123.) God here chose. We answer, The Election of two out of the company, was given to the Disciples, the Election of one of these two belonged to God, because else he could not have had an immediate Call, or have been an Apostle.

Suppose it were referred to the people of a County to pitch upon two, and this determined that one of the two should be a Parliament man, or some other of­ficer to the County, it would be reckoned that the peo­ple had a great priviledge, yea that they did chose the Parliament man or other officers, though the choice of the Supream Magistrate did determine which of the two should stand: so in the case in hand the peoples choice did determine that one of the two should be an Apostle, though God chose the one. And if he will say (as pag. 123.) that this is just nothing, let him consider that the word used to expresse the peoples Election, [Page 74] Act. 1. 23. is [...] which is the same that is used to expresse Ordination, Act. 6. 3. Tit. 1. ver. 5. onely with the addition of the Preposition [...] which (as learned men observe) doth not specifically alter the significa­tion, and so (according to his assertion) Ordination must be just nothing too.

2. As to Act. 6. ver. 3, 4, 5. it clearly holdeth forth the peoples power for election.

We have evidenced the validity of our Argument from the less to the greater affirmatively, Preach. Sent. pag. 225. 226. but if he liketh it not this way, we have argued from this Text for the peoples election, from the less to the greater Negative, pag. 227. and surely it will hold one of these wayes.

Object. 1. That Church, Acts 6. was the Ʋniversal Church, as well as a particuliar Church; as Adam though a particular man, yet was at that time all man-kind, &c. Vind. Revind. p. 124.

Answ. Nothing can be said to be both particular and Universal.

1. Universal and particular are distinct species: as nothing is proper and common, ordinary and extra­ordinary at the same time, so nor Universal and parti­cular.

2. Universal and particular are relata, nothing is both relate and Correlate in the same relation, Ergo, nothing can be particular and Universal. Let him not think to improve this against us upon the rule of relations, posito uno ponitur & alterum.

Ʋniversale fundamental▪ we grant, not f [...]rma [...]. A multitude of Churches, and in each the common na­ture, really particular, conceptively Universal, accord­ing to the rule, Ʋniversale est unum in multis.

3. Adam was a particular man, an individuum in the day of his Creation, and afterward nothing more, nothingless: the common nature was in him, apt to [Page 75] be predicated of many, but it was not proper to say Adam was man-kind, or Adam was a Catholick man. Homo est Ʋniversale was true, not est Ʋniversalis.

4. He taketh Universal for an integrum made up of many as parts; and how can an integrum exist in one member, a heap in one stone, a flock in one sheep, &c?

Object. 2. The persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen, and they had discern­ing spirits, Act. 2. Acts 4. 31.

Answ. If extraordinary gifts made the act extraor­dinary as to Election, then so also as to Ordination, and therein its no president; for, the persons had as extraordinary gifts who ordained, Act. 6. v. 6.

Object. 3. The power as to the choice of Church Of­ficers, is moral, not natural, viz. such a power as they have from the will of God, nothing can demonstratively be con­cluded, because the will of another being the fountain of the power, acteth freely, and may make it lawful to choose the greater, and yet unlawful to choose the less, &c. Vind. Re­vind. pag. 125.

Answ. 1. Our Argument is the same that the London Ministers use; onely we apply it to election, they to Ordination, as may be seen Preach. Sent. pag. 224. And therefore it is no certain Argument for them, if it be not for us.

2. The main (if not the only) argument for Church Government by Classical, Provincial, National and oecumenical Assemblies, is taken from the less to the greater Affimatively; and many things speak it to be invalid and non-conclusive in that case, which cannot be alleadged in this.

Thus they argue from, Mat. 18. see Answer. of As­semb. pag. 178.

3. An Argument from the less to the greater in some cases is so certain, that it is a ground for [...]aith to act [Page 76] upon, Mat. 6. ver. 26. Luke 12. 6. 7. and 11. v. 13. as we shewed, Preacher Sent. pag. 126.

And must it not needs be a certain Argnment when those pleaded for are undoubtedly invested with power to put forth the same act (not distributing onely, but collectively and) in the same manner, and when an instituted relation cannot be introduced, nor the ends of it in an ordinary way be attained without the act, and when other grounds and reasons are more strong for exerting the acts towards the greater then towards the less?

And this is the case in the present Argument, for the people in a Church are certainly invested with power to choose Deacons, Act. 6. and election is Essential (as we have elsewhere proved) unto the Pastoral relation, and so it cannot be without it, neither in an ordinary way could there be a free submission to, or a receiving edification by such Pastors as are imposed upon a people, which being matters more especially of soul­concernment, do speak the grounds to be more strong, for a Churches choosing Pastors, who are the greater, then Deacons who are the less.

Object. 4. The height of argument from this Text is, It is probable——And we say it is not probable. 1. Be­cause a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon, then of a Pastor. 2. Because this Church was more able to judge of both then any Church is now, Vind. Re­vind. pag. 26.

Ans. 1. That Churches of Christ now are able to judge of the abilities of Pastors, we proved, Preacher Sent pag 225. 237. and so his improbabilities vanish.

2. There is nothing in the Text to prove that the ability of that Church (above any now) was any rea­son of its choosing Deacons.

And if it were, that renders it as improbable that any Officers now should judge of a mans abilities so [Page 77] much as to be a Deacon; for as no Church, so no Of­ficers in these dayes are extraordinarily gifted.

Oject. 5. [...] doth not in Scripture alwayes signifie, either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of, nor yet the major part. That neither the whole, nor yet the major part of the Church was present, be would prove,

  • 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls, Act. 1. 15. and 2. 41. and 4. 4.
  • 2. It was at this time in a faction, Act. 6. 1. Vind. Revind. pag. 127.

Ans. 1. Notes of Universality have their limita­tions and subject a materia, but where the subject mat­ter is Universal, there is no exception. In Act. 6. both substantive and adjective is Universal, ver. 5. The say­ing pleased, or was accepted coram toto populo. The Pharisees tythed every herb, Luke 11. ver. 42. not every one in the world, but every herb which they possessed, Luk. 18. 12.

2. It doth not appear that the number was so great as is supposed the 3000, converted ones, Act. 2. 41. were of them which came together to hear, of many were but comorantes Hierosolymis, not dwelling there, though it be so translated, ver. 5. So Calvin, Aretius, &c. who, the Feasts being over, removed to their own home. Nor can it be proved that the 5000. mentioned. Act. 4. were believers, but hearers, ver. 4. many of them which heard the wor [...], believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

It is not probable that there ever was a greater pre­sence of God then at Pentecost. A conflux of many was ordinary in those days, Luke 12. 1.

It is a common thing for men at varience to meet together for the choosing Arbitrators to end their dif­ferences, and so might the multitude (though divided, or as he phraseth it in a faction) meet together and agree in the choice of Deacons.

[Page 78] 3. As to, Act. 14. ver. 23. it clearly holdeth forth a Churches power to chuse its Officers.

Obj. 1. Were not those that ordained or chose those that confirmed and exhorted, ver. 22.—if they were, it is sure e­nough Paul & Barnabas were the men. He enquireth, whether [...] be not joyned by apposition with [...] and [...], or what other Syntax of the words accord­ing to any Grammatical Rules can be endured? he saith the Disciples are the persons confirmed and exhorted, &c. Vind. pag. 128.

Ans. 1. That those which Ordained or chose by suffrages were, not onely those that confirmed and exhorted, ver. 22. Or that the Disciples, the Churches did [...], and not Paul and Barnabas onely, we have so fully proved (Preacher Sent. pag. 230. &c.) that we are perswaded no impartial reader (who shall com­pare his Book and ours together) will in the least question it, by all that he hath said.

2. [...] doth answer to the question, if it be asked who did [...], Vid. Preacher Sent. p. 243.

3. [...] is dicitur, qui praeest [...], see Dr. Ames, Bellarm. Enerv. T. 2. pag. 97.

And thus Paul and Barnabas might be said [...] though they onely went before the Churches in the choice, as we proved, Preacher Sent. pag. 230. &c.

The people had their free Election, but least there should any Tumult arise, Paul and Barnabas fit as chief moderators, saith Calvin in loc.

And therefore if [...] be joyned by apposition with [...] & [...] this might intimate that Paul and Barnabas were modera­tors or directors in the choice, but it cannot deny the people to be the choosers.

We have given arguments (and Dr. Ames did it be­fore) to evidence that the people must be the choosers, [Page 79] yet [an it may be] is sufficient to shew the non-con­clusiveness of our brethrens arguments for the deny­ing the peoples choosing.

As to his 4. particular, Vind. Revind. pag. 129. 130. we say,

1. That [...] is never used either in Scrip­tures or other authors before Luke; for ordination or imposition of hands is enough to prove that (without special reason which is not yet produced) it cannot be taken in such a sense here.

As it is not granted that, Ordaining is the constitu­ting creating act of an Officer, so it is not proved that [...] expresseth any act which is used in or­dination.

2. That [...] is, Creare per suffragria, to create by suffrages, see Stephan.

Even Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 55. telleth us, that [...] do originally signifie that kind of Election which is made [by many] expressing their consent, and giving their voices or suffrages by lifting up of their hands, &c.

And why should it be a riddle to Dr. Collings, that we [according to the common usage of the word] should expresse the signification by suffrages or voices, when himselfe giveth a signification of it (pag 130.) which taketh neither [...] nor [...] into it, unlesse it can be proved that [...] was used to expresse a choice in an assembly by the suffrage onely of one or two, nothing is said to the case, Acts 14. 23. or against our argument; Paul and Barnabas being but two, there could be no place for suffrages, say the London Ministers, Jus. Divin. Min. pag. 130.

According to their Grammer as well as ours, two persons could not make suffrages.

He requireth, why could not Paul and Vind. Rev. pag. 129. Barnabas make suffrages? surely they [Page 80] made two, and that is the Plural number sure.

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 partings, 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 or [...]ination, and thence infer that Paul and Bar­nabas could not be the only persons that did [...]

[Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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.


Shewing that Officers stand in relation (as Officers) to a particular Church onely, not to a Ʋniversal 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 [Page 84] passages of his Book, and so leave it to the Reader to judge between us.

The Provincial Assemblies definition of Office is this, The Office of the Ministry is a spiritual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry, in a Person qualified, founded upon a special and regular Call, Jus Div. Min. pag. 3.

This we excepted against, because either it altogether omiteth or else determineth employment to be the correlate unto this relation, and either way it is very faulty. For, it is grossely to swarve from the right Rules of a definition, to omit the correlate in defining a particular relation, which is Essential to the thing de­fined; even themselves say, that Relatives cannot be un­derstood the one without the other, Jus Divin. Min. p. 2. we infer, Ergo they cannot be defined aright, the one without the other.

And there is nothing in their definition to be the correlate, unless it be [employment,] and that this cannot be it, our four Arguments do evidence, Preacher Sent. pag. 5. 6. 7.

So that Mr. Poole may see that our Arguments were not onely brought to batter down one expression brought in, onely obiter and occasionally as he sup­poseth, pag. 3. but to discover a very considerable de­fect or imperfection in their definition, which was made more obvious by that expression.

He saith (pag. 3.) it was not the design of the As­sembly to deny the Ministry to be a relation to a Church, nor was it their business accurately to insist upon the notions of relate and correlate; they never called the work of the Ministry the correlate, but one­ly obiter they asserted the Office of the Ministry to be better defined, by relation to the work, then to a particular Church, which he saith we have not dis­proved.

[Page 85] Answ. We speak nothing of an accurate insisting on the notions of relate and correlate, but we say, it is a false definition of a particular relation, if nothing be asserted as the correlate, and therefore their not de­nying a Church, nor asserting work to be the corre­late, will not help, unless they had affirmed and proved something else to be it.

Our proving (in the second question) a particular Church onely to be the correlate, is enough to dis­prove that expression; for Office must needs be better defined by its reference to its correlate, then by its end.

His instance about a King (pag. 3.) cannot salve the business; For it were very improper to say, the Office of a King is a relation to Ruling, and to give this as the definition of that; and as absurd were it to say, that the Office of a King is better defined by Ruling, then by relation to his Subjects or Kingdom; and it is not paralel unlesse it runneth us. And so it is absurd to say that the abstract Ministry is better defined by relation to the work, then to a particular Church; for we have proved that such a Church is the correlate, work not so, but onely the end.

That office is a predicamental, and not a Transcen­dendal or nominal relation, and that a potential being is not sufficient in such a relation, he may see in our reply to Dr. Collings.

But to clear the matter more fully, and make way for the next question, as a clew leading the right way out of this controversie, we shall give this distincti­on. The terms Office and Officer may be taken large­ly or strickly, in a general or a special sence.

1. In an general sence, there is an Officer to man, and the [...], or work it self is the Office wherein one man doth serve another: thus a m [...]n may be an Officer from an inferiour to a superiour, or from one [Page 86] equal to another, and have no relation proper or Pre­dicamental growing thereupon. In this large sense, gifted men preaching, yea any Church-members ex­ercising any gift, or doing any work for the profit of the body or Church, may be called officers, and the work an Office, as Rom. 12. 4. [...] is translated Office.

But this is an Officer without Rule or Govern­ment, of whom in this controversy we speak not: In this sense, though Apostles or others be considered as Officers to heathens, it doth not at all contradict us.

2. In a special sense there is an officer over man: as a Prince over his subjects, a master over his ser­vants, so a pastor over his flock; this is an officer with power of Rule and Government.

Whensoever the Scripture speaketh of Office or Offi­cer, notified by the Titles of Pastor, Teacher, Elder, or Bishop, they are taken thus, Acts 20. 28. Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12. And thus we constantly con­sidered it in our former book called, The Preacher Sent. In this sense Apostles were not officers, nor did preach as Officers to the heathens; they had no power of Rule or Governement over them, 1 Corin. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge those that are without?

Quest. Whether officers stand in relation (as officers) to a particular Church onely?

We hold the affirmative part; Mr Poole would have them officers to the whole Church, (pag. 6. 7. &c.) by which we suppose he intendeth a Church Catho­like visible.

To his premises and preamble we say,

The Judgement of Churches is not our Rule, but the Scripture, & we can find no such Synods as he speaketh of there. Acts 15. holdeth forth that one Church may send messengers in difficult cases to an other Church [Page 87] as Antioch did there to Jerusalem, for help and council, but it cannot be proved that any acts of Government were there put forth, towards any absent Churches, and therefore this is no warrant for provincial or Oc­cumenical Synods.

We wish that all differences in judgement amongst the Saints were at an end, but we are not to silence a truth of Christ, because some deare friends are dissen­ters, neither is the difference between congregatio­nal brethren so great in this point as he supposeth, We do not obtrude our Notions upon the world, but have published our perswasions with our grounds, de­siring that they may be weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and that either others may receive light from us, or we from them.

Premise, 1. He premiseth (pag. 6.) a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church, 1. Actu Secundo, actually, immediately, absolutely, and independent­lie.

2. Actu primo, habitually, aptitudinally, mediately conditionally & dependingly, so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where, but may not exercise that jus or power every where, but by the consent of the Church or Rulers, &c.

Answ. To assert an habituall Minister or Officer, seemeth to us no better then to assert an habitual King, Justice, Constable, or an habitual husband, Father, &c.

To be habitually and conditionally a Minister to a Church, and to be no minister to it, is all one.

1. That Ministers have a jus or power to teach every where Office-wise, is not proved; the place al­leadged, [go preach the Gospel to every creature] in­joyneth the exercise of the power, and so must prove that they ought to exercise their power every where, if it were to his purpose; but the Scriptures frequent­ly [Page 88] witnesse, and himselfe confesseth that they may not exercise that power but by the consent of the Church or Rulers.

2. That any unblameable Officers of Christ should be iustly hindred from the exercise of all Office-power, or have none that they can (in Christs order) exer­cise it upon, whilst the Office-power continueth upon them, in a strange paradox: For all that have Office­power, are actually and immediately under a command of Christ to do office-work; as those Scriptures which speak of the duty of Officers do abundantly testifie; and so Christ should command the same persons, at the same time, to do, and yet not to do Office-work, and then Christs commands should clash one with an other. Now suppose such an Officer hath no particu­lar flock, and all Churches and Rulers deny their con­sent, either from their being full of Officers, or upon other lawful accounts; in this case he will be justly hindred from the exercise of all office-power, and hath none that he can exercise it upon; for Mr. Poole confes­seth (p. 6.) he may not exercise the power, but by the consent of the Church or Rulers.

We might shew many other inconveniencies that the asserting officrs to have a habitual power over a uni­versal Church, draw along with it, but we forbear, saying onely this; It doth not looke like the order of Christ, that a Ministers power should extend to the Catholike Church, when it is impossible that he should ever exercise that power (it may be) to the thousand part of that Church; nay, when he is by divine right fixed in a particular Church, the residing in which, forbiddeth his traveling to do acts of Office to the uni­versal.

Premis. 2. He premiseth (pag. 7.) that a general respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church.

[Page 89] This he illustrateth by an instance of a vast number of sheep, which twenty shepherds are chosen to look unto; and by the German Empire, &c.

Ans. 1. We deny that there is such a whole Church as he supposeth, for which denyal we have given rea­sons else where. And let the Reader take notice once for all, that when ever we speak as if there were such a whole Church or Catholike Church, we onely sup­pose it, but do not grant it in his sense.

2. Suppose there were such a Church, we denie that any institution of Christ hath determined ordina­ry officers to have a general respect (as Officers) to the whole Church; and so his infrances of a vast number of sheep, and the Empire come to nothing.

3 A peculiar respect to some one Church is incon­sistent with the same relation to an other: for, nothing is peculiar but that which is appropriated; Israel was Gods peculiar people, that is, his onely.

As to his instance about sheep, we say, If the Master of the sheep chooseth the twenty shepherds, and com­mitteth the whole number of sheep to them, then the actual care of every sheep is upon every one; and if but one sheep be lost, every shepherd will fall under blame, neither will the distributing the sheep into twenty parcels (though some be careful of their par­cels) excuse any from blame, the distribution or division being the act of the Shepherds (according to his infrance) not the Act of the Master. If the catholike Church were thus committed to officers, then every Officer would be blameable for the wandrings of any one member of that Church, though their habi­tations were thousands of miles distant each from o­ther.

But Christ hath committed onely a particular Church or flock of his sheep, to the charge of any one of his officers; and if others, not of a mans own flock, [Page 90] do miscarry, his not seeking their reducement to the utmost of his ability and opportunity, is a sin against charity, but not against his office according to any Gos­ple rule that yet we can find. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is not rebaked for the miscarriages of the Church of Smyrna; nor is the Angel of the Church of Smyrna reproved for the sins of Pergamus, or Thyatira, or Sardis, Revel. 2, and 3. but every Angel is reproved for the sins of that particular Church which he was set over.

As to his instance of the German Empire (page 8.) we say it hath a vast disparity in it to the case in hand, For there are no acts to be performed in the Church (to make a double relation necessary) answerable to those in the Empire.

If no Emperours were to be chosen, or acts of gene­ral concernement to the whole Empire, as such, to be exerted, those Princes or Electors would not sustain any such general relation to the whole Empire: and there being no universal Church-officer to be chosen, or any acts of instituted worship to be perfor­med, which are peculiar to a universal Church, as such, hence the cases are vastly different, and also it is very improbable that such an order should be of Christs appointment. They have not one by Systeme of Lawes, neither are these Electors or Princes intrus­ted with a joint-power for the ordinary government of the whole, but every free Prince hath power to make what Lawes he will, and if he will allow every congre­gational Church as entire a power within it selfe, as every of those Princes hath within his own Terri­tories, we suppose no power beyond that will belong to any but Christ himselfe.

Ob. The Apostles were Pastors of the whole Church, yet the work was divided among them, and they undertook aspeciall relation to some particular parts, as Peter to the [Page 91] Jewes, and Paul to the Gentiles, James to Jerusalem, &c. Mr. Poole, pag 8.

Ans. 1. The Apostles were extraordinary officers, our question is onely about ordinary officers.

2. The Apostles had immediate directions from the Lord where to labour in the work of their office, Act. 13. 4. Act. 16. 9. Act. 10. ver. 19. 20. yea that commit­ting of the Jewes to Peter, and of the Gentiles to Paul seemeth to be by immediate ducture from the spirit, Gal 2. ver. 7. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles. The Lords making such a division (if it were one) was sufficient to give them a dispensation for acting in Office-work else­where, until fresh instructions came.

But ordinary Officers have no such directions from the Lord, or any thing equivalent to them, and so are obliged to perform acts of Office to all Churches in the world, and sin if they do not, (according to him) for they have no dispensation from the Lord for acting in any, and without that, they must act to the utmost bounds of their relation.

3. Apostles were not so limited and confined in their Office, unto those which especially were com­mitted to them, as ordinary Officers are to their parti­cular Churches: the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, and the Gospel of the circumci­sion unto Peter, Gal. 2. v. 7. but yet Paul (to use Mr. Pools words though improper) was actually, immediately and absolutely an officer at the same time to the Jews, hence he is often executing his office amongst the Jews, as Act. 21. ver. 15. 17. 18. &c. And he saith expressely, the care of all the Churches was upon him dayly, 2 Cor. 11. ver. 28. Ergo, He had an actual relation to the Jewish, as well as the Gentile Churches, even to all the Churches, and so no double relation did arise by [Page 92] his being the Apostle of the Gentiles; but as a father having many children with families of their own, may abide and continue longer with some of them then with others, yet standeth in the same relation of a fa­ther to all. So the Apostles though they did abide more with some Churches then with others, yet no distinct relation was introduced thereby, and therefore this instance of the Apostles is nothing to his purpose; For, the relation of ordinary Officers to a particular Church is such, that if they had a relation to a Uni­versal Church, it would not be the same but another, and so distinct, that themselves assert a double rela­tion, and that one (viz. that to the Church Universal) lasteth, though his particular relation ceaseth, Jus Divin. Min. p. 151.

Neither doth it appear that all the Apostles had some Churches more especially assigned to them, then others, and those that had not, must needs be (as he phraseth it) actually, and equally related to all Churches, and without any such double relation, but were obliged to travel from one Church to another; where as ordinary officers are fixed in their particular Churches, and obliged to abide there. Mr. Poole (p. 9.) taketh notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling, in point of the possibility of the thing, and the edification of the Church (which (he saith) is the great rule in all Church administrations) for a Minister may joyntly with others rule a far greater proportion then he can teach:—-he taketh notice that the Apostles could not teach every Church, yet did actually rule all the Churches at least which are mentioned, Act. 15. &c.

Ans. 1. The question is not, whether there be a pos­sibility of a Ministers ruling more then he can te [...] but whether by Christs appointment a Minister is to undertake the Ruling of more then he can teach, or o [...] [Page 93] more then a particular Church? we can find no in­stitution of Christ for any such thing, and without that, edification will not be a rule sufficient to warrant the acting in Church-administrations, when every thing may lawfully be done that is possible to be done, then this arguing will be good.

2. It is not proved that any act of Rule, or Go­vernment was put forth, Act. 15. and there is no syllable of proof, that the Apostles power of Government was more extensive then their teaching power, so much as in the exercise of it.

He proceedeth to lay down some Arguments to prove, that Ministers are Officers, and act as officers, to more then their own particular Churches.

Argu. 1. If Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers towards conver­tible Mr. Poole p. 10. heathens, then they are no [...] Of­ficers onely to their particular congregations. But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards con­vertible heathens.

To prove his Minor he saith. 1. That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected, is undeniable. 2 Such are clear­ly expressed, Mat. 28. ver. 19, 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostical Office and rela­tion.

Answ. 1. There were multitudes baptized by John, before the Apostles were constituted Officers, Mat. 3. ver. 5, 6. and either there must be some visible Gospel Church then erected, to which these Baptized persons were related, and then his Argument is untrue; or else that must be a truth which he calleth a monstrous paradox (pag. 28.) viz. That Baptism doth not admit, or make a man to stand in relation to any Church; for they were members of the Jewish Church before, and so were not admitted into that by their Baptism, [Page 94] and if no Gospel Church was at this time erected, then their Baptism did not admit them into any Church at all.

2. Many did visibly stand in relation to Christ be­fore the Apostles were constituted Officers, or had that mission, Mat. 28. therefore either his Argument, p. 29. must be false, or else this his position. p. 10. that Apo­stles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel Church was erected, cannot be true, of which he saith, its a plain case and undeniable.

3. If the Essence of the Church had been pre­served in the Apostles in case all converted Christians had dyed (as he supposed, pag. 10.) how can he deny the Church to have a being, the Apostles having a be­ing, in whom (he saith) the Essence of the Church was?

4. We desire our distinction formerly mentioned may be remembred: we grant the Apostles were, and others are, in a general sence, Officers to heathens: but we deny that they were, or that others are, Of­ficers to heathens in a special sence, namely as over them in the Lord; and this answereth his supposition, pag. 10. of Christians dying and none remaining to be Preached to but heathens, and also taketh off his charge against us in the same page, for denying Apostles to be Officers unto heathens.

5. Apostles were extraordinary officers; our question is onely about ordinary Officers, and therefore all he saith is beside the question. If Apostles were before the visible Gospel Church was erected, and if Apo­stles acted as Officers towards convertible heathens, yet seeing they were extraordinary Officers, it will not follow thence, that ordinary Officers act as Officers towards convertible heathens.

Object. Apostles and Pastors are parallel'd in this case, Ephes. 4. vers. 11. 12. &c. the body of Christ in its latitude [Page 95] is the correlatum or the object of the pastoral Office: but the body of Christ includes heathens; Therefore heathens to be converted are the object and correlate of the pastoral office. That heathens are a part of Christs body, he thinketh evident, they are called his sheep, Joh. 10. ver. 16. he laid down his life for them, which he did onely for his body, Eph. 5. &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 12. 13.

Answ. 1. If by the body of Christ, Eph. 4. ver. 11. 12. we must (as Mr. Poole saith, pag. 12.) necessarily under­stand the whole collection of all Christs members in all ages of the Church, all which, in Scripture phrase, go to the making up of Christs body, &c. then it is the mystical body of Christ that is intended, consisting of the whole number of the elect, redeemed, justified, or sanctified ones, and these onely.

And if the body of Christ includeth heathens and visibly unconverted ones (as Mr. Poole supposeth it doth here) then it must be taken in this sence; but that ministers should be Officers, or act as officers to this mystical body of Christ, is a strange paradox; For, all the elect and called ones which lived before the com­ing of Christ in the flesh, and all the Saints in heaven, and all the elect unborn, as well as those living in this or that age of the world, belong to this body of Christ. And now we shall turn his Argument upon himself.

The body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum, or the object of the Pastoral Office; but the body of Christ includes all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh (and so before the Pastoral Office was instituted) and all the Saints in heaven, yea hea­thens, even all the elect unborn; Ergo, all the elect which lived before Christs coming in the flesh (and so before the Pastoral office was instituted) and all the Saints in heaven, yea heathens, and all the elect un­born, are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office.

[Page 96] Who wil not easily see the weaknesse of this argument: for many members of this body, were in heaven thousands of years before any were invested with the Pastoral Office on Earth, and surely they were not of­ficers to those who were in heaven, they had no need of their officr. If body be taken in this sense, his major is apparently false. The body of Christ in its latitude is not the correlatum or object of the pastoral office. 2. If it be understood of the visible body of Chr. then his minor is false; The body of Christ, i. e. his visible Church or body, doth not include heathens to be converted.

Even the Text he alleadgeth evidenceth so much, Iohn 10. v. 16. other sheep I have; its true those were Gentiles, heathens sheep by election; but it is added, [which are not of this fold] which witnesseth that heathens (though sheep by predestination) yet are not folded into the visible Church of Christ. It would be an unscriptural and an abominable assertion to say, that heathens are members or a part of Christs visible body or Church, which onely is the correlate of the pastoral office.

Arg. 2. The second argument is taken from 2 Corin. 5. 20. where the recon­cilable Mr. Pool p. 13. world, which consists of such as are yet without, and no members of the Church, are made the chief objects and correlatum of the of­fice of the Ministry.

To whom Ministers act as Ambassadors, to them they act as officers: But Ministers preach as Ambassa­dors to heathens convertible, and to be converted. Er­go, His assumption, he saith is evident for the termes, to be an Ambassador is nothing el [...]e but to be an officer, &c. His assumption he would prove thus,

1. First the scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church, and to o­thers, Ergo, there is no difference.

[Page 97] 2. Even heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them, and that not onely ex vi materiae, because of the matter they treat of, but virtute mu­neris, by vertue of their Office, Luke 10. 16. &c.

Ans. 1. We deny his Major, Ministers may act as Ambassadors to them, they do not act as officers to­wards in a special sense: and it is observeable that as the word [...] is used 1 Corin. 5. 20. for [we are Ambassadors;] so [...] is used for the work of an Ambassador from a King, Luke 14. 22. he sendeth [an Embassage]; and yet the same word is used to ex­presse the wicked act of those citizens against their King, Luke 19. 4. [...]is citizens hated him, and sent [...] an Embassage after him. It cannot be pro­ved that those who were sent by these citizens were officers, or acted as officers (in a special sense) in this message, yet they acted as Ambassadors herein.

So if gifted men, or other Ministers carry the mes­sage of the Gospel to heathens, and the reconcila­ble world, upon a command of Christ to goe with it, they act as Ambassadors, yet not as Officers there­in.

2. As to his minor, in a general sense we grant that Ministers preach as Ambassadors to Heathens, i. e. as those that are warranted or commanded by Christ to do a message of peace to them, but in a strict sense they do not act as offfcers unto heathens.

As to his proofs of his minor, we say

1. The Scripture concludeth that an officer doth preach as a Pastor, Bishop, or overseer to his owne Church, Acts 20. 28. as over it in the Lord, 1 Thes. 5. v. 12. it no where saith that he preacheth under any such relation to others, it lyeth upon Mr. Pool to prove it, if he will assert it: it were strange unscriptural language to say, that God hath made officers overseers [Page 98] to Heathens, or set them over them; where are hea­thens called a mans flock? If they were the object or correlate of the pastoral office they must be so, for Pastor and flock are Relatives; and Ambassadors (if in office) are the same Officers, under an other name.

And this answereth his first particular, (pag. 14.) and proveth that the Scripture makes a difference be­tween a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others; for it concludeth his being in such a relation to his own Church, as he stands not in to others, and thence must needs arise a difference in actings.

2. Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preach, not onely for their doctrine, nor for their Office sake, but for Christs sake who sends them with that doc­trine: if they preach only as gifted persons (not as of­ficers) yet it may aptly be said as Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. because they are warran­ted or commanded by Christ to do the message, and so it is not their own but Christs; he speaketh by them, they are his words, not theirs, as in this instance: A master of a family being from home may send a mes­sage by some friends or neighbours to his servants, commanding some work from them, if these servants do not hear those messengers, they do not hear their master, yet these friends or neighbours are no Officers, nor can act as officers over them, either in doing the message, or in case of disobedience by inflicting any punishment, &c. So if a preachers message be not heard, Christ is disobeyed therein; concerning maintenance we have spoken in answer to Dr. Collings, and also els­where in way of reply to Mr. Pool, The pronouncing of pardon and denouncing of wrath upon believing or disobeying in preaching, are acts (as we have sufficiently proved) that gifted men may do, without an office-relation.

[Page 99] Arg. 3. If conversion of heathens, &c. be the principal ground and end why the office of the mini­stry was instituted, and the principal worke of the mi­nistry, then the Office of the ministry is related to hea­thens.

But the convertion of heathens, &c. is the principal end why the office of the ministry was instituted, and the principal work of the ministry so instituted, There­fore the office of the ministry is related to heathens, their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lyes, Mr. Pool pag. 17.

Ans. 1. We suppose he intendeth that they are re­lated to heathens as their correlate, else he speaketh nothing to the question; and then,

2. His Major may fairely be denyed; The fighting with enemies, &c. is the principal ground and end why the office of Colonels, Captaines, and other lea­ders of Armies were appointed, and their principal work; yet those enemies to be fought with, are not the correlate to the office of Colonels, Captaines, &c. It is a Regiment that is the correlate to the of­fice of a Colonel, and a Troop or company, that is the correlate to the office of a captain: And so hea­thens to be preached to are not the correlate to the office of the Ministery, but particular Churches. The instance of Colonels, &c. sheweth that a mans great work may lye among those that their relation is not toward.

3. As to the minor, that convertion of heathens, and such as are without the Church, is a great worke of officers qua gifted may be granted; but that it is their principal work qua officers, those texts Mat. 28. and Eph. 4. prove not. The office of Pastors was not in­stituted until Churches were constituted, had converti­on of heathens been their principal work, the instituti­on of them before, would have been as necessary as then.

[Page 100] And that officers and others qua gifted, are appoin­ted by Christ to preach unto unbelievers, this sufficient­ly manifesteth Christs care for that great work, the convertion of sinners, though they do not act as offi­cers in their conversion.

Thus we have answered his argument against this Assertion, that Ministers are officers onely to their own congregations, the provincial assemblie used divers arguments, which we answered, and Mr. Pool seeketh to indicate, we shall briefly reply to his most material xceptions.

They objected that we receive members of o­ther congregations to the Sacrament, yet the admi­nistration of that is a ministerial act, and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher.

Mr. Pool. is so disturbed at our answer to this, that he saith (p. 20.) he questions not but any judicious Rea­der will quickly discern it how we are faln from our own principles, and (pag. 21.) would have all men take notice of that, and also that we have through in­cogitancy precipitated our selves into the gulf of An­nabaptisme, and he doubts not but we will retract it, &c. And all this because we say, If they perform these acts to any, not of their own congregations, they do not act as Past ors, as officers to them therein.

Ans. We see no ground to retract what we have said in this matter, and we think any unprejudiced Reader who shall view our whole answer to their ob­jection, (Preach Sent. pag. 278, 279, 280.) will ap­prehend that there is more strength in Mr. Pools flou­rish of words to dazel the Eyes of the weake, then of argument to convince the judicious that we are in an Error. To clear the case,

1. We professe that it was (when we wrote our former book) and still is our judgement, that the ad­ministration of the Sacrament is an act which cannot [Page 101] be done but by a Pastor or Teacher. None but an Of­ficer may perform this act.

2. Yet we conceive an Officer may administer the Sacrament (which is a common Church priviledge) unto members of other Churches without being an Officer over them: for, if any such relation as is be­tween Pastor and the members of his flock, did arise upon that act, then an obligation unto the mutual duties of the relation must follow also, else all in a relation were not bound to the duties of it; and who will say that Pastors are to watch over the members of other Churches, or that the Lord hath made them overseers of them? or that such members are to aford maintenance, &c. to such Pastors?

And if they be no Officers over them, they cannot be said to act as their Officers.

And let Mr. Poole and the Reader observe we never said that he who is no Pastor, no Officer might act in the administration of the Sacrament, but that in ad­ministring it to members of other Churches, a man doth not act as a Pastor, as an Officer [to them] i. e. in a special sence.

As Officers in corporations, &c. may afford some priviledges to such as they are no Officers to, which none but such Officers can grant out; Or to use the instance Mr. Poole mentioneth (pag. 16.) with some variation; many acts of a Steward of an house, in giving entertainment unto strangers, cannot he done by any but the Steward (except the Lord of the house) yet saith Mr. Poole (pag. 16.) he acts not as a Steward to them whom he entertains: whence it is undeniable that there are some acts which none but an Officer can perform, wherein he doth not act as an Officer to some objects of them; and therefore though none but Officers can administer the Lords Supper, yet they may give it to members of other Churches, which [Page 102] they are no Officers, nor do not act as Officers to­wards. That Rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali, holds true, onely in materia necessaria, not in materia contingenti; and therefore if a Pastor gives the Sacrament to those who are not of his own Church, not as their Pastor, yet it will not follow, that every gifted brother may administer it, or that our assertion cuts the s [...]news of Christian and Church-communion, which he insinuates, p. 22. That their Argument was against our practice may easily be seen in their Book, not against the assertion, but as supposed (though un­groundedly) to be contradicted by our practice. And this is enough to answer what he saith, pag. 20. 21. 22. and may clearly vindicate us from his aspersion for Anabaptism. He replyeth nothing to what we have said, Preacher Sent, pag. 281. where we have clearly answered their third particular in the several branches, and have proved against them, that Ministers are cal­led Elders of the people, &c.

There are seven consequences which they said (Jus Divin. Min. pag. 140.) would follow this assertion. To our exceptions against the first and second of these, Mr. Poole answereth little or nothing; what he saith (p. 23.) is but a repetition of what he had said before, which we have already answered.

In our reply to the third, we argue against that po­sition, that a man is made a member of a Church by Baptism. Mr. Poole telleth us it is none of their asser­tion—-that they allow Infants to be born Church-members, and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism, and a pari, a heathen con­verted and professing the faith, is a church-member inchoate before Baptism, and that this onely they say, that the solemn, publike and visible way of admission of members into the Church is by Baptism, Mr. Poole, pag. 23. 24.

[Page 103] Ans. 1. They said, that every Minister by Baptism admitteth into the Catholick visible Church, Jus Div. Min. pag. 139. and Mr. Poole saith (pag. 25.) in Scri­pture there is ne [...] quidem of any other door of ad­mission, and cals the contrary a monstrous paradox, pag. 28. And how he can deny it to be their assertion, or free himself from self-contradiction in these ex­pressions we know not; for what difference is there between being [made] a church-member by Baptism, and being [admitted] into the Church by Baptism? and how can one be a church-member [before] Bap­tism, and yet be admitted into the Church [by] Bap­tism, especially if there be not [any other door] of admission? How can those that are within the Church already, be said (without a loss of membership) to be admitted into it, by any after act? surely admission is of those who are without, and no members, not of those who are within, and are church-members. The scriptures know no such thing as a being church-mem­bers inchoate; either they are church-members or not; if they be church-members (as he confesseth they are, before Baptism) then they are admitted, for member­ship presupposeth admission.

2. As well may we say, that men are Officers by a Churches Election before Ordination, and onely the solemn admission into the Office (or rather exercise of it) to be by Ordination, as he may assert an admission by Baptism after membership; and then the Essence of the call to Office, is not in Ordination.

3. If Infants church-membership be (as he saith, pag. 24.) the ground of their Baptism, then they are visible church-members before their being Baptized, (for the ground of an action must be visible, before acting) and so their visible admission into the Church is not by Baptism, but before it. And in converts, pro­fession of faith (which he supposeth them church-members [Page 104] by) must first be visible, and so their vi­sible admission into the Church is antecedaneous to, and is not by their Baptism.

And as publike as their profession is, so publike is their visible church-membership, or admission in­to the Church, before Baptism. As to what fol­loweth, pag. 24. 25. we formerly did, and still do deny, that a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church, ejects him juridically out of all other Churches; for this see our answer to Dr. Collings Epistle.

Object. If he be not juridically ejected out of other Churches, then he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches, which what horrid confusion it would in­troduce, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 24.

Answ It will not follow; for, that sin which made the ejection just, would make another Churches ad­mission unjust.

Yet mens incapacity to be received by other Churches, doth not arise from their being cast out of those Churches, but from the want of such qualifica­tions as are perquisite to admission into church-fel­lowship.

He grants (p. 25.) that when a Minister is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by depo­sition, he ceaseth to be an Officer to the Universal Church. Whence we infer, that if he repenteth and becometh an Officer again, he must have a new Ordi­nation, or else he may of no Officer become an Of­ficer without Ordination, and so Ordination is not Essential to Office.

That which followeth (pag. 25.) is but a repetition of what he had said, and is answered before. That such as are converted from heathenisme may joyn as members to some Church and so be baptized, we proved, Preacher Sent. pag. 289. he replyeth nothing to the proof of it, yet chargeth us for obtruding uncouth [Page 105] notions upon the world without evident proof, &c. And he that saith (pag. 24.) they are church-members inchoate before Baptism, and who maketh so little a matter of admission into a particular Church, should not stumble at this notion. And what is said to shew that admission is not by Baptism, will not be far from a proof of it.

Our Arguments (Preacher Sent. pag. 292.) plainly shew, that their assertion runs them upon Anabaptism; Mr. Poole, (pag. 26. 27.) giveth a double reason against it. 1. That an excommunicate person ordinarily is a church-member, though a diseased member, 2 Thes. 3. &c. 2. Though his Baptism ceaseth at present actual­ly and really as to all the actual priviledges of it, so ceaseth that while he repents not, he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person, yet when he doth repent, and readmit himself to the Church, he needs no new Baptisme, forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former Baptism, and the Church accepts of it, &c.

Answ. 1. Anabaptism unavoidably followeth up­on their assertion, thus, he that ceaseth to be a mem­ber of the visible Church, his Baptisme ceaseth say they, Jus Divin Min. pag. 146.

But he that is excommunicate ceaseth (say they) to be a member of the visible Church, for they tell us ex­communication ejecteth out of that Church, Jus Divin. Min. pag. 139. Ergo, He that is excommunicate, his Bap­tism ceaseth. Ergo, If he be readmitted he must be re­baptized, or else be in the Church unbaptized.

Surely Mr. Poole will not say that one may be ejected out of, and yet remain a member of the Church; for, it is a contradiction to say, that one is [out of] and yet [in] the Church at the same time, and contrary to, 1 Corin. 5. 12. which proveth that those who are [without] are not [within,] yet he hath no other way [Page 106] to save the London Ministers from the dint of the fore­going conclusions. To help them out of this Laborinth Mr. Poole telleth us, that an excommunicate person is a church-member still; but this is not to defend, but to contradict them whose cause he undertaketh to to plead; for they tell us an excommunicate person is ejected out of the Church, and Mr. Poole saith, he is a member of the Church still. This therefore might suf­fice for the defence of what we have said, but we shall add a few words.

2. It is the judgement of many, that the withdraw­ing mentioned, 2 Thes. 3. ver. 6. 14. vastly differeth from excommunication; because after the one, a man is to be deemed as a brother, and after the other, he is to be accounted as a heathen and a Publican, Mat. 18. ver. 17. and if so, this is no proof that excommunicate persons are church-members, seeing the Text speaketh nothing of excommunication, but onely of withdraw­ing.

3. We observe his halting here, he doth not say an excommunicate person [alwayes] but [ordinarily] is a member; as if excommunication did sometimes make a man cease to be a church-member, but ordi­narily not, which there is no syllable in Scripture for, and much against it, Mat. 18 v. 17. excommuni­cate persons are to be deemed as heathens and Publi­cans, Ergo, Not as church-members. That such as are excommunicate for blasphemy, denying Christ to be the Messias, or renouncing some such grand Article of faith, should still be a church-member, is strange doctrine, yet this must be, or else his Argu­ment (pag. 26. is nought, for it may be said,

He who is under a Church Ordinance appointed, for his good, is (according to Mr. Poole) a Church­member.

But he who is excommunicate for blasphemy, deny­ing [Page 107] 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 Church­member. 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 s [...]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 [Page 108] 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 an [...] 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, [Page 109] 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 i [...] 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 [Page 110] [...] 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. visible at least, who were added to the Church, therefore they stood in a visible relation to Christ in order before addition to the Church, for this, see more in our Epistle to our former book.

2. His minor is untrue; for multitudes (even a­mongst us) are baptized, and yet do not visibly stand in relation to Christ, but to Satan; Ergo, Baptism doth not make visibly to stand in relation to Christ. Again, a man must stand in a visible relation to Christ before baptism, Math. 28. 19. They must first be disci­ples, and then baptized; And therefore it is not baptism (but some thing antecedaneous to it) that maketh vi­sibly to stand in relation to Christ.

[Page 111] As to Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. They may shew that believers being baptized in the name of Christ are solemnly engaged to professe and conform themselves unto him, and that in his death, but they do not prove, that men cannot visibly put on Christ in his death, or that they cannot visibly be in Christ, without baptism; and therefore they do not evidence, that baptizing is that act in or by which they are so much as visibly made to stand in relation to Christ.

Our answers to this objection, do also answer his next argument. We say, men must visibly stand in a covenant relation, before admission into the Church; or unto baptism, for visible believing or a profession of Faith is pre-required, (in those that are adulti) unto baptism, Mark. 16. 16. Acts 8. v. 12. 36, 37. And therefore baptism neither maketh a man to stand visibly in relation to the covenant or to the Church.

Its being aseal of the covenant, implyeth a pre­cedent consederation, or presupposeth a mans being in covenant, as being but a ratification, or confir­mation of a covenant already made.

We demand whether the Lords Supper, be not as wel a seal of the covenant as Baptism? And whether that maketh a man stand in relation to the covenant, and he be in covenant as often as he partaketh thereof, and out when he doth it not? If otherwise, then it is no contradiction, that the application of such a seal should not make to stand in relation to the covenant, and surely they must stand in a visible relation to the covenant before a partaking of the Supper; and then something else must make to stand in relation to the covenant.

To his last Argument (pag. 29.) we reply, It is not that which gives the capacity, but that which giveth the right to Church-priveledges, that makes a man stand in relation to a Church. Nei her doth Baptism [Page 112] make a man capable of Church-priviledges; no not of the Supper, which he mentions; for some infants are Baptized and excommunicate persons also, and yet are uncapable of that Church-priviledge; nay the Presby­terians will not admit to the Supper without exami­nation, and the Provincial Assembly plead against ad­mitting the ignorant or scandalous to the Supper, Vind. Presb. Govern. pag. 56. &c. By which it appeareth, that though they donot account unbaptized persons capable of the Supper, yet they do not judge Baptisme enough to capacitate for the Supper, for then they must deny it to none that are baptized. His Arguments thus fail­ing his conclusions from them come to nothing.

We denyed that 1 Corin. 12. 28. or Eph. 4. did prove a Ministers relation (as an Officer) to a Catholick vi­sible Church, if such a Church were intended there; for it may properly be said, there are set in the Commonwealth, Justices, Constables, &c. yet they are limited in their Office to a particular County or Pa­rish, &c.

And it is not improper to say, God hath given to or set in the Church, viz. this and that Church, Apostles, Evangelists, &c.

Object. 3. That implies, that its one political body, wherein they are set, &c. Mr. Poole. pag. 30.

Answ. If there were a Catholike Church, and that (which is not granted) a political body to, (as a Commonwealth is) yet its being said, God hath given to, or set in the Church, Apostles, Evangelists, &c. would no more prove that they are Officers to that whole political Universal Church, so much as in actu primo; then its being said there are set in the Com­monwealth Justices, Constables, &c. would prove that they are Justices, or Constables to the whole Com­monwealth.

Much less can it be a proof of any such thing, [Page 113] where evidence is wanting for a political Universal Church.

Ob. 2. The case wholly differs, for Justices, Constables, &c. have limited commissions, &c. Mr. Pool. pag. 30.

Answ. So are Ministers limited in their office, and confined to their particular Churches (as we have proved) and therefore this maketh no difference in the cases.

The case of the Empire we spake to before, the Princes do not Govern in common, but every one is distinct in Lawes and customes.

Object. 3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon, but the sence, &c. Apostles were so set in the Church; that they were also set over the church, so are not Justices, they are in; not over the Commonwealth, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 30.

Answ. This, 1 Cor. 12. 28. is the main Text urged for a Universal origanical Church; and yet, Reader, thou may est see when it cometh to, they are constrain­ed to borrow help from other Texts to shore up their Argument.

We grant that the Apostles were set not onely in, but over all Churches; but that this is the sence and ex­plication of the phrase which the Apostle useth, or the intendment of this Text, so as the Apostle should mean, [that God hath set over the Church Apostles] when he onely saith [God hath set in the Church Apostles, &c.] this is not, nor ever can be proved.

And its very observable that those phrases might be used, 1 Cor. 12. 28. and Ephes. 4. 11, 12. (the two places chiefly alleadged for a general visible orginical Church) though those Texts should not be understood of the visible Church at all; for Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers are set in, and given for the edi­fying of the mystical body of Christ, though they be not Officers to it, or set over it.

And a poor Argument is it, that hath no better [Page 114] ground to stand upon; this answereth what he saith (pag. 31.) that it is that body into whith we are Bap­tized both Jewes and Gentiles, and one whole body, &c. for all this may be predicated of the mystical Church or body of Christ.

But if the visible Church or body be intended the Church of Corinth (and a pari all other true churches) is the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 27. Now ye are the body of Christ, &c. and in the very next verse its added, And he hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, &c. seeing this immediately followeth, it need not seem strange that the meaning should be this; The particular Church of Corinth is the body of Christ, and God hath set in this Church or body, first Apostles, &c. The Apostles were set in Corinth, though not limited or confined to that Church.

All the strength of their Argument from 1 Cor. 12. 28. dependeth upon the Apostles speaking in the singular number [the Church;] had it been said God hath set in the [Churches] &c. there could have been no shadow of an Argument hence for their being officers to a Universal Church; and seeing in the same chapter, ver. 12. 14. 17. &c. he speaketh in the singular number, the body, the body, and the whole body, and yet all natural bodies do not make one body, and ver. 18. God set the members in [the body] &c. yet there is no Catholick body; how can his speaking in the singular number [the Church] ver. 28. and that in the appli­cation of the same similitude, prove a Catholick Church made up of all Churches?

To evidence that the sin of a people may nullifie the Office of a Minister (which they deny, Jus Div. Min. pag. 146) we ask, whether if they murther him, will not this nullifie his Office? and if so, why may not their sin other wayes make voyd the Office also?

[Page 115] Object. Mr. Poole saith; we confound the nullifying of the Office, and the hindring the exercise of it. 2. He demands whether this hold of the Apostles or no,—whether if the Catholike Church was confined to one congregation, and that proved heretical and voted down the Apostles, would this make their Office null or no? he saith this followeth up­on our principles, for the church (the correlate) ceasing, they must needs cease also, & ejusdem est instituere & destituere, and we allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people, in the same page he telleth the world that we say the Apostles were constituted Officers by the church, alleadging, Acts 1 He addeth that this doctrine renders it in the power of mens lusts and humours to nullifie the promises of Christ, & the authority, end and use of Christs Ambassadours; for now there are none but ordinary Mini­sters, and he supposeth but twenty congregations in the world, and each of these may resolve severally to eject their Ministers, &c. This is the sum of what he expresseth in many words, Mr. Poole, pag. 32. 33.

Ans. 1. We have not confounded, but clearly distin­guished between nullifying the Office, and hindring the exercise of it, as he that shall impartially read our Book may see.

2. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers, our question is onely about ordinary Officers. The Apo­stles were neither of man nor by man, but were made by an extraordinary call of Christ, and so it did be­long onely to Christ to null their Office, because ejusdem est instituere & destituere. But we cannot but complain that Mr. Poole hath here offered abundance of wrong to us, in reporting to the world, that we say, Apostles were constituted Officers by the church; alleadging Act. 1. and not contenting himself with say­it once, he cometh over with it again, towards the end of pag. 32. of his Book.

Whereas we have expressed the contrary, and that [Page 116] in expresse Terms, in speaking to, Acts 1. which he say­eth we alledge for it. Let any one read our book (Preacher Sent. pag. 268.) where we use these words, This was but halfe an Election, and that is the reason why it did not constitute Mathias an Apostle, as appea­reth, because the choosing of the one (which was by God) was the constituted act, Acts 1. 24. &c. by which any one may see that we deny the Apostle to be consti­tuted by the Church, and assert it to be by God; and therefore he hath done us much injury in this re­port.

3. Suppose a Church murthereth its Officers; either he must say that they are officers after they are dead, which is absurd; or else he must grant that the sin of a people may nullifie the office of a minister, which the Provincial Assembly denyeth.

4. No supposition may be allowed which imply­eth a contradiction to any divine promise; For God is faithful, and therefore will restrain from every act that would render any promise void. Some supposi­tions may be admitted of, but not such as are against Promises, otherwise we may answer his with an o­ther, himselfe supposeth (p. 32.) that the Catholike Church may be confined to one congregation, if the Elders (possibly but two or three) should excommu­nicate that whole Church, they should by this juridi­call act (how un just soever) nullifie the promise of the perpetuity of the Church, Mat. 16. 18. as much as by his supposition the people should nullifie the Pro­mises about officers. In such a case two or three El­ders cannot be proved to be the universal Church, and Officers to it also, and if there be not a Church & Offi­cers set in it, either the promises about officers, or the Church must fail, if suppositions against promises be allowed; And in what a sad condition then would the Church be in, for there would be none to appeal [Page 117] to; and thus we might turne his words (pag. 34 35.) upon himselfe. Or we might suppose that persecu­tors (being most of the world) might murther that one congregation (which he improperly calleth the Ca­tholike Church) being but few: its true, the act would differ, one being an act of horrid violence, the other a juridical act, but both are equally possible, and so a supposition may be taken from one as well as from the other, and therefore he can get nothing from such supposals.

The monstrous opinion followeth upon his owne principle; Suppose but Twenty Ministers in the World, who only have power (according to him) to ordain, and they through treachery and frowardness should refuse to put forth their power for a succession, they dye and so the promise of Christ is nullified; neither doth his answer to the objection (pag. 33. 34.) take off this, for here the case is not wholly different, here is not an act of horrid violence, and therefore it is as great an inconvenience to assert, that Jesus Christ hath given to Ministers a juridical power (as they judge that of Ordination to be) by the abuse of which they might, if they pleased, disanul an Ordinance of Christ.


Wherein our arguments for mens being Officers to a par­ticular Church onely and not to a universal, are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Pool bringeth against them.

Some arguments we used to prove, that Officers stand in relation (as Officers) to a particular Church onely, and not to a universal Church.

Mr. Pool (pag. 35.) den yeth the major of our first [Page 118] Syllogisme, but medleth not with the proofs of it, and so it remaineth firme still.

To prove our minor, we use this argument.

Arg. 1. All that flock or Church over which the Holy Ghost hath made a man a Bishop or Overseer, he is commanded actually to feed and take heed to, and sinneth if he doth not. But no Bishop or Overseer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the universal Church, &c. Ergo,

Ob. Mr. Pool (pag. 35.) denyeth the major and saith, a minister is not obliged actually to feed all his flock▪ and addeth, every Apostle was a Cathol [...] 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 [Page 119] 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 [Page 120] 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. Pr [...]. 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 [Page 121] 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 [...]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 Church­governement. Mr. Pool p. 37.

[Page 122] Ans. If Apostles did Preach as Officers over hea­thens, it did arise from the extraordinariness of their Office; for, no ordinary Officers civil or military can act as Officers toward any that they cannot govern; and having the Rule over, and being over others in the Lord, is made the specificating, distin­guishing Character of ordinary Officers, from such as are none, or from such as they are Officers to, 1 Thes. 5. ver. 12. Heb. 13. ver. 7. 17. and they cannot be said to be over those that are without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. or that they cannot exercise Church Government towards, and therefore are not Officers to such; for, what is it to be an Officer to any, but to be over them in the Lord?

Argu. 4. This brings in Episcopacy, to make one man an Officer over many Churches, Preacher Sent, pag. 248. 283 187.

Object. The Episcopal way leaves to inferiour Mini­sters nothing but the name and Title of Officers, all power of Jurisdiction being ingrossed into the Bishops hands, &c. That government by Bishops is a government by forreigners, as it were the power of ruling being neither in the hands of the people, nor of any chosen by them, &c. The formality of Episcopacy lies in this, in the Superiority of one Pastor to another, and to many other, and of one church to all the rest in a Diocess, not in the Superiority of a colledge of Pastors, or convention of churches over one Pastor or church, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 37. 38.

A. 1. We know not that we have used that Argument, but onely in the Pages even now quoted; and in nei­ther of those places do we assert a government by a Colledge of Pastors to be Episcopacy; its the Superio­rity of [one] that we give that name unto; and there­fore most that he saith here, as about the low countries not being a Monarchy, &c. is but to make the Reader believe that we speak what we do not.

[Page 123] 2. As government by Bishops was (as he saith) a government by forreigners, so is that by Provincial and National Assemblies, who must needs act (as he telleth us Bishops do) without knowing or being known to any one Church which they undertake to govern.

And as the choice of a Bishop by a Diocess, cannot render that Government lawful; so the choice of a Colledge of Pastors, by a particular Church to Rule over it, cannot warrant that; neither having footing in Scripture.

3. Episcopacy lies not only in the Superiority of one, to many Pastors; but in the Superiority of one to, and usurped Power over many Churches: sad experience, as well as the writings of men, do sufficiently bear witness to this. Dr. Field of the Church. l. 5. c. 28. speak­ing for Bishops, asserteth a Bishop to have Prehemi­nence over diverse smaller particular congrega­tions.

And such as plead against Bishops, speak the same thing, as Smectymnu [...]s, pag. 54. 71. 78.

And also the Provincial Assembly in answer to Episcopal pleas saith (Jus Div. Min. part 2. pag. 82, 83. The believers of one City made but one church in the Apostles dayes, and add that the Asian Angels were not Diocesan Bishops, but congregational Presbyters, seated each of them in one Church, not any of them in more then one. So that its undeniable, that for one man to be an Officer to more then one Church, for one to be set over many Churches, is Episcopacy, and this onely do we call by that name, Preacher Sent. pag. 248. 283. and that this followeth upon their principles we have there proved, and therefore it is no frivolous or in­temperate accusation. We may turn what he saith upon himself, in this Argument.

Those, the formality of whose Office lies in their [Page 124] Superiority to many Pastors, who engrosse all Power of Jurisdiction into their own hands, and leave to inferiour Ministers nothing but the name and title of Officers, and make them officers without Office, and whose Government is such, as the Power of Ruling is neither in the hands of the people, nor of any chosen by them, and who generally neither know, nor are known to those whom they undertake to govern, they are no Officers of Christ.

Let any shew any Scripture proof that Christ own­eth such as Presbyters, or any Officers of his, who so far encroach upon the Kingly Office of Christ as to set up an Office, not equall with, but even in its formality, Superiour to, and over those Officers that Christ hath instituted, yea which degradeth Christs Ministers, and robbeth his people of that Power which he hath left them. But Bishops and their Government saith Mr. Poole (pag. 37. 38) is such.

Ergo, Bishops are no Officers of Christ. Ergo, either Ordination is valid by such as are no Officers, or else their Ordination is null who received it from Bishops.


Wherein our first and second Arguments for gifted mens Preaching are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Poole laid against them.

HIs fourth chapter hath little in it worth taking notice of. That we do not plead for all that conceit themselves gifted; he may see in what we say about a Rule of Regulation; in our Advertisement to the Reader.

He findeth fault with our description of the work of Preaching, yet he hath not replyed any thing to [Page 125] our proofes of it, which may be seen, Preacher Sent. pag. 20, 21, 22.

Its not proved that the end of their meeting, Act. 17. ver. 16. 17. 22. was to hear Paul Preach to them, but he did it when they were met for other ends, and that it is Preaching, though in private, and but to a single person, is undeniably proved, Act. 5. 42. and Act. 8. 35. and therefore neither a congregation Sacred, nor the publikeness of the act, doth make it Preaching. The end of the work cannot but be sacred, whoever be the workers; and if this be all they intend, they say just nothing.

We cannot but wonder that Mr. Poole (pag. 41. 42.) should use these words, ‘The end of the actor or speak er is purely & solely the salvation of their souls, and so it is truely and may properly be called Preaching.’ Surely if this be enough to denominate it properly Preaching, then our description of Preaching is good; and we may as well say to him, as he doth to us (p. 40.) then we are all Preachers, bond and free, Male and Fe­male; for any of these or any gifted men that we plead for, may make the salvation of souls the end of their speaking; so that if he will blame us, he must blame himself also.

He saith, it is publike Preaching that they dispute against; and it is that we dispute for; and so we come to the main question.

Quest. Whether some men, who are not ordained Of­ficers may Preach? or, whether persons who have Preach­ing gifts and graces, or are apt to teach, may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publike Assemblies, though they be not ordained Officers?

Ans. We answer affirmatively, they may Preach.

Arg. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Election to Ordination.

The major of our Argument he saith is not beyond [Page 126] exception; yet he doth not flatly deny it, or reply any thing to our proofes of it, or of the other propo­sition. The minor he saith, if true, is for the tryal of gifts, and that they dispute not about, but whether out of a case of necessity, &c.

Ans. That our minor is true, we fully proved; and that they may Preach for tryals sake undeniably evi­denceth that the Gospel owneth a Preaching by gift, as well as by Office, or else neither Election nor Or­dination do constitute Officers, for they have neither of these.

And if he will grant that gifted men may Preach, untill they have Election from a Church, which they can accept of, we can grant that then they are to sub­mit unto Ordination.

There is not a syllable in Scripture for Ordination, before Election, and therefore a man may Preach many years without Ordination, if he wanteth Election all that time; and may plead a case of ne­cessity as well as he that Preacheth meerly for tryals sake; for its necessary a man should remain un-or­dained, until he can take up Ordination in a Gospel way and order.

Argu. 2. OUr second Argument is taken, from Gospel Commands, 1 Pet. 4. 10. 11.

Obj. 1. It may look backward and relate to hospitality; it may look forward and relate to speaking and Ministring, and the words will bear either sence, but both sences it (it should be, they) cannot bear, that being an undoubted truth, that sensus unius loci literalis non est nisi unicus, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 44.

Answ. 1. Let the Reader observe that the Provin. Assem. in their Jus Divin. Min pag. 101. tels us expresse­ly, that they do not limit the word gift in the Text (as some do) onely to the gift of liberality,—but ex­tend [Page 127] it—to all endowments of nature,—yea to all spi­ritual gifts, &c.

And it is not fair for Mr. Poole to undertake the pleading of their case, without owning their conces­sions. He should not put us upon the trouble of proving hospitality not to be the gift, when they had granted that it did extend to [all spiritual gifts:] and this concession assured us that they could not fairly deny that the indefinite expression [a gift] was to be taken Universally.

2. What he saith for its relating to speaking and Ministering, may serve as a full answer to what he saith for its relating to hospitality; in regard he con­fesseth it cannot bear both sences.

3. That every gifted man is under a command of God to use or exercise his gift as he hath received, is fully proved, ver. 10. If we infer from thence, Ergo, every man that hath Preaching gifts, is under a command of God to use them; how will this con­clusion be avoyded? indeed, verse 11. doth much strengthen it.

4. That every man should be commanded to use his gift, & immediately some gifts should be partiticular­ly mentioned, and a direction be given how rightly to use those gifts, and yet these gifts particularized should not relate to the general exhortation, cannot rational­ly be imagined; yet here is the case, there is a general command to use gifts, ver. 10. and some particular gifts are mentioned, ver. 11. with a direction how to use them, and let Mr. Poole shew instances of a like nature, where the verses have no dependance on each other. Nay as we have [...] ver. 10. so we have [...] vers. 11. and a ministration of gifts being required in both verses, what impartial Reader can think them without a connexion?

If the ministering, v. 11. be of any gifts intended, v. 10. [Page 128] that is it we plead for; if it be the ministring of this worlds goods, then it referreth to hospitality, and its relation to the for egoing verses is proved either way; and the speaking as the oracles of God cannot be de­nyed to relate unto verse 10. as well ministring. So that our argument is firme, viz. That every man who hath graces and gifts is commanded to use them, and the gift of speaking or Scripture-interpretation is par­ticular zed; Therefore every man who hath preach­ing gifts and graces ought to preach.

We said it was (a gift indefinitely) and so may extend to all gifts.

Ob. 2. As he is called to it and in his own spear. And inde­finite expressions are limited pro subjecta materia, accor­ding to the matter in hand, Mr. Pool. p. 45.

Answ. 1. Concerning the call to preach, and the indefinitenesse of the expression, we have spoken in answer to Dr. Collings. chap. 3. and that gifted men do not act out of their spear in preaching, we shall shew more fully, by it selfe, once for all.

2. An indefinite expression we granted (Preacher Sent. pag. 59.) may admit of limitations where some special reasons enforceth i [...]; but in this Text there is none or in other Scriptures to restrain it.

3. A gift of speaking as the oracles of God is menti­oned, v. 11. and that is enough to our purpose.

That v. 10. cannot be restrained to hospitality, and doth relate to v. 11. we have already proved; and that Ministers and Deacons are not onely intended in the latter verse, we have further shewn in its place, and this answereth what he saith, (p. 45) to our second reason.

He addeth (page 46.) preaching gifts are to beu­sed, as far as God doth call him forth to the use of them, but no further. We answer Gods command to [Page 129] exercise a gift, is mans call to use it, as in [...]he gift of prayer, &c.

There is a difference made by himselfe, (pag. 6.) between power and exercise; and he that is comman­ded to exercise a power (by one that hath authority to command) he cannot be denyed to have the power; now every man that hath a gift of Scripture-interpre­tation, is commanded to minister his gift, 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. and ministration being the exercise, it proveth that they have power, or are called of God to preach.

As to what followeth (pag. 46.) he cannot but know that the ordinary signification of [...] is (even as, or as) Eph. 5. 25. 1 Corin. 13. v. 12. and it being confessed by himselfe that gifts are to be used in a proportionable way to the gift afforded, we wonder he should seek to draw it to an other sense, we have proved from 1 Pet. 4. 10. 11. That every man who hath grace and publike gifts, is required to preach, and this is a positive warrant for their doing of it; and therefore those who will affirm, that there is an ex­ception from that general command, must shew it, else the plea is in the same Court still.

Obj. 3. Here is not onely a liberty granted, but a duty enjoyned, &c.

They who are by vertue of a divine precept to preach the Gospel, are to do it necessarily, necessity is laid upon me, yea wo, &c. to give themselves wholly to these things, &c. But all that have preaching gifts are not under such obligations, Ergo, they are not obliged to preach the Gospel, Mr. Pool pag. 47.

Answ. 1. We grant it is the duty of gifted men to preach, and this text proveth it.

2. The scripture expressions which the major of his argument is made up of, refer to such as were un­doubtedly Officers, 1 Corin. 9. 16. Acts 6. 2. 1 Tim. 4. 15. and 2 Tim. 4. 2. And because a necessity is laid [Page 130] upon officers, and woe is unto them if they preach not the Gospel, in season and out of season, because offi­cers are to give themselves wholly to these things, and not to leave the word of God to serve tables, for any to say, Ergo, All preachers are under such obliga­tions; who seeth not the weakenesse of this argu­ment?

If Paul or other Church-officers were not free from a necessity of preaching, by being where they were not desired to preach, or if they ought to do it, were there but any that would hear them, as he intimateth, (pag. 48, 49.) yet there may be other preachers, not to obliged, they having no flock or Church committed to their charge as officers have who may command their Church to hear, but if a man hath no particular Church, from whom can he command audience?

3. There are cases wherein officers may allowably not preach, and yet not sin, though preaching be their du­ty; and in such and (we suppose) in other cases also gifted men sin not, in not preaching; as for instance, a Pastor going a long journy, upon lawfull occasions, may on diverse Lords dayes cease from preaching, if he be in such places where Churches are supplyed with officers of their own, denying their consent to his exercising among them, without whose consent he cannot lawfully preach there, Mr. Pool himselfe be­ing judge, pag. 6. Here no sin ariseth upon his not preaching, or their not hearing. This manifesteth that they who are by divine precept to preach, may and must preach, all due circumstances concurring, not o­therwise, and therefore his Major (pag. 47.) is not universally true.

Nor his major (pag. 49.) for preaching is a duty, which such a Pastor may lawfully do, yet in such ca­ses he is not bound to do it.

[Page 131] The like we may say for gifted men; the Prophets, 1 Corin. 14. were under an obligation by divine pre­cept to Prophesie, yet not onely upon the peoples re­fusing to heal, but upon divers other accounts are commanded silence, as

1. First in the want of an interpreter, 1 Corin. 14. ver. 28.

2. For giving away to others Prophesying, 1. Cor. 14. ve. 29. let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge, so ve, 30. 31. There being many pro­phets in this Church, and but two or three of them be­ing permitted to speak at one time, or in one day of meeting, hence those Prophets, (and so gifted men in our dayes) may (without sin) frequently or common­ly forbear preaching. Prophesying was their duty; yet they were not constantly, or in every meeting bound to do it, and so, Mr Pools argument. pag. 47. 49. cannot be true.

And gifted men not preaching constantly, may (in many cases) be warranted as well upon other accounts, as the giving way to, or not hindring of others exerci­sing the same gifts.

His second and third difficulties (pa. 49.) that then women must preach, and he that hath a gift to be a general Magistrate, &c. may undertake those places, have been so fully answered, that we wonder he is not ashamed to mention them any more.

Ob. 4. Every one is to exercise his gift, but in his own Sphear, publike persons publikely, private persons privately, and so did Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18. &c. Mr. Pool pag. 50.

Ans. 1. The act of Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18. doth not in the least prove, that such as have publick gifts go out of their Sphear, if they (without under­taking office) exercise them publickly: Church-Offi­cers may give private advertisements, and yet it doth [Page 132] not follow, that they may not act publikely. If Mr. Pool by hearing one eminently gifted, should perceive him to be un-instructed in the way of the Lord, and should instruct him in private, would this be any proof that Mr. Pool should act out of his sphear, if he preached in publick?

He saith (pag. 50) it is not in the least intimated that they were not gifted to speak in publick.

Ans. Nor is it intimated that they had publick gifts, the excellency of them doth not prove it. The weak­nesse of this objection we have fully evidenced, Preach. Sent. pag. 41, 42, 43.

2. That Text 1 Peter 4. 10, 11. commandeth every­man that hath the publick gift of Scripture-interpre­tation, to exercise it, and so determineth [...] it to belong to their place and calling to preach, and proveth that they act not out of their Sphear in preaching, and that publickly.

This we cleared in our former book by six particu­lars. Mr. Pool granteth, that they may do the work of preaching, open and apply Scriptures, exhort, re­buke, but not publickly, pag. 51.

So that the Reader may observe, that a gifted man may lawfully preach many Sermons privately, it is his publick preaching onely which Mr. Pool opposeth; we prove that they m [...]y preach publickly, first because a publick gift cannot be fully improved, if it be not u­sed publickly; this we proved, Preacher Sent. pag. 47, 48. Mr. Pool replyeth not to the proofs of it, but saith (pag. 51.) let them not inter-lope betwixt two callings, and enquireth whether we will say, that the Rule is true in general, if so, he would infer, that women gi [...] ­ted to teach, and men gifted to Rule, judge, lead an Army, &c. ought publickly to exercise such gifts, &c.

Answ. The Rule is true in this particular case, [Page 133] for, this gift is particularized, 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. and a general command annexed to exercise it.

But we say the Rule is true in all other cases, unlesse where some particular exceptions do limit that gene­neral Rule, or where a gift cannot be exercised with­out assuming an office; women are excepted; ruling and judging gifts cannot authoritatively be exercised without assuming office; but a preaching gift may, as is clear in the case of Probationers; Whether they may inter-lope betwixt two callings, is an other question nothing to the present purpose.

Secondly, because publicknesse doth not make an act to be an act of Office, nor privatenesse hinder it from being so, it neither maketh it preaching nor au­thoritative preaching, &c.

Ob. Though bare publicknesse of speaking maketh it not preaching, yet that is a property of authoritative preahing. &c. 1 Corin. 14. 34. and 1 Tim. 2. 11. 12. conclude beyond contradiction, that to preach pubickly is an act of authority, and inconsistent with a state of subjection, &c. Mr. Pool. pag. 52, 53.

Ans. 1. His disallowing gifted mens preaching pub­lickly, when yet he granteth (pag. 53.) that private men may speak publickly in divers cases, as at Synods &c. argueth him to be (at he causlesly saith pag. 51,) meerly in the defence of a pre-conceived opinion. For he granteth, publicknesse doth not make authorita­tive acts in other cases, and yet in this particular case, asserteth it to be a property of authoritative preach­ing.

But we proved before, that it may be authoritative preaching, though in private; and as well it may be in publick, and yet not be preaching office-wise.

2. Those Texts do not at all prove, (muchlesse be­yond contradiction) that to preach publickly is an act of authority, and inconsistent with a state of subjection.

[Page 134] 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 [Page 135] (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.

[Page 136] 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 [Page 137] 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.


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 [Page 138] gifts, because ranked with Apostles who had such gifts, surely no. And that Apollo had such gifts, there is in 1 Cor. 1. 12. ne [...] quidem.

2. Aquila and Priscilla excelled him in knowledge, Ergo, It is improbable that he had extraordinary gifts.

Object. Those Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others. The Apostles had extraordinary gifts when Christ lived, yet were ignorant of his death, &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 62.

Ans. We deny not that Apollo was such an ordinary Prophet as those, 1 Corin. 14. or that he was to learn of others, but that he was extraordinarily gifted: the Apostles were unacquainted with some particular truths before the clear Revelation of them; yet nei­ther they, nor any others who were extraordinarily gifted are said to be so defective in knowledge of the way of the Lord, after a clear Revelation of it, and to be our-stripped by private persons, as Apollo was.

3. The people at Ephesus where he preached, after his departure, were ignorant of those extraordinary gifts, Act. 18. 24. and 19. 1. 2.

Object. He might have them, and yet neither they nor Apollo might distinctly know them, pag. 62.

Answ. That one may be converted and not know it, we grant, but that one may be extraordinarily gifted, and yet not distinctly know what such gifts are, or that neither he, nor those among whom he exerciseth them, should know he hath them, is a thing, as without proof, so without any probability of truth.

4. Apollo knew only the Baptism of John, Act. 18. 25. Ergo, had not those extraordinary gifts which apper­tained to the Baptism of Christ.

Object. 2. Apollo might have Commission from John.

[Page 139] Answ. 1. This is answered in our former Book, to which we refer the Reader.

2. It is denyed that John gave Commission to any to Preach; and therefore we had reason to desire proof of it, that we might not have the endless work of an­swering groundless conjectures, yet withall, we gave grounds against it.

Obj. 3. There is a far greater necessity of gifted mens preaching where Ministers are not, then in a Church where they are. We do not find Apollo's Preaching in a Christian Church, but disputing in a Jewish Assembly, a liberty which we as readily allowed to gifted men, as to write in defence of the truth, Mr. Pool pag. 63.

Answ. 1. It was the warrantableness of it, not the necessity that we spake of: but if necessity will warrant gifted mens Preaching where no Ministers or Churches are, their ordinary preaching must be allowed.

2. Let it be observed, that they allow unto gifted men the exercise of other gifts in publick Assemblies; they will allow them to dispute publickly in a Jewish Assembly; and therefore it savoureth of a being wed­ded to an opinion, to deny them liberty in this parti­cular case, to use a preaching gift in publick Assemblies. We ask him, whether they will allow women and un­gifted men thus to dispute publickly, if not, this might satisfie him (if he were candid) that there is reason against womens and ungifted mens preaching publick­ly, which will not forbid gifted mens doing of it, and so might silence this trifling objection, which is a dish we have been served with us (que) ad nauseam.

3. Apollo was not onely disputing, but preaching, and that publikely, Act. 18. ver. 25. he spake and taught diligently, ver. 26. in the Synagogues, so ver. 28. And this being in a Jewish Synagogue, its a full proof that gifted men may warrantably preach in publick Assemblies of unbelievers; as our Argument from the prophesie, [Page 140] 1 Cor. 14. doth prove that they may preach in a Christian Church.

Our second instance is in the scattered Saints, Act. 8. who went every where preaching. ver. 4. with Divine allowance, Act. 11. ver. 19. 20. 21.

Many batteries the provincial Assembly raised a­gainst this, but we shewed that it remained like a brazen wall, unshaken. Mr. Poole waveth their defence in many objections, which we fully answered, yet saith (p. 63.) they might easily be vindicated from our excep­tions, we might answer all his book in as few words.

Obj. 1. He saith, the true state of the argument is here, because the scattered Disciples in a persecuted state of the Church, in a time when all Church order was broke, Preached and taught Jesus Christ to heathens and unbelieving Jewes occasionally, therefore now unordained persons may preach publikely and solemnly to a Christian Church setled and con­stituted, &c. Mr. Pool. pag 64.

Ans. 1. This objection is answered in our reply to Dr. Collings, in chap. 74. of our Book, to which we re­fer the Reader.

2. Way doth he say they taught [occasionally] if there be not some that preach seldom; yet such occa­sional preachers he could not find, pag. 47.

3. That its being a time wherein Church order was broken, or their being in a persecuted state was that which made their preaching warrantable, which otherwise would have been unlawful, is a meer con­jecture, without the least Scripture evidence: surely he will not say, that nothing may lawfully be done in a setled state of the Church which these Christians did in a persecuted, seattered state. Doubtless they performed many private duties then, they did not omit prayer, meditation, self-examination, mortification of corruption, &c. yet these duties are to be come up unto in the most prosperous state of the Church; and [Page 141] as well may the other, unless it can be proved not one­ly that it was in a time of persecution, but that the persecution was it that made the Preaching lawful; and if Mr. Pool will assert this, he must contradict the provincial Assembly, whose case he pleadeth; for, they (though groundlessly and contrary to the very Gram­matical construction of the words, as we shewed. Preach. Sent. p. 75.) restrain the scattering unto officers, & surely officers might have preached lawfully, though they had not bin persecuted; so that Mr. Pool must either clash with them, or else grant that their persecuted state did not warrant their preaching, & then his objecton vanisheth.

We as much wonder that he can rest in his answers, as he doth that we can be sanctisfied in ours.

We say, persecution laid no necessity upon them to preach.

Object. Yes, it laid a necessity upon them i. e. in order to Gods glory, and the salvation of souls, which could not be had without preaching, Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way, Mr. Pool, pag. 64.

Answ. 1. This necessity was in those places before the persecution; preaching had been as necessary in order to the glory of God and the salvation of souls, though the persecution never had been; neither did that hinder their having preaching in an ordinary way in these places, they lost no preachers by it; and there­fore it was not the persecution that laid them under a necessity of preaching.

Necessity can be no plea in this case, for the utmost that the persecution did towards their preaching in these places was, to put them upon travelling thither, and this onely gave them opportunity, but did not put any necessity upon them of preaching. If travels, where they are without preaching, can make such a necessity, gifted men shall not need want work.

2. Preaching might now have been had in an ordi­nary [Page 142] way, viz. by the Apostles, and doubtless would, rather then positive precepts should be broken; see more of this in our answer to Dr. Collings, who useth a like objection.

And by this it may appear, that Mr. Pools instance of the shew-bread (pag. 65.) can lend him no help, be­cause here is no case of necessity to make the preaching of the scattered Saints lawfull, which otherwise had been unlawful, as there was for the eating of the shew­bread, to make that lawful.

If preaching be an act of natural worship, gifted men cannot be denyed liberty to preach. I [...] it be a­mongst those things that are required by positive pre­cepts, then Ordination being (according to Mr. Pool) essential to the constituting of a preacher, we ask, how it can be proved, that there can be any such case of necessity of a mans preaching, when he cannot have that which is Essential thereunto? when two positive precepts are so coupled together, as one is Essential to the other, we suppose if one that is Essential cannot be had, a man is not under a necessity to come up to the other.

If a man could not have what was Essential to the investing him with the Priestly Office, then he was not necessitated to do the work of that Office; and there­fore his case of necessity must be understood with re­strictions and limitations, even when it is about such as are onely mala quia prohibita.

And though the shew-bread in a case of necessity might be eaten out of Gods way, and when Election or ordination cannot be had in every circumstance in Gods way, they must be had as they may; yet when they can­not be had in Gods way in that which is Essential, they are not to be taken up at all: and Ordination being but an Adjunct to Office, having dependence upon a pre­cedent-Election (as we have proved) hence it cannot [Page 143] be had without it. He saith (p. 65.) if neither Election nor Ordination can be had in Gods way, there is no necessity of their Preaching in a Church constituted.

But he doth not tell us when there is such a case of necessity as will warrant their preaching; or what neces­sity he speaketh of; It was a natural necessity that made the eating of the shew-bread, and the violation, Mat. 12. of the sabbath rest lawful, and unless his instances speak of one kind of necessity, and his application of ano­ther, he must intend that; and such a natural necessity indeed they are not under, to Preach in a Church con­stituted; but a moral necessity they are under, both of precept and means, in order to Gods glory, and the pro­moting of the salvation of souls.

We put them upon it to determine whether these that preach in such extraordinary cases be Officers or no Officers; and we shewed what miserable inconveni­ences will attend the determining either way (Preacher Sent. pag. 87.) but Mr. Pool saw it to be his best way to wave that question.

Object. He would make use of our Argument against us. They who were scattered abroad, they preached: but many ungifted persons were scattered abroad; Therefore such preached, Mr. Pool. pag. 66.

Answ. His Argument carryeth with it a reason a­gainst the truth of it, viz. their being ungifted; for the work of preaching is such as it cannot be performed (with Divine allowance, as here it was, or to edificati­on) but by persons gifted. Those that had not ability, could not do it; so that his Argument hath enough in it for the confutation of it self.

But the Argument, as urged by us, hath nothing in the bowels of it that doth deny, but much that doth evidence the truth of i [...].

For, it was the Church that was scattered abroad, Act. 8. ver. 1. and the scattering abroad is the very Cha­racter [Page 144] which the holy Ghost doth set out these preach­ers by, v. 4. Therefore they [that were scattered abroad] went every where preaching the word; which plainly argueth that very many, or the generality of those that were scattered, did preach.

As to what is added (pag. 67.) that officers might teach publikely, the rest privately, the Officers con­stantly, the others occasionally: We answer, ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum; There is not a sylliblein the text of any such difference in their preaching, But of all of them in general its said, they went every where preaching the word, ver. 4. and they did it constantly, Acts 11. v. 19, 20, 21.

N [...]ither had the phrase been proper, if onely offi­cers had preached, If it had been said all Israel was scattered, and they that were scattered did such or such a thing, it would have been grosly improper as well as untrue, to say that onely the officers of the congregation did it; and so here,

Arg. 5. Our fift argument is taken from Gospel Rules about prophesying, 1. Corin. 14. Our first Syl­logisme hath the very question for its conclusion, yet Mr. Pool saith (pag. 68.) it may be granted; let him take it in its true meaning, and according to our ex­plications of it in our stating the question, and the controversie will quickly be at an end, if it be gran­ted.

And let it be observed that neither our premises nor conclusions speak of what was formerly, but of what is at present. Our minor (which he excepteh a­gainst) affirmes not onely that there [were] but that there [are] i. e. in these dayes, some Prophets who are not ordained Officers; and therefore his exceptions from the Apostles, and the extraordinarinesse of gifts; are vain; seeing himselfe will not say, that there [are] Apostles, or persons extraordinarily gifted in these [Page 145] daies, and our minor speaketh not of what [were] but what [are.]

So that, it is he that stumbleth at the threshold, ra­ther then we. Our argument in the urging of it is full enough; for we prove,

1. That these Prophets were not ordained; Indeed there is not a syllable in the Gospel about the ordina­tion of Prophets, neither doth Mr. Pool affirm, that they were ordained, but rather concludeth them to be ex­traordinary officers which needed no ordination; and therefore we shall not wast time in replying to his ex­ceptions against what we said about that, especially they having so little weight in them.

2. That prophesie is a gift, not an office.

3. That it is a gift still continuing.

Pro. 1. That Prophesie is a gift, not an Office,

Our first argument is, all who have the gift of pro­phesie are prophets, and if these prophets were ordal­ned person; he denyeth this, but he medleth not with our proofs of it, Preacher Sent. p. 89.

If they were extraordinary persons, then he deny­eth the other proposition, because such a gift makes them extraordinary officers. For answer to this we re­fer him unto our reply to Dr. Collings, and to our proofs that it is an ordinary gift; and if he wil grant them to be ordinary persons, either he must say it is a gift, not an office, and then the question is granted; or that there is another order of ordinary Officers for the work of preaching besides Pastors and Teachers.

Our second argument was, that which ought in duty and might in faith be covered by every man who was a member of the Church of Corinth, that was a gift on­ly, not an office, &c.

Ob. He denyeth the major, 1. An Office might be co­vered as well as a gift, 1 Tim. 3. 1.

2. Shew where God promised to every member [Page 146] of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts▪

3. If an extraordinary office might not be desired, either it is because it is an office, and that hinders not, or because extraordinary, and then extraordinary gifts might not be desired, but they might, 1. Corin. 14. 1.

4. It was impossible for all to be officers there in that Church, but not to be officers in other places, &c. Mr. Pool p. 71, 72.

An. 1. The second and forth particulars are answered in our reply to Dr. Collings, whether we refer the Rea­der.

The first and third particulars reach not the business; for the question here is not whether it was an office either ordinary or extraordinary; But whether [every man] who was a member of Corinth or other Churches might covet to be officers?

Every man in a Church may desire to have gifts, that he may be the more usefull in the body to fellow­members, but every man may not desire office, for that were to desire to be over it; and if this desire should be granted, that all should become officers, where would be the body, the Church for them to be over? in those daies if all the members of a Church desired extraordinary gifts, and had this desire answered, they might all find use for those gifts; but there could not be roome for all to be officers.

And there is not the least intimation in any verse of the Chapter that the intendment of the Apostle in put­ing every man in the Church of Corinth upon coveting to prophesie, was that they might remove their stati­on and become officrs in other places, but that they might be the more useful to one another in that Church 1. Corin. 14. ver. 22, 23, 24. 26. &c. He saith they were to desire other extraordinary gifts, ver. 1. and if those were onely to render them more servicable in that Church, with what shadow of reason can Prophesie be [Page 147] singled out, and be concluded to be coveted in order to Office in other Churches? Or doth Mr. Pool think in his heart, that this was it the Apostle did drive at? And how could all the men in that Church become of­ficers in other places, without a dissolution of the Church in this place, which certainly was far from the Apostles designe.

As for their being enumerated amongst officers, and before Evangelists, we have answered it in our re­ply to Dr. Collings, and also in our former book, p. 93.

In that Judas and Silas as Prophets did exhort, Acts 15. 32. as himselfe confesseth (pag. 74.) and yet there were others, whose work as Prophets was to foretel future events, Acts 11. ver. 27, 28. hence it is not so improbable as he would seem to make it, that there should be two sorts of New Testament Prophets; especially our reasons from 1 Corin. 14. being conside­red; but that answer was added ex abundanti, the objection being sufficiently answered before, and so was no subterfuge; he may say if he please, that one sort were Prophets by an extraordinary gift of pre­diction, the other were Prophets by an ordinary gift of Scripture-interpretation.

As for the selfe-contradiction which (pag. 75, 76.) he telleth us we boldly charge them with. Indeed, there being like titles given to both the books, Jus Divin. the habitations of the Authors of both being in and about London, and the Authors of Jus Divin. Regim. p. 123. promising a book upon the very subject of the other, we were induced to think that they had the same Authors, but least they should have different Authors we onely laid it down by way of supposition, not by way of charge; our words are, and here we cannot but observe how the the Lord hath left them to a self-con­tradiction (If the sundry Ministers of London, publish­ing [Page 148] the first book be of the Province of London, which published the second, &c. Preacher Sent. page 97.

By which any man may see, that if the publishers of the first book be not of the province of London, there is no charge for self-contradiction. And though they be not of the Provincial Assembly, yet it is very remarkable, that they should contradict one an other about such a weighty matter; For if the Prophets be ordinary persons (as the Authors of the first book affirme) that is sufficient saith Mr. Pool, pag. 75. and what he addeth, (pag. 76.) is far from proving it no contradiction, viz. That these Prophets were extraordinary officers in respect of their gift, and yet the ordinary pastors of Corinth in regard of their office and relation.

It is a new contradiction to say that the same per­sons at the sametime should be ordinary, & yet extra­ordinary Officers; as much as to say they are ordinary and yet not ordinary Officers. And office being a re­lation, hence if they be extraordinary officers at all, it must be in respect of their relation, and therefore what he saith is very improper, as if they could be ex­traordinary Officers not in respect of their relation.

And because they well knew there might be many extraordinary Officers in a Church, yet that would not prove that there were more congregations then one in it, therefore surely they intended to deny them to be extraordinary officers, and their complying with Mr. Rutherford speaketh as much; see more of this in our answer to Dr. Collings.

Prop. 2. That prophesying is still continuing.

His reply to our first argument about therepeal of it (pag. 75.) is also answered to Dr. Collings.

The prophesying was ordinary as we prove by di­verse arguments, to which he replyeth pag. 77, 78. we answer,

[Page 149] If the Rules agree to extraordinary Officers, and the work be such as they performed, yet seeing the Chapter is spent chiefly in the regulating of prophsy­ing, and nothing extraordinary is predicated thereof, who can rationally conclude them to be extraordina­ry Prophets? Neither do those Rules agree to extra­ordinary officers, as such, nor is it their worke as such, and therefore it is nothing to the purpose. If he could find a whole Chapter spent in the regulating Apostles or such extraordinary officers in the exercise of their Office, and yet nothing should be mentioned that a­greeth to them as Apostles, or as extraordinary offi­cers, this would run Paralel; but no such instance is found.

Arg. 3. We say one great end of extraordinary Prophesying is denyed to this, viz. to be a signe.

Ob. 1. They had an other extraordinary gift, to wit, a gift of infallable teaching by immediate revelation. Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of prediction, &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 77.

Answ. There is not a word in this Chapter or else­where to evidence that these Prophets had any such extraordinary gift of infallible teaching by immedi­ate Revelation; there is as great a silence about this, as the other, That divers of the Apostles had not the gift of prediction, proveth that they were not extra­ordinary Prophets; but how this is against us we know not; for they had an extraordinary office upon them, viz. their Apostle-ship, though they were not Pro­phets.

Ob. 2. I am prone to conceive that the prediction of future events, was rather a priviledge indulged to some new Testament prophets, then common to all prophets, &c. pag. 77.

An. 1. We have no leasure to disprove his ground­lesse conceits.

[Page 150] 2. That it was not common to all Prophets, we assert those 1 Cor. 14. were without it, but that there were many new Testament, extraordinary Prophets, without a gift of prediction of future events, let him prove.

Our Argument is from the denial of this gift to them, v. 22. not barely from its not being mentioned.

Though the gift of prediction was chiefly for the sake of unbelievers, yet also for the sake of believers, Acts 11. v. 27. 28, 29. and this answereth his third particular p. 78.

Ob. 3. It is not said that these prophets were given not for a signe to them that believe not, but that that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a signe, Mr. Pool pag: 78.

Answ. 1. The Antithesis plainly sheweth his deny­ing prophesying to be a for signe, 1 Corin. 14. 22. else it had been enough to say, Tongues are not to them that believe; but the Apostle saith, Tongues are for a signe, &c. and in opposition to this, he addeth but prophesying, &c. and therefore prophesying was not for a signe.

2. He speaketh of prophesying, not of one act only of prophets, ver. 22. but prophesying serveth not, &c: Surely prophesying includeth all acts that are proper to them as prophets, yea foretelling things to come is prophesying (though the Apostle denieth that to be here intended, by denying it to be for a signe) Therefore his denying prophesying to be for a sign, is as much as if he had expresly said, that these prophets were given not for a sign.

Whereas he saith (pag. 78.) they had divers other extraordinary gifts, as that of Tongues, and the in­terpretation of them &c. We answer, That these Prophets, 1 Corin. 14. had such gifts, is not proved; and however these did not betid-them as Prophets, [Page 151] but (if they had them) were a priviledge indulged to them, as they were to many others in those dayes, who were no Officers at all, Act. 10. 44. 46.

Our fourth Argument is from its not being allowed to women, 1 Cor. 14▪ 34. which extraordinary prophesie was, Luke 2. 36. 38. Mr. Pool thinketh that Anna did it not in a publick Assembly, pag. 79.

We answer, Its said expressely, Luke 2. ver. 37. she was a widow which departed not from the Temple; and v. 38. And she coming in——spake of him to [all] them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. That she should be said to be in a publick place, [the Temple] and to speak to [all] &c. and yet should speak onely in a private way, or severally to them, is irrational to imagine, and a meer shift.

As to what he saith (pag. 80. 81.) it hath very little weight in it, for he granteth, 1. That Doctrine is ordi­nary, and giveth no probable grounds that here it must be extraordinary; as for the office being extraordinary, it is confuted already. 2. That there is ordinary Reve­lation; and his reasons to prove extraordinary Reve­lations to be here intended, are very weak.

Object. 1. The word is of the present tense, [...] if it be revealed, not if it have been revealed, Mr. Pool, pag. 80.

Answ. 1. Dr. Collings will tell him, the enallage of tenses is very ordinary in Scripture, Vind. Revind. pag 107.

It is said, Roman. 1. ver. 17. The righteousnes of God [...] is revealed, yet this doth not deny either that it was revealed before, or that it should be after­ward. So if it were in the presence Tense, if it be revealed, this would not deny the Revelation of the things to be before.

2 It is one of Mr. Pools grosse mistakes, that the word [...] is in the present Tense for [...] is the first [Page 152] Aorist, & it is generally rendred thus▪ si revelatum fuerits si patefactum fuerit; not if any thing be at present, but if any thing hath been revealed; so that quite contrary to what Mr. Pool saith, the very Tense doth intimate, that they had the Revelation before their sitting by; and thus his Argument is built upon a meer mistake.

Object. 2. The posture in which it is revealed, when he sitteth by, pag. 80.

Answ. It onely intimateth what posture they were in, after the things were revealed (as is already proved) not what posture they were in at the time of their Reve­lation, one that was sitting by had the Revelation, but that he had it whils he was sitting by, the words prove not in the least.

Object. 3. This Revelation was not common to all the Prophets, but peculiar to one [...] some one that sitteth by, and therefore surely it cannot be the Re­velation by the word, which is common to all the Prophets, yea all the Church, pag. 80.

Answ. 1. If this Revelation were not common to all the Prophets, then it will prove an Argument against him, if such extraordinary Revelation be intended, for we may argue thus,

Those to whom extraordinary Revelations were not common, were but ordinary Prophets; for they cannot be extraordinary Prophets, without such ex­traordinary gifts.

But some of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were such (saith, Mr. Pool) to whom extraordinary Revelations were not common, Ergo, Some of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were but ordinary Prophets.

Surely therefore upon second thoughts Mr. Pool will say, it was common to all these Prophets to have these Revelations at one time or another, though at this or that particular time it was peculiar to one or two to have them; and then we answer,

[Page 153] 2. Its being peculiar to some one to have them, doth not prove his having them by immediate inspiration, but onely intimateth a possibility of others coming without preparation, because all the Prophets might not come prepared by premeditation to prophesie, there­for: it might aptly be said, if any thing be revealed to one that sitteth by, &c. and so it may be meant of or­dinary Revelation by the word, which is common to to all the Church, to have in some degree, though it be not common to all the Prophets to have at this or that time, in such a degree as to be in readiness to pro­phesie. As now a dayes its ordinary for many Ministers to go to a Lecture and sit by, and yet not go prepared to Preach.

Object. 4. The effect of the Revelation is to give astop to the others discourse, pag. 80.

Answ. It cannot be proved that a Revelation given to a second, was that which caused the first to hold his peace; as if it made an interruption, or put him upon breaking of his discourse sooner then he would: but onely it intimateth that two were not to speak to­gether, nor one spin out all the time (if others came prepared to speak) and that this is the meaning is evi­dent by the reason which the Apostle addeth, 1 Cor. 14. 31. For, ye may all prophesie one by one, &c.

Object. 5. As to what he addeth (pag. 8 [...].) that it fell out beyond expectation, and therefore is brought in conditi­onally, If any thing be revealed, &c.

Answ. This doth not prove the Revelation [...]o be be­yond his expectation that had it, but onely intimateth a possibility that diverse might have Revelations, or might come with preparations to prophesie; as it is said, Act. 13. ver. 15. [If] ye have any word of exhorta­tion, say on. So that [It] is not needless, yet doth not deny the Revelation to be ordinary and common.


Answering some arguments brought against the preaching of men unordained to Office, and especially that from Rom. 10. 15. about mission.

WE having vindicated our Arguments for the preaching of men un-ordained to Office, from the exceptions laid against them by Mr. Pool, and ha­ving fully answered their Arguments (in our former book) against our assertion, we might desist further troubling our selves about them; but we shall add a few words to shew the invalitity of them, notwithstand­ing all that Mr. Pool hath said in their defence.

Argu. 1. Their first and chief Argument is taken from Rom. 10. ver. 15. How shall they Preach except they be sent? Jus Divin. Min. pag. 68. 69.

We desire it may be observed by the Reader, that in our former Book, we have largely and fully answered the Argument of the provincial Assembly from this Text, and also many objections; but in this, as in many other places of his Book, Mr. Pool saith no­thing, or very little in the defence of the Argument as they lay it (though he hath undertaken their de­fence) but by some new notions of his own, seeketh to patch up an Argument from the same Text, and replyeth to a few (and but to a few) of our reasons, and so leaveth i [...].

What is said by Mr. Pool, if it were cogent will not prove what is said by the provincial Assembly to be so. What reason hath induced him to take this course, we know not.

The Provincial Assembly would gather from this Text,

[Page 155] That mission is Essential to the constitution of a Preacher.

Mr. Pool saith, there is an apparent fallacy in part of our reply.

Object. 1. A mans preaching may be unlawful. 1. Cir­cumstantially. 2. Substantially. If he wanteth mission, the very substantial act of preaching is unlawful, Mr. Pool, pag. 83.

Answ. There is no fallacy in our words; for, It may properly be said, How can they Preach lawfully with­out those that are onely circumstantial requisites unto Preaching? and this undeniably proveth (against the provincial Assembly) that this interrogation cannot evidence mission to be Essentiall unto the constitution of a Preacher; and this was it we inferred from it. Had we made it equally unlawful to Preach without Circumstantial requisites unto that work, as without those that are substantial, what he saith might have seemed more pertinent; but the question here being, whether the foresaid conclusion can be groundedly in­ferred from that interrogation, how shall they Preach, &c. we cannot understand how his words are the to pur­pose, it is rather a begging part of the question, to say, that the want of mission maketh the very substantial act of Preaching unlawful.

Object. 2. The sum of what he addeth (pag. 83. 84:) lies in this, That sending is sometimes taken for the mission of a person already authorized to any place or people, sometimes for the authorization of a person to a work or of­fice. That a providential doth not exclude, but rather pre­suppose a ministerial mission. That God sends by some call. That the Apostles did send by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands.

Answ. 1. Let it be observed that he granteth there is, 1. A providential sending. 2. A mission that [Page 156] doth not authorize to a work or Office, but is of per­sons already authorized.

2. We grant, that a providential mission doth not exclude, but rather presuppose that mission, which consists in Christs commanding or assigning Preachers to go with the Gospel unto such or such persons; of which we have spoken, Preacher Sent. pag. 125. &c.

3. We cannot grant, that mission is the authorization of a person to a work or office; or that a mans Call to Office is his mission: our reasons for the denyal of this may be seen, Preacher Sent, pag. 121. 122. where we have proved by diverse Arguments, that sending is not a Call to Office, or any act that doth constitute a man an Officer or Preacher.

And therefore it behoveth Mr. Pool to prove, that a Call authorizing men to Preach is Gods sending men to the work of preaching. For the Scripture he al­leadgeth (p. 83. 84.) we apprehend, either they onely speak of a sending which is after authorization to the work they are sent to do, and this is mission properly, which indeed presupposeth a Call and authorization unto that work a man is sent about.

Or else they speak of sending figuratively, as often things Antecedent are expressed by those which are subsequent, as Gen. 3. ver. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. Sweat which followeth labour, is put for the labour which goeth before, Mark 6. ver. 9. put not on two coats. i. e. do not provide two: putting on, which is an after act, is used in stead of providing or taking which is aforegoing act, and so it is explained, Mat. 10. 10. Thus crowning is put for the constituting one a King▪ &c.

So sending, which is a subsequent act, may ex­presse authorization which is Antecedaneous thereun­to. Pray the Lord that he would send forth labourers into his harvest; how send them? surely they were not bidden [Page 157] by Christ to pray, only that a Presbytery might ordain, or a Church elect those that were already furnished for such a work, but that the Lord would furnish men with gifts, qualifications and all requisites unto their labour­ing in his harvest.

Here many things precedaneous unto authorization to the work yet are expressed by the sending. Gifting is not sending properly, yet here that is set forth there­by. In this acceptation of the word, the authoriza­tion of Christ, the Apostles, Isaiah, and all the other which he mentioneth, may be denoted by their sending, yet their mission was not the act that did authorize them unto their works or Offices, but was subsequent to their authorization.

But we know not any reason against a taking mission in the other sence, in diverse, if not all the other Texts alleadged by him, John 20▪ 21. As my Faether hath sent me, so send I you. i. e. As the Father having before au­thorized me to the Office of a Mediator, and as fruit thereof hath sent me to do the work of a Mediator, so I having already authorized you to be Apostles (for they were Apostles before this) I now send you to do the work of your Apostleship. So 1 Cor. 1. 17. Christ having before authorized me, hath sent me, &c. and so for Isaiah, &c. As for Jer. 23. 21. I have not sent them: we grant it is not meant of a bare providential sending, yet we deny this to be the meaning, I did not authorize them to be Prophets; it onely intima­teth that the Lord did not command them to go with that message, to that people, hence its added [I have not spoken to them;] and is so explained. Jer. 14. v. 14. I sent them not; what is that? [neither have I commanded them.] For, Mat. 10. Christ first authorizeth them. v. 1. and afterwards sendeth them forth. ver. 5.

For Luk. 10. 1. The appointing of the seventy, is plainly distinguished from, and set before the sending [Page 158] of them; that the Apostles used fasting and praying and laying on of hands, is granted, but that this was missi­on, we deny.

4. If mission be sometimes taken for the authoriza­tion of a person to a work or office, yet that is no proof that the mission mentioned Rom. 10. v. 15. is any such authorization.

The argument of the provincial Assembly is not from mission in general, but for that sending spoken of, Rom. 10. and seeing Mr. Pool granteth, there is a pro­vidential mission, and a sending of persons already au­thorized, it concerneth him to prove,

1. That the Mission, Rom. 10. 15. is an authoriza­tion to a work or office.

2. That an authorization or call by man, is the mission there intended: we do not find that mission doth any where in Scripture denote the authorizing or commissionating of a person to an office, by man, ei­ther by a Church or Presbytery.

These two things being unproved, their argument which is built upon this text cometh to nothing.

Ob. 3. He saith, we observe that it is brought in as a justification of the calling of the Gentiles, and of the sending of preachers to them by the Apostles; and thence he inferreth, it must be understood of a moral impossibility; for if it be taken of a natural impossibility, it is false, for though the Apostles had not sent them, they might have gone of their own accord, or some other way, Mr. Pool pag. 85.

Answ. We did (Preacher Sent. pag. 312.) and still do utterly deny, that the Apostles or any other men, did give an authoritative mission; and therefore his inferrence, that it must be understood of a moral impossibility, is groundlesse, it being built upon a sup­position that we say, preachers were sent by the Apo­stles, to the Gentiles▪ and could not have preached to them without their mission; whereas we know not that [Page 159] the Apostles had any hand in any mission, but that which is providential, many might (for ought we know) go of their own accord, or some other way, that the Apostles did not send.

Ob. 4. If this be only a providential mission, then none are excluded; the devils then may be the preachers here spoken of, Mr. Pool. pag. 86.

Ans. We grant, that none are providentially sent to preach, but those that are before warranted to be preachers: mission doth not make a man a Preacher, but presupposeth him to be one: and therefore Devils and all others that want a Divine allowance to preach, are excluded.

We used arguments to prove that mission is not a call to office, or constitutive to an Officer.

Our first argument is from the Apostles having mis­sion after a call, and being constituted Officers, Mat. 28. 19.

Ob. 1. They were not Apostles to the Gentiles before, Mat. 28. pag. 86.

Answ. 1. Then every new and solemn work, cal­leth for a new and solemn mission; and so as often as a Minister removeth, he must have a new ordination, if that be mission.

2. This mission did not constitute them officers, for they were constituted officers before.

Ob. 2. Mission is taken sometimes for a bare dispo­sal of them to this or that particular place or work, and in this case they might have a hundred missions, pag. 87.

Answ. 1. We take it then for granted that Mat. 28. 19. speaketh of such a mission as is a bare dispo­sal of a man to this or that place, or work, else this ob­jection is nothing to the purpose.

2. Then he clasheth with Dr. Collings, for it being told him that Mat. 28. 19, 20. is not a commission which authorizeth to preach, he denyeth it, and argu­eth [Page 160] against that assertion, Vind. Revind. pag: 93, 94. and how we should answer Dr. Collings and Mr. Pool when they are against one another, let the Reader judge.

3. It concerneth Mr: Pool to prove that Rom. 10. 15. speaketh of a mission that authorizeth to preach, If Mat. 28. 19. speaketh onely of a providential mis­sion, why may not the other Text speak of the same also.

As to the seventy disciples, his saying (pag. 87.) that if they had mission from Christ, that made them Officers, is a begging the question; it is poor arguing, when that which is the question, is made the answer to an argument.

Whether mission maketh or constituteth men officers, is here the question, yet its brought as a reply to our argument. And seeing he granteth a mission that doth not authorize, he might easily understand that there is no contradiction in it, to say, they were sent and yet were not Officers.

Our fourth argument he altereth both in the words and sense, and then replyeth to it pag. 87. but ac­cording to his words, all that are instrumental in an ordinary way to others conversion would be proved and evidenced to be Officers, if mission were a call to Office.

He would have proved (pag. 88.) that mission is ordination: but he giveth not one Scripture for it.

He telleth us of mens having a commission to preach two waies, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary, by setting them apart to the work, &c.

But what is this to the purpose; he knoweth it is not granted, either that the setting apart he intendeth, is mission, or that such a setting apart or mission doth authorize and commissionate men to preach.

He telleth us (pag. 89.) of clear consequences for mission, being ordination, yet sheweth not one of them.

[Page 161] Asserteth Deacons to have mission, which the Scrip­ture never saith.

Affirmeth that one may be said to be sent unto those that are locally present at the time of sending, which reason forbideth.

And whereas we said mission was the end of consti­tuting or making the Twelve, Mark. 3. v. 14. He or­daineth Twelve—that he might send them forth, &c. he objecteth,

Ob. If one look into the Greek, it is but a meer shew, for it is not [...] but [...] acquisivit, comparavit, he got, procured, took Twelve into his family, &c. pag. 89. 90.

Answ. He cannot be ignorant that [...] signifi­eth to constitute or make, and this very often, as Mat. 4. 19. [...], I will make you fishers of men, Mark 10. 16. Mat. 19. 4. male and female [...] made he them, Acts 17. 26. [...], Hath made of one blood all Nations, &c. Hebr. 1. 2. and so Mar. 3. 14. he made Twelve, &c. as for taking them into his family to fit them, &c. it is his meer conjecture with out ground.

As to (pag. 90, 91.) we say Acts 6. and Acts 13. hold forth something about ordination, but that this is mission, they say not. A call to office we do not make superfluous, but that mission is that call, we find not. Let it be proved, that it belongeth to a presbytery to give an authoritative mission; if that cannot be done, his out-cries of paradoxes and absurdities will come to nothing.

Arg. 2. Their second argument is taken from Heb. 5. v. 4, 5.

We expressely granted a call to be necessary unto Office, or that none may assume Office without a call, and therefore Mr. Pool is mistaken if he thinketh we aimed at the shaking that assertion.

[Page 162] But he that shall read our book without prejudice, will find that the provincial assemblies conclusions from that Text, are still shaken.

That Gospel Ministers are a Superiour or equal or­der to the high Priest, is not proved, they may be preferred before them in respect of many new Testa­ment privelidges, which neither Iohn Baptist, nor any Old Testament officers did injoy; but that the order or Office is superiour to the high Priest who ty­pified Christ, (not as Bulls and Goats, &c, but) as our High-Priest, this we see no proof for.

And because Christ was called to the Highest Office, therefore none may undertake any office with­out a call; though we deny not the need of a call, yet we cannot see the force of this consequence.

But these arguments he saith, are not directly levied against us, and so we shall proc [...]ed to their other ar­guments.


Answering what Mr. Pool saith in defence of the Pro­vincial Assemblies eight arguments against doing the work of the Ministry without Ordination.

THe Provincial assembly urged eight Arguments to prove, that none may do the work of the Mini­stry without ordination.

Arg. 1. Their first argument is, that work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his, neither ought nor may be done by any others, &c. We answer, prayer, distribution of wordly goods, ex­horting and rebuking are such works, yet others may performe them.

[Page 163] Ob. 1. Prayer he denyeth to be a worke for which the Office of the Ministry was designed. The Deacons work is the distribution of the Churchs Goods, which none but Dea­cons may do. The work of reproving and exhorting they may do, but privately, not publickly, Mr. Pool. page 96.

Answ. 1. That prayer is a work for which the Office of the Ministry was designed, is strongly intima­ted, Acts 6. v. 4. where [...] is appled to pray­er, as well as the Ministry of the word, and it is a word very significant, it denoteth a mans making it his work and businesse, and that constantly, his attending, bending and applying himself to it, and being instant in it; to which his instance about hospitality, 1 Tim. 3. 1. runneth not paralel.

In the Bishops daies, when liberty of praying was almost denyed Preachers, then it was accounted their work; and if it be not, private men may pray pub­lickly, as well as perform other acts.

2. Exhorting and Rebuking are the works of Pas­tors, and distribution of wordly goods is the work of Deacons, and this is enough to shew the invalidity of their argument; for hence a proposition directly opposite to theirs is true, viz. That some works, for the doing of which, God hath designed special Officers of his owne, ought or may be performed by some that are not designed unto those Offices; and so their ar­gument is false.

That they are the Churches goods which Deacons distribute, onely sheweth that none but Deacons can act under that Office relation, and so we grant none may preach under the relation of a pastor, but he that is an officer. Therefore Mr. Pool runneth to the man­ner of acting, They may exhort and [...] buke, but pri­vately, not publickly.

We tell him if an officer exhorteth or rebuketh in private, it may be an act of office.

[Page 164] Ob. 2 That no act but a publick act is an act of office, we afirme not; an Officers private rebuke is an act of office.

Answ. 1. Hence it followeth, that publicknesse is not an inseparable property of Office, or is not that which maketh an act to be an act of Office; and there­fore men cannot be charged with assuming or inva­ding office barely for their exhorting in publick.

2. This [...]overturneth their argument for pri­vate exhorting and rebuking (being as he granteth acts of office) are works, for the doing of which God hath designed special officers of his own, yet they may be performed by some that are not designed unto those Offices.

Their exhorting and rebuking in private might as well be called a usurping Office, as their doing it pub­lickly.

To prove their argument they bring the examples of Saul and Vzzah.

We tell them,

1. Either these instances are impertinent, or none out of Office may preach in cases of necessity.

Ob: 3. The case is not paralel, nor is the necessity alike; Preaching is absolutely necessary to salvation, so is not sacrificing, pag. 97.

Answ. 1. Preaching is necessary, but not absolutely necessary to salvation; it is one, but not the onely means; for parental and other private instructions may be useful to that end.

2. To prove that such as are onely mala quia prohi­bita, may be done in a case of necessity, himselfe (pag. 65.) [...]lledgeth Davids eating the Shew-bread, yet that did not make such a case of necessity as there is of preaching unto salvation, and so our argument is as strong as his.

3. This is a meer fallacy; for he speaketh of the [Page 165] work of preaching being more necessary then the work of Sacrificing; whereas we speak of the necessity that persons are under to performe those works. And if the necessity of preaching unto salvation will justifie the preaching of men out of office, they can never want a case of necessity. What he addeth about sacrifices and Sacraments, is not against our objection, but see­meth to intimate that Sacraments are more limited and confined to office then preaching, though they be not so necessary to Salvation, and so proveth their fourth argument to be false.

2. We tell him that these acts of Saul, Vzzah and Vzziah were expresly forbidden, and some of them threatened with death, Numb. 4. 15, and 16. 40. &c.

Ob. 4. A thing may be prohibited either in expresse termes, or by solid consequence; Vzzah was punished not principally, at least, not solely because he did touch the Ark with his hands, but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders. He argueth from 1. Corin. 14. 34. That an expresse prohibition is not necessary. And addeth that there is no more expresse prohibition to restrain men from admini­string the Sacraments, then from preaching, the reason of the prohibition is the same in both, to wit, because Officers were appointed for those works, Mr. Pool, pag. 98, 99.

Answ. 1. We grant that we are to be satisfied with Scripture consequences, but that the preaching of gif­ted men out of Office is prohibited by any solid consequence, we find not.

2. We wonder how Mr. Pool durst say, that Vzzah was not punished principally, at least not solely, be­cause he did touch the Ark with his hands, seeing it is said expresly, 1 Cron. 13. v. 10. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Vzzah and he smote him, [because he put his hand to the Ark] and there he died before God.

[Page 166] 3. For 1 Corin. 14. 34. we have spoken to it before. It cannot prohibit the preaching of all persons under authority; for all Church-officers are under authority to Magistrates; and all young Scholars (whose parents are living) are under authority to their parents, yet if they have submitted to Ordination, he will grant they may Preach; and if such a being under authority be intended, as is peculiar to women, then nothing can be concluded thence against the preaching of gifted men.

4. That Gods appointing officers to do a work, doth not prohibit others doing of it, we have already evi­denced; and therefore Officers being appointed to Preach, doth not by consequence prohibit others preaching.

5. An expresse prohibition, or Gods appointing Officers to administer the Sacraments, are not the chief, much lesse the only Arguments against their doing it, who are no Officers; there are many other mediums that prove the administration of Sacraments to be more re­strained unto Officers then Preaching; as from others not having such a Divine allowance for that, as we have proved they have for preaching, from the Sacraments, being purely by institution, &c.

There is no prohibition either expresse or by conse­quence, of gifted mens preaching, and though this doth not prove that they may preach, yet it sufficient­ly evidenceth the weakness of their Argument against their preaching; for the Acts of Saul, Ʋzza and Ʋzziah were expresly forbidden and threatned; and so their Argument hath colour onely, and no substance. As to pag. 100. publick preaching is not the whole work of a Minister, any more then private exhorting or re­buking; and seeing he granteth private rebuking by an Officer to be an act of Office, either private Christians doing this, rendreth Gods Officers void or unnecessary as to that act of their office, and so one appointment of [Page 167] God should be vain (which it were an impeachment to to the wisdom of God to assert, yet he saith little less, pag. 100) or else gifted mens preaching in publick will not render Gods Officers vain or unnecessary, as to that act of their office, viz. publick Preaching.

Himself granteth that men are not restrained by humane or Divine Lawes from keeping School, yet a general liberty for that publick work breaketh no or­der, no more doth a liberty for gifted mens Preaching in publick.

But our instance of a Fathers and a Schoolmasters, Teaching prove, that distinction between relations is not destroyed by their doing the same works, and this we produced it for.

Argu. 2. Their second Argument, is from gifted persons not being appointed or warranted thereunto: for then every gifted man that Preacheth not is guilty of a sin of omission.

We answer, gifted men are appointed to Preach, yet the want of opportunity or a Call from others, may free it from being a sin of omission.

Object. 1. Peter was forbidden to preach, yet he ac­counted it his duty, Act. 5. 29. if gifted men were appointed by God to preach, no men (by negligence in not desiring them) could disoblige them, pag. 101.

Ans. 1. Officers are called to preach by the Churches they are over, and if those Churches should grow neg­ligent and not desire them, yet they ought to Preach, if they will hear. In some cases Officers are obliged to preach (as Peter was, Act. 5. 29) when men forbid them, yet when circumstances do not concur, they do not sin though they forbear.

2. Gifted men are so obliged to preach, that no men can disoblige them; but as to the exercise here or there at this or that time, many things may hinder an obligation to that, as we proved before. To pray, [Page 168] read, hear, and privately to exhort, &c. are duties that Christians are obliged to by their general calling, yet men may sin if they act in these, so as to neglect or justle out the works of their special calling, for it is duty to be exercised therein also; and therefore mens acting in such duties must be determined by the special calling (as to the time) or by conveniency, opportuni­ty, &c. and so for gifted mens Preaching.

Object. 2. If Preaching gifts be talents, Mat. 25. then whoever useth them not is under a curse, pag. 102.

Answ. Talents (though not used) are not as talents wrapped up, unless through slothfulness or wickedness, the use be neglected, Mat. 25. ver. 26. If one 'hath a talent of Counsel, and counsel be despised, he that hath the talent is free.

Argu. 3. Their third Argument is, no man may do the Office of a Magistrate or Deacon who is not called to it.

Mr. Pool taketh a little piece of our reply, and seeketh to answer it with his case of necessity, which we have spoken often enough to; our chief answers he saith no­thing to.

Whereas he telleth us of setting up our own devices in Gods worship (pag. 103.) we wish their way were not more guilty of this evil then ours. And if it be a sin for ungifted men, or such as are erroneous, to preach, surely a Church is to take care that its mem­bers be not guilty of it, and this will amount to little less then a proof, that there may be approbation with­out Ordination.

Our instance of believing, which he mentioneth (pag. 104.) proveth, that one may perform a work of greater consequence, and yet may not perform a work of less consequence, and so was no fallacy; but now he restraineth it unto such works as relate to others, we shal instance in private exhorting, this is a work of grea­ter [Page 169] consequence, difficulty and danger, then the works of Magistrates or Deacons, and that for the reasons they mention (Jus Divin. Min. pag. 87.) viz. because if they miscarry in private exhortation, they destroy souls, yet private Christians may do that.

Arg. 4. Their fourth Argument is, none may ad­minister the Sacrament who is uncalled, Ergo, none may preach who is uncalled; for these two are joyned together, Mat. 28. 19. Our first reply to 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 Ʋniversality 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.

[Page 170] 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 its 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 [Page 171] 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. [...]. 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 Church­members, 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.

[Page 172] 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 its 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. Its 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 the Argument proveth just nothing.

Argu. 5. Their fifth Argument is, To Preach with­out calling and Ordination to the work is to usurp [Page 173] authority over the Church; to prove which they as­sert preaching to be an act of authority, Hebr. 7. 1 Tim. 2. 12.

The weaknesse of this argument we largely shewed, Preacher Sent, pag. 171, 172, 173. but Mr. Pool replyeth not to what we have there said. He telleth us (pag. 107.) if a man preacheth to heathens, he cannot usurp authority over the Church, and this enervateth their argument. We deny that men use office-authority to­wards heathens in preaching to them, they do not act as over them; his very instance confuteth this; for an Ambassador hath not authority over him that he is sent to treat with in a large sense, we have proved that gifted men have authority, and that from the Scripture, to preach without ordination; and so we do not crosse the golden saying of Tgnatius, which he mentioneth, pag. 107.

As for Hebr. 7. we said (amongst other things) he that blesseth, by an original inherent power, as Christ doth, he is greater then he that is blessed, and of such blessing the Text speaketh, &c.

Ob. This is very grosse; the Text evidently speaks of Melchisedeck, who blessed onely ministerially, and not by an original power, &c. pag. 108.

Answ. 1. We did not say that Melchisedeck blessed by an original power, our words plainly give that power to Christ onely.

2. That the Text hath reference unto Christ (who hath an original power to blesse) we proved, and it is clear, Heb. 6. v. 20.—Jesus made an high Priest forever after the order of Melchisedeck, and Heb. 7. v. 11, 12. 14. 17. After the similitude of Melchisedeck, there ariseth another Priest, ve. 15. Whence it is evident that the Apostles main scope, drift and designe is to set forth Christ in his greatnesse and excellency, by comparing him with Melchisedeck; for severall things are spoken of [Page 174] Melchisedeck that do more properly belong unto Christ, then to him; as he is said to be without Father, with­out Mother, and withuut beginning, Heb. 7. 3. yet Melchisadeck was a man, and not God, and so as to his natural being, had a Father, a Mother, and a beginning; and therefore these things are spoken of him, (as Calvin saith) as of one cloathed with the person of Christ.

Thus the Apostle declareth, not onely how Christ concurred in the particular act of blessing Abraham; but the greatnesse of Melchisedeck, who blessed Abraham is mentioned, chiefly to notifie the greatnesse of Christ, who blessed the faithful after that similitude, viz. with an extraordinary High-Priests blessing.

From all which it is evident, that if Melchisedeck blessed only ministerially, yet seeing the chief designe of the Text is to set forth Christs acting as a high-Priest in blessing, hence as it hath reference unto him, so a blessing by an original power is intended.

3. Melchisedeck blessed by an extraordinary autho­rity; and this can be no proof that all ordinary per­sons who blesse others, have a superioriry over those that are blessed; and so this speaketh nothing to his purpose.

As to 1 Tim. 2. 12. we told them there is a plain distinction and difference in that very Text, between teaching and usurping authority, as [nor] doth in­timate.

Ob. 1. It is a familiar thing to use a word disjoyning one thing from an other, when indeed the one explaines the other, Rev. 22. 15. Gal. 1. 12. Mr. Pool pag. 108.

Answ. 1. If sometimes a word disjunctive be expo­sitive, yet usually it is not so; multitude of instances might be given where things disjoyned by an [...] (as in, 1 Tim. 2. 12.) must be distinct one from an o­ther.

[Page 175] 2. The Scriptures he alledgeth speak not for him, Rev. 22. 15. useth [...] which is copulative, and so doth not necessarily disjoyne as [...] doth. The things are distinct in Gal. 1. 12. I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, &c. i. e. I neither was taught it by others, nor did I learn it of my selfe, by my own study and industry; there is a teaching, and so a lear­ning which is not by other men, a self-teaching, Rom. 2. 21. and a natures teaching, 1 Corin. 11. 14. yea there are Satanical teachings which are not by men.

3. When the Scripture useth a disjoyning word (as here it doth) the things spoken of are distinct, unlesse where cogent reasons enforce the contrary: and what a weak argument then is it to prove teaching an act of authority, when these are disjoyned with an [...] in the very Text that is produced for the proof of it, viz. 1. Tim. 2. 12.

Ob. 2. On the one side of it, teaching is forbidden, on the other side, silence is enjoyned, and nothing can be more evident, then that he speakes of that usurpation of authori­ty, which consisteth in teaching, and is opposed to silence. Mr. Pool, pag. 109.

Answ. 1▪ If things be never so distinct, yet one must be expressed before the other, and therefore the put­ting teaching before usurping authority, doth not prove usurpation of authority to consist in teaching; neither is the injoyning silence after, any proof of it; for wo­men may usurp authority by private speaking, and so silence is opposed unto usurping of authority, which is not publike teaching.

2. Many other phrases are so [...] hemmed in on both sides, and yet the things are certainely distinct one from another: as 1 Cor. 3. ver. 7. watering hath plan­ting on the one side, and Gods giving increase on the other side; will any say, therefore watering consisteth in planting; so Gal. 1. ver. 1. and Gal. 5. 6. neither [Page 176] Circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith, &c. uncircumcision hath circumcision on the one side, and faith on the other side, but will any say, that uncircumcision consisteth in circumcision? no more doth teaching on the one side, and silence on the other prove usurpation of authority to consist in teaching. Mr. Pool speaketh here with much confidence, but with no evidence.

Ob. 3. The man here is not to be understood singularly for her husband, but indefinitely, for any man; for the A­postle is comparing Sex with Sex, in the general,-it concerns such women as have no husbands; it is authority in a Church affair, that is spoken of, Mr. Pool. pag. 109.

Answ. 1. If [the man] here be understood indefi­nitely, [any man] then [the gift] 1 Pet. 4. 10. is to be understood indefinitely [any gift] and this answe­reth what he saith, pag. 45. about an indefinite expres­sion.

2. If (as he saith) the Apostle compareth Sex with Sex in the general, then the prohibition belongeth on­ly to women, and so it maketh nothing against the preaching of gifted men.

3. The whole sex is forbidden teaching, but only those that have husbands may be forbidden, this usur­ping of authority, because only they are required to be under that obedience of wives. The promise of salvati­on in child-bearing mentioned but three verses after, 1 Tim. 2. 15. doth not concern all women, but onely those that have husbands.

4. That Church authority is intended, he asserteth, but hath not proved.

5. Women may usurp authority, though it be not over husbands, or in teaching publickly, and therefore their argument hence is without proof, though the man be not onely her husband, but any man.

As to what he addeth (pag. 109.) it concerneth not [Page 177] us, and is so far from an improvement of our argu­ment to the highest, that at the lowest it will be more conclusive; but seeing he hath mentioned it, we shall say thus much to it.

It precepts expresse be prohibitions by consequence, as Mr. Pool saith they are, (pag. 98, 99.) then a pari exceptions expresse are concessions by consequence, and so the excepting women in the case of teaching or prophesying, 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. will be an allowance to men that have the gift; we think one is as strong as the other.

Ob. 4. A paralel place is 1 Corin. 14. 34. to speak i. e. in the Church, is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection, and un-officed persons are in a state of subjecti­on, as well as women, Mr. Pool, pa. 110.

Answ. This we answered twice before: He is so confident of the validity of this argument, that he of­ten mentioneth it and concludeth it undeniable, and dispaireth of ever seeing him convinced by man that resisteth such evidence; whereas indeed it is a meer empty sound.

1. Because men may be in subjection, and yet be in power: ordinary Ministers were in subjection to the Apostles, yet were in power, yea in power to preach; Men not in office were in power to judge, 1 Corin. 5. 12. to pardon, 2 Corin. 2 8. much more to declare the Law in which to proceed to judge and pardon.

Women are in subjection, not in power; Women might not preach, if they should be ordained by an a­buse of power.

2. Because it is not every state of subjection that for­biddeth preaching, 1 Corin. 14. 34. for then none who are subject to Magistrates, (and what Ministers are not so) or parents may preach, and so it is altogether with­out [Page 178] proof, that all un-officed men are in that state of subjection which is there intended.

3. Because it is not an Ecclesiastical state of subjection that is is intended, 1 Corin. 14. 34. For then all wo­men are not there forbidden preaching, but only such as are Church-members, because then none else were in the state of subjection, that is the reason against wo­mens preaching.

And because womens subjection, in one kind, viz. in a civil or natural respect, forbiddeth their preach­ing; for Mr. Pool to say by the same reason, all un­officed men are forbidden to preach, by their being in Subjection in another kind, viz. to Church-officers, who will not see the vanity of such an argument?

4. Because the state of Subjection which the A­postle proveth womens preaching to be unlawfull by, 1 Corin. 14. 34. is such as is peculiar to women, and no un-officed men ever were in it, and therefore it is no reason against any mens preaching, no men be­ing in the state of subjection spoken of; if he will as­sert they are, let him prove it.

He that readeth 1 Corin. 11. will find that Sex is compared with Sex, man with woman, and the woman said to be in subjection in way of distinction from, or opposition to the man.

Because a woman who is one, to whom man is a head, 1. Corin. 11. 3. who was formed after the man, 1 Tim. 2. 13. created for the man, 1 Corin. 11. 9. subjected to the man, Gen. 3. 16. because a woman the weaker vessel, 1 Pet. 3 7. who was deceived, and was in transgression, 1 Tim. 2 14. because such a one is to keep silence in the Church, must not prophesie there; to say therefore the man, who is the head of the wo­man, may not prophesie or preach, this is a lamen­table non sequitur.

Arg. 6. Their sixt Argument is, from the Scriptures [Page 179] reproving un-called men for preaching, Jerem. 23. 21, 22. I sent them not, &c.

To part of our answer unto this, he replyeth thus.

Ob. 1. This is a little too grosse to say they are by God called to be Prophets, of whom God professeth, they run, but he sent them not. The prophets had no other call then this, or at least this was Gods usual way of cal­ling them, be immediately inspired them with an ex­traordinary message, 1 Sam. 3. 20. Mr. Pool. p. 111.

Answ. 1. Sending did not make prophets: Samuel had a revelation, yet was not sent to Eli to declare it, he was forced to draw it out, 1 Sam. 3. 17. yet Sa­muel was a prophet, as appeareth, v. 20.

Jeremiah was sent, Jerem. 26. 12. The Lord sent me to prophesie against this house, and against this City, all the words that ye have heard: yet Jere­miah was a Prophet before this sending, and not made a Prophet by it; So those 2 Cron. 24. 19. were sent after they were Prophets: So that the Prophets had a new mission as often as God commanded them to go with any new message to any people, and were so often made Prophets, if sending were, (as he supposeth) their call. Therefore Gods professing that they ran and he sent them not, doth not deny them to be Prophets, because sending is not the call.

2. There is a sending which doth not authorize or give a call to Office (as himselfe confesseth, p. 83. 87.) and let him prove that their not being sent, was their not being authorized to be Prophets, else the argument is vain.

3. Those that were authorized and called by God to be Prophets, sometimes went with false dreames or lyes, and so ran without being sent, [Page 180] yet when they carried a true message, they were sent, Act. 21. v. 4.

So 1 Kings 13 [...] 11. There was an old Prophet, and he Prophesied a lye, pretending it to be the word of the Lord, ver. 18. I am a Prophet also as thou art, and an Angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, bring him back, &c. and this was a lye, as appeareth, v. 17. 22. 23.

Yet this old man was a Prophet truly called of God, Mr Pool himselfe being judge; for he saith Gods inspiring with an extraordinary message, was his call to be a Prophet, and this the good old man had ver. 20, 21. as they sat at table, And the word of the Lord came unto the Prophet that brought him back, &c. Now he had a word from God to declare, and so was called to be a Prophet, yet ver. 18. he ran without being sent. So that as a false Prophet may carry a truth, so a true Prophet may carry a lye.

We granted (Preacher Sent, pag. 128.) that those Jerem. 23. were false Prophets in respect of their doctrine which they then preached, but we still apprehend that they were standing Prophets of Israel, and true Prophets in respect of their call, and we proved it from v. 22.

4. As to 1 Sam. 3. 20. it doth not in the least intimate that Gods sending a message by Samuel was his authorization or call to be a Prophet, but only that the answering his message by the event did give a knowledge, (which the fruits and effects of a call may do) that he was authorized and cal­led; the words are plain, ver. 19. 23. The Lord did let none of his words fall to the ground, and all Israel [knew] that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord.

[Page 181] 5. If they were not extraordinary, yet they might be ordinary Prophets: In old Testament times there were two sorts of Prophets; some that had an immediate extraordinary call to foretell things to come, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, &c. others that were instructed in the Scooles under the discipline of other Prophets, whence they are called Sons of the Prophets, 2 Kings 2. 7. and 6. v. 1.

These had a faculty with dexterity to interpret Scriptures, and explain prophesies, and a call to do it, and a word from the Lord, 1 Kings 20. 35.

Some of these might pretend to immediate Re­velations, when they had them not, and therein might run before they were sent; yet might be sent to do the worke of ordinary Prophets: and their being joyned with the Priests in the same reproof, under the name of prophets, Jer. 23. v. 11. 33, 34. speaks much for their being Gods prophets, as well as the other were his Priests, though both un­der a sad degeneration.

6. If they had no call of God, yet the argument is invalid, and cannot speak against gifted mens preaching, seeing they (as we have proved) have a call to preach.

To our argument from v. 22. he saith,

Ob. 2. The standing in Gods counse [...] and speaking Gods word implies a call. There is another reading ve­ry conformable to the Hebrew text, If they had stood in my counsel, i. e. If they had stood till I had sent them, &c. So that this is an evidence that they were false prophets, Mr Pool, pag. 112.

Answ. 1. It doth not in the least imply such a Cal as they could not be pro­phets without; for those that were 2 Chro. 24. [...]19 Jer. 26. 12. before true prophets, yet did [Page 182] stand in Gods counsel, &c. in every new message from him; and did sometimes (as we have pro­ved) prophesie lyes, and therein they did not stand in his counsel, or cause to hear his words; and so all that is here said in such cases might be spoken to true Prophets; and therefore can be no evidence, (as he would have it) that these were false pro­phets in respect of their call.

2. The Hebrew doth not at all favour such a rea­ding as he speaketh of; the word doth not signifie mission, but counsel or secret, as Gen. 49. 6. O my soul, come not thou into their secret. It were strange language to say come not into their mission, and as strange to say if they had stood in my mission, but if they had stood in my counsel, or secret, is consonant to the Hebrew, and it is explained in the following words, & had caused to hear my words; which plain­ly intimateth, that their not declaring his words, but lies, as v. 25. their broaching false doctrine not their want of a true call is that they are blamed for.

Those who (by Gods own Testimony) might have had successe and a divine blessing in preach­ing Gods word, they might lawfully preach his word; for let any prove that God hath entayled his blessing upon the labours of such as (in respect of their call) are false Prophets.

2. But the Prophets Jerem. 23. (by Gods own Testimony) might have had successe and a divine blessing in preaching Gods word, for its said, ver. 22. If they had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way.

Ergo, The Prophets, Jerem. 23. might lawfully preach Gods word.

[Page 183] Argu. 7. To what he saith for vindicating their seventh Argument, we answer,

1. He consoundeth mission and a Call, which are things distinct.

2. The question even in their own stating of it, is about a particular Call; for, they assert Ordina­tion to be a Call, and their proposition, which all these Arguments are brought to prove, is this, That none may do the work of the Ministry without Or­dination.

So that if their Arguments prove the neces­sity of a Call, yet if they prove not the necessity of Ordination unto all ordinary Preaching (which the present Argument doth not) they do not con­clude their question; and it is answer sufficient to say, Gifted men have a Call to Preach, though they be without Ordination; we do not say, that they have no other Call but their gifts, (as he reporteth, pag. 112.) it is by the Law of nature and the written word that gifted men are called.

3. Pauls immediate Call was a necessary, though not the onely medium to prove the Divineness of his Doctrine; ordinary Officers then and now have other mediums to prove it by.

4. Gifted men now have enough to prove their Call by; and these things answer that he saith, pag. 112, 113. other objections we fully answered, but he waveth them; whether our replies or their rea­sons be trivial, let the Reader judge.

Argu. 8. Their eighth Argument we answered, but he waveth our replies to that also.

Object. All gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, therefore they are no Scripture Preachers, Mr. Pool, pag. 114.

Ans. 1. We grant wages indeed due to the work to an Officer, not for his office, but for his work.

[Page 184] 2. Gifted men may in some cases require maintenance, and do justly receive it; yet not as they are gifted men, but as they are imployed in the work, and maintenance is due for the works sake, as himself saith, (pag. 115.) and is clear, Luke 10. 7.

3. Duties of a general calling are so to be dis­patched and done, as a particular calling be not prejudiced thereby: he will grant that every man is to follow after knowledge, hear Sermons, &c. Yet a man may sin in doing so, if he neglecteth his busi­ness, charge or family; rich men therefore are un­der further engagements unto this, then poor men, single persons, then marryed, 1 Cor. 7. 34.

Gifted men may Preach as often as (with due pre­paration) they can, without neglecting their parti­cular callings, and when gifted mens preaching is onely occasional, and so as a particular calling (which affordeth them a livelihood) is not preju­diced thereby, then there is not that reason for their challenging maintenance, as when such a calling is laid aside in order thereto, and the work becometh constant work; for preaching, when it is onely oc­casionally, is a work of their general calling, and neither the Law of nature, nor the written word (which make it so) do require their doing that work any oftner then is consistent with that particular cal­ling which the outward support of themselves and families hath dependance upon. Thus much shall suffice to shew the weakness of 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 [Page 185] 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.


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.

[Page 186] 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 [...]o Timothy and Titus, as the Apostles were, Acts 6. yet he giveth Rules for [...]egulation, 1 Tim. 3. ver. 2. 3. Tit. [...]. ver. 6 [...], 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. 13 [...]. 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; [Page 187] 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 e [...]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 [Page 188] 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 its 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 [...]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: I [...] 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 [Page 189] 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 that is, much more they being moderators therein.

Object. 3. They ordained, who going away, com­mended the people to the Lord, pag. 125.

Ans. Paul and Barnabas (for ought we see) were they that were commended, and the Churches the persons commending them to the Lord, as we have further shewn in answer to Dr. Collings. We did not insist so much upon its reference to ver. 22. but as strange references are found in Scripture.

As to the faint conclusion which he mentioneth, pag. 126. we firmly proved (Preacher Sent, pag. 231. 232.) that it cannot be meant of a chusing or ordain­ing onely by Paul and Barnabas, and that is enough against him.

Prayer used in managing Election is no Essential act thereof, as it is of Ordination, and so the Tautologie doth not remain on our part, as he suppos­eth, pag. 127.

The Scripture neither useth such Tautologies, nor expresseth imposition of hands by that word, which signifieth quite another thing; our present work was to deny that Paul and Barnabas onely did [...], and what we said (if granted) will evince this, and this answereth what is said, pag 127.

What we have replyed to Dr. Collings about Churches fitness to judge of Ministerial abilities, will answer his exceptions, pag. 128. 129. we shall add a few words in the next Chapter.


Concerning Election as Essential to a Call to Of­fice.

THe second question is, whether the Essence of a Call to Office lie in Election or Ordination? We prove it to be in Election; our first Argument is grounded upon Act. 14. 23. and is vindicated al­ready.

That the Essence of the Call lies not in Ordina­tion, we prove divers wayes.

Argu. 1. Ordination doth not set a man over a Church, Ergo,

Object. 1. This is but a begging the question, pag. 131.

Ans. There is not a word of setting over a Church by Ordination in the question. Its an apt medium, that which giveth the Essence of the Call doth set over a Church. Ordination doth not set over a Church, for. 1. A man may be ordained and yet be over no Church at all. 2. If it did, then there must be an iteration of Ordination, both these we proved, Preacher Sent, pag. 246. 247. &c. Ergo, Ordination doth not give the Essence o [...] the Call.

Obj. 2. Election may be necessary as the causa sine q [...]a non, and yet Ordination may be the causa formalis of the Call, pag. 131.

Answ. 1. That which maketh a Superiour and inferiour is the Causa formalis of Office-power; and that which setteth over a Church doth so, and there­fore must needs be more then a causa sine qua non, even the cause formalis of Office-power.

[Page 191] That which setteth a man over a woman, as her head, is the causa formalis of the conjugall relation, That which setteth over servants, is the causa for­malis of the relation of a Master. So here

2. His instances cannot help him.

To that of presentation we say, 1. The Magna Charta of Christ empowereth a Church to Elect, without submission unto other men.

2. In such a case, the essence is conveyed in E­lection, the Gentle-mans approbation or represen­tation is only a causa, sine qua non exercitii.

3. The instance is impertinent, because it pro­veth not a call to office, but a civil call.

As to that of Arch-Bishops, it is a begging the question, that his call did lye in consecration; the King did write to certain Bishops to confirme the Election; now confirmation followeth creation, nor can the essence of the call be in it.

Ob. 3. His ordination sets him over a Church in­definitely, his Election sets him over this or that parti­cular Church, pag. 132.

Answ. 1. Three arguments we give against this, Preacher Sent. pag. 248, 249. which are unanswe­red.

2. We would know which setting over giveth the call to exercise office-power; that which gi­veth operari, giveth esse, man can challinge neither audience, nor maintenance, untill a call to exer­cise.

It is a strange paradox, that one should be set o­ver the Catholike Church, when yet he may justly be denyed a liberty to exercrse office-power in any particular Church.

3. His instance of a Dr. of Physick is imperti­nent; Physitians are not Rulers, are not over any by a choice or otherwise, neither is there a parity [Page 192] between Academical and Ecclesiastical preferments.

Arg. 2. Our second argument is from ordi­nation being consequential to a mans having the es­sence of the call to Office, Acts 13. 2, 3.

Ob. 1. There is an Ordination ad munus, to an Office, and another ad opus to a work; this text speaks of ordination to a work, pag. 132.

Answ. We believe that the Apostles had no ordi­nation to office, but onely to Office-work; and therefore his ordination which came after, did not give his call to Office, no more doth it give it to any Gospel Officers in a proper sense.

Ob. 2. They [...]assert that the essence of the call lyes in election; and to urge this, they urge the Election of an Apostle, Acts 1. as in that Election, so in this ordina­tion, some thing was extraordinary, and peculiar to the Apostles, viz. That the essence of their call did not lye in this ordination. pag 133.

Answ. 1. This is a grosse mistake, for we do not (as he injuriously reporteth) urge the election of an A­postle, Act. 1. to prove that the essence of the call lyes in Election; we plainly deny it, Preacher Sent. pag. 267, 268. though we improve their objecti­on from that Text against themselves.

It is to prove another proposition that we urge Acts 1. viz. That the power of Election belongeth to a Church, Preacher Sent. pag. 216. and there­fore Mr. Pools argument, (pag. 133) is nothing to us.

2. That it can be no good plea in this case to say, it was extraordinory in that particular, we pro­ved, Preacher Sent. pag. 252. &c. 255, 256. and that it should be a compleat ordination in all the Acts and requisites belonging to it, and yet not attain the main end, which ( [...]e supposeth) is, the giving the essence of a call to Office, who will believe it? [Page 193] The Apostle needeth not ordination, if the use of that had been to give the essence of a call.

3. This clearly proveth that a call to Office and Or­dination are separable: a call may be (as here) before, and yet a compleat ordination in all its Acts come af­terward, and therefore the intendment of Ordination, is not to give the essence unto a call to Office.

Ob. 5. Peradventure Paul had the essence of his call from his ordination; men were used as instruments, yet to speak pro­perly it was not men but God that was Pauls ordainer, for the Holy Ghost said, separate me, &c. pag. 135.

Ans. 1. This is grosse, for Paul was an Apostle divers yeares before this Ordination; that was after he had been at Jerusalem, Acts 12. 25. and 13. v. 2, 3. But God had revealed Christ in him, and made him an Apostle above three years before that, Gal. 1. ver. 16, 17.

2. The Holy Ghost saying, seperate me, Barnabas and Saul, &c. was a command to men to ordain, and so (though the call were immediate, yet) men were as properly ordainers, as they are in these daies, Acts 8. ver. 29. The spirit said unto Philip, go near, and joyne thy selfe to this Charet. He may as well say that properly it was not Philip, but God that did go near and Joyned to the Charet, because the spirit said go, &c. or as Acts 10. 19. he might say, it was God that was to arise, & go down, & not Peter properly, because the spirit said, a­rise, &c. as he may say, That properly God was theordai­ner of Paul, because the holy Ghost said seperate me, &c.

Arg. 3. Our third argument is taken from the na­ture of Ordination, it consists in prayer, &c.

Ob. 1. If the essence of the call did consist in Election, and prayer be used before Election, how can they pray in faith, &c. pag, 135.

Answ. Prayer before Election is for the Churches direction into a right choice, and so may be in faith, though it be uncertain whether the person shall be [Page 194] chosen or not: but prayer in ordination is for a blessing upon a man in a work, Acts 13.. 2, 3. and so a knowledge that a man is called to it (which presupposeth his having the Essence of a call) is necessary unto praying in faith there.

Ob. 2. In such cases our prayers have ae facit condition, that God would blesse him in the work, if he shall be set a­part for it, pag. 135.

Answ. Prayer in ordination is the very act by which a person is set apart, and therefore there can be no such facit condition admitted of here. If he shall be set apart, implyeth uncertainety whether he shall or no, whereas in due Ordination it is alwaies certaine, for the setting apart is by prayer.

Ob. 3. Ordination consists not in fasting nor prayer, nor lay­ing on of hands, but in the designation of fit persons by officers unto the work signified by imposition of hands, and introduced with fasting and prayer, p. 135.

Ans. 1. That there is a separation of an officer to his work in ordination, we granted, (preacher Sent. p. 258.) but the Essential act by which that separation is made, is prayer; himselfe saith (pag. 135.) imposition of hands is such, as ordination is not null without it, and he will say as much for fasting; and then prayer is the essentiall act, or nothing.

2. No Scripture doth evidence that the essence of Or­dination consisteth in any designation to work, which is a constitutive office-making act, neither hath prayer or any other thing which belongs to ordination a tenden­cy to produce such an effect as our argument proved.

He useth one argument to prove that the essence of the call doth not lye in the Election of the people.

Ob. The people neither are, nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry; for, 1. They have no authority 2. They have not ability to judge of a mans fitness. &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 136. to 141.

[Page 195] Answ. The people are in a capacity to give the essence of the call.

1. The people have as much authority as is neces­sary to their giving the essence of the call; for, nothing is required thereunto, but a putting them­selves into subjection to a person duely qualified, it being a voluntary, not a natural relation; and this is done by election with acception, for we proved before, that these do set a man over a Church. He saith they have no authority, because in a state of subjection, pag. 139. but he answereth himselfe by his instance, pag. 138. For, in Democratical governement, the people are in subjection civilly unto those very of­ficers to whom they give a call, yet have authority to call them; are lesser and yet greater then their Offi­cers though women were present, Acts 1. yet it fol­loweth not, that they did give their suffrage; they will allow women to be present at an Ordination, when they act not.

2. The people have ability to judge of a mans fit­nesse for the Ministry: it cannot be denyed that Iohn did write to the people, 1 Ioh. 2. ver. 12. I writ unto you little children, so they are called, little children, v. 13. 18 28. and 1 Ioh. 3. ver. 7. and yet these little children are commanded to try the spirits, 1 Ioh. 4. ver. 1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God, because many false Prophets are gone out into the world. This necessari­ly supposeth them in a capacity to judge whether they were false Prophets or not; for it had been in vain to bid them try, if they could not draw up a judge­ment upon the tryal. If they be not fit to judge unto a choice, they are not fit to judge of the doctrine of him that is chosen, and so must take all upon impli­cit faith: and still the same persons are written to, ver. 4. and both that appellation, and also the mat­ter [Page 196] of the Epistle is such as concerneth all believers, and so cannot be restrained to Officers.

Also, the people have sometimes judged right when the Rulers have condemned them for it, and taken a contrary part, undervaluing and contemning their judgement, Iohn 7. ver. 48. 49.

They grant that the peoples election maketh a man their Minister; we ask whether they see with their own eyes therein? It is evident that many insufficient ones are ordained. It is not a careless people we plead for, but Bereans; and all that are godly, that are believers, & fit to be admitted Church members, are fit (with the rest of the Church) to judge of a Ministers abilities, which answereth what he saith, p. 141. about its being a necessary qualification in every Church-member. If one Church-member could not judge of it, yet all to­gether have ability. Some arguments against election, as giving the essence of the call, he seeketh to vindicate.

Ob. 1. As to Acts 6. the Apostles are said [...], chusing and appointing are distinguished from, and opposed to one another, and the act of appointing is ascribed to the superiours, &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 142.

Answ. 1. Chusing and appointing are not there opposed: Chusing is unto office, appointing is unto work, Acts 6. ver. 3. whom we may appoint, but to what? it is not said [unto this office] but [ [...] to this businesse] And himselfe supposeth (pag. 132.) that there may be ordination to a work, and yet the essence of a call not consist therein: & its evident that ordination to a work is subsequent to (and sodoth not give the essence of) a call to office, Acts 13. 2. & so nei­ther of these places can prove in the least their position.

2. It is not clear that [we] hath reference to the Apost­les seorsim, as if it were their work only; but conjunctim, with the brethren as we shewed, Preacher sent. p. 326.

As to what he saith, (pag. 142) to Tit. 1. 5. we an­swer, [Page 197] We do not call ordination an unnecessary ad­junct. The Apostles paines might have been very use­full in other places, when yet the Lord would have them abide at Jerusalem; and so Titus at Crete.

The setting in order things that were wanting, is expresly and firstly mentioned as the cause of Titus his staying at Crete, and as that concerned but the wel­being of the Church, no more did ordaining of Elders in every City; for Churches have a being before Officers, Acts 14. 23. and if Titus himselfe had acted in neither of these works, but onely had taken the o­ver-sight of those Churches, and directed them therein, yet it would have been necessary enough, (especially in that Infant state of the Church) that Titus should a bide at Crete, but doubtlesse he had preaching work e­nough there which was greater then his ordaining Elders.

Ob. 2. From the Nature of Election, Deu. 1. 13. look what Moses was to the Jewes that are Ministers unto the Church, &c. Here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers, onely the one is civil, the other Ecclesiastical, Mr. Pool, p. 143.

Answ. 1. The Commonwealth of the Jews was a Thearchy, in respect of the Legislative part of Govern­ment; but it was a Monarchy in respect of the executive part, and Moses the Monarch thereof; the spiritual Com­monwealth or Ministers not so.

2. The power of Moses was Supream, all other powers sub­ordinate unto him, the power of spiritual officers not so.

3. Moses had power to appoint Officers of a new species under him, Exod. 18. ver. 24. Ministers not so.

4. Christ is compared with Moses, Heb. 3. not so with Ministers of the Gospel.

5. Moses was over Babes, and such as were under Tutors and Governours; Ministers over a free people.

6. Yet Moses gave to the people those that they gave to him; so Christ the King D. 1. v. 13. 15. [Page 198] of Saints, giveth unto his Churches those that (accord­ing to his directions) they chuse.

That freemen in a Corporation give the Essentials of a Call to their Officers &c. is enough to shew that such as have no Office-power, yet frequently do make Officers, which answereth the Provinc. Ass. especially seeing they ground their objection upon a general Rule, nihil dat quod non habet, &c.

That Christs free-people may have office-power emi­nently in them, as well as those instanced in, is enough for us here, we being in the defensive part. But whereas he calleth, (p. 144.) for Divine institution; we reply,

1. Many like instances lie giveth, and we have as good reason to Call for a Divine institution there, as when he telleth us, pag. 7. of a vaste number of sheep, committed to twenty Shepherds, &c and p. 8. of a gene­ral relation to the whole Empire, & a special respect to their own Territories; we crave a Divine institution for any such order in the Church: and so for his instances (pag. 131. 132) about a presentation, and the Arch­bishop, and a D [...]. of Physick; and 137. 138. of a Cor­poration, a Court of Aldermen, &c. let him shew a Divine institution, that it is so in the Church; and why doth he require of us and not give it himself.

The use of such examples is to clear some general rule, to illustrate and to shew that there are cases pa­ralel, and ours go thus far.

2. We gave an institution in our Arguments to prove that Election giveth the Essence of the Call. As to Mini­sters being before the Church, we sufficiently disproved it in our former book, pag. 303, 304. It is evident that Churches were before Elders, Act. 14. 23. it concerneth him to prove that any ordinary Elders were before a Church, and that they act as officers to such as are no Church, else he saith nothing to the purpose; that Churches to are be gathered and baptized by them, [...] answered in the place even now quoted.

[Page 199] To prove that the Essence of the Cal I doth consist in Ordination, they used five arguments, he pleadeth for two of them. The former is taken from 2 Tim. 1. 6. stir up the gift of God which is in thee, 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee, &c.

Object. He saith, 1. It was an ordinary Presbytery 2. [...] are used for Office as well as gift. 3. That a man may be said to stir up his Office, and office may be said to be in a man. 4. That an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary officers who were inferiour to him. 5. That [...] is used for [...] in other places. 6. That [...] may be understood of the gift, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and of the office, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Mr. Pool, from pag. 146. to 151.

Answ. 1. That it was an ordinary Presbytery, is not proved; extraordinary Officers were Presbyters.

2. [...] commonly signifieth an absolute gift, & its questionable whether it be used any where for office.

3. It is a stirring up as fire, and its very improper to say that office is so stirred up, especially seeing the gift is said to be in him, which is not true of office. Though a man may be said to be in that which is in him, as being swallowed up or overcome thereby, as a man in sin, in bear or drink, in joy, &c. Yet it cannot (with any propriety of speech) be said, that is in a man which is but upon him: office is onely adherent to a man, not inherent or in him; it were very improper to say to a Major, Bayliffe, Justice, Constable, &c. stir up the Of­fice that is [in you.]

4. If an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary Officers (which is not proved) yet their Argument is of no force, unless he can prove, that it was done here; what he addeth (pag. 149) of its being ordinary in state and Church for a Person to have an Office conveyed to him Ministerially, by such as are inferiour to him, &c. doth plainly contradict what himself said, p. 138. 160. That the less is called of [Page 200] the greater; and by this Rule, though the people be in­feriour to their Officers, yet they may convey their Of­fice to them. His instance of a King whose Office is conveyed by some of his Subjects (if true) proveth that those who are placed in a state of subjection, yet may have authority enough to give the Essence to their Officers, and so answereth what he saith, pag. 139.

5. It is seldom that [...] is used for [...] and there is no evidence that it must be so taken here.

6. That [...] is used for gift, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and for Office, 1 Tim. 4. 14. is altogether without proof, or pro­bility of truth; For, as the phrase were improper, neg­lect not the Office that is in thee; So it would follow, that either Timothy had the extraordinary gift, when not the Office, or the Office when not the gift that qualified for it.

It is a feeble Argument that cannot stand unless there be a receding from the usual signification of divers words, and a plain sense of the Texts alleadged for it.

And himself can find their argument to amount but to an [it may be] and so we may retort upon him, what he groundlesly saith to us, pag. 126. all the an­swer it deserves is [it may not be;] he should not onely have shewed, that [...] may be taken for Of­fice, and [...] for [...] &c. but that they must be so taken here, else their Argument is invalid. We said one re­late gives being to another.

Object. It is true in esse constituto; but consider rela­tions in esse constituendo, as they are to be constituted, and so somewhat else gives being to them; the husband gives be­ing to the wife, and the wife to the husband, but there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation, to wit the act of the Justice or Minister, pag. 151.

Answ. Relata give being one to another in esse con­stituendo, especially if they be voluntary Relations, as this between Officer and a Church is; thus a mutual [Page 201] Covenant or agreement constitutes one a master, and another a servant; and so for husband and wife, the act of the Magistrate is not constitutive of the relation be­tween man and wife, but Declarative. What he addeth about Titus, was answered before, he was not left in Crete to ordain only, but to Preach and to perform other acts peculiar to his office.


Concerning the peoples power in some cases to Ordain.

THat in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it, some believers may lawfully or warrant­ably ordain without officers, we proved by six Argu­ments, Mr. Pool replyeth to three of them.

Argu. 1. Else Ordination were unattainable; for there is not one precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over.

Ob. 1. There are divers practices lawfully used which yet we find no president for, but such as extraordinary per­sons are concerned in, as excommunication, Mr. Pool, p. 153.

Answ. If there be a precept for such practices (as there was for excommunication, Mat. 18.) we do not re­quire a president; our Argument was from the want both of precept and president.

Ob. 2. It is against them, if what they say be true, then there is neither precept nor president for the ordaining of officers, Mr. Pool, pag. 153.

Ans. This is a great mistake also; for, we did not de­ny that an ordinary officer hath precept or president for acting in Ordination in the Church he is over, but that any of the Texts alleadged for Ordination do warrant his ordaining out of the particular Church he is over, this is it which we deny; and so if a Church wanteth officers, then those Texts warrant none in or­daining, and other general Rules authorize no officers [Page 202] of other Churches to do it, more then believers without office [...] And this answereth also what he addeth (pag. 153. 154.) we grant that some acts of extraordinary officers are presidents for us, but not such acts as are of an extraordinary nature, or did flow from an extraordi­nary power. In the act it self of ordaining, the Apo­stles are presidents for us, but if Ordination was upon the hands of Apostles Ministerially in every Church, yet it doth not follow it ought to be so on the hand of every Minister; in this the Apostles are not presidents, because they were Elders in every Church, so are not ordinary officers as we have proved. That the proper Elders of every Church should carry on the work in their own Churches, is according to the president, but it reacheth no further.

Ob: 3. For, 1 Tim. 4. 14. we read nothing of them which was extraordinary, Mr. Pool, pag. 154.

Answ. 1. Its very probable it was an extraordinary Presbytery; For, there is not a word to evidence it to consist of ordinary persons, Apostles were Presbyters, 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. Joh. 1. and Paul one of the Presbytery, 2 Tim. 1. 6. we proved before that no office was con­veyed, 1 Tim. 4. 14. and if it were onely an extraordi­nary gift, no ordinary Presbytery could convey that; himself saith the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary officers, p. 150. he that will conclude it an ordinary Presbytery, must argue, a genere ad speciem affirmative, and say, it was a Presbytery, Ergo, it was an ordinary one.

2. If it were an ordinary Presbytery (which yet is not granted, the Call to lay on hands was extraordinary, by Prophesie, as themselves confess, Jus Div. Min. p. 167. and this is enough to our present Argument.

Ar. 2. Our second Argument is taken from believers acting in a Synod, Act. 15. and other publick services.

Ob. 1. If there be Scripture precept or example for the [Page 203] one, and not for the other, then they may do the one and not the other, Mr. Pool, pag. 155.

Answ. Where hath he any Scripture precept or ex­ample for provincial, National or oecumenical Synods invested with power of censures? he must argue from a parity of reason, which is no good plea in that case, there being no institution for any such Assemblies, if they were instituted, their being warranted to do some services might by a parity of reason evidence them, to be empowered for other services also; and thus be­lievers (not in office) have a warrant to act in other publick and more weighty services, as Preaching, &c. Ergo, they may act in this.

Ob. 2. I deny that the brethren acted in making the decrees; thousands consent to acts of Parliament that have no hand in making them, pag, 155.

Answ. The acts themselves are ascribed to the bre­thren, Act. 15. the whole Church is said to send, ver. 22. and the letters did run in their name. ver. 23. The Apostles and Elders [and brethren] send greeting, &c.

All in whose name an act of Parliament runneth, are not onely consenters, but makers of the act; so here.

As to what he saith (pag. 156.) to Numb. 8. 10. we leave it to any unprejudiced Reader to judge, whether their Arguments or our answers carry most evidence with them.

Ob. 1. This was an extraordinary case, the Levites and Church officers were not yet instituted, &c. pag. 156.

Ans. Though the Levites were not instituted before, yet there were other officers, the Provincial Assembly tell us (Jus Divin. Min. pag. 188.) Aaron and his sons were present, and if it proves any thing, it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders; Master Pool saith, it is as if a man should argue, gifted men may Preach where no Ministers are to be had, therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers; how these arguings agree we know not.

[Page 204] 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 req [...]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.

[Page 205] 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.

[Page 206] 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 [Page 207] which he mentioneth, pag. 163. For, what he rehear­seth out of our book, pag. 300. to make one part of the contradiction, is an objection of theirs, they are not our words, but the words of the provincial assem­bly, Jus. Divin. Min. pag. 133.

And that which he maketh the other part of the contradiction, is our answer to the aforesaid objecti­on; and so, we do but oppose them (pag. 302. not contradict our selves. They are their words from, p. 300. l. 21. to p. 301. lin. 14. & this he might easily have seen though it be not printed in a different Character.

And now we shall put Mr. Pool in mind of some of his, 1. novel and strange passages.

2. Selfe-contradictions.

3. Repugnancies, to the provincial Assembly, whose case he pleadeth, & the Dr. 1. novel & strange passages.

1. He saith, that a Minister may be a Minister, though he have no particular Church to which he stands rela­ted, p. 11. & by Minister he intends an officer, pag. 10.

2. He saith that heathens are a part of Christs bo­dy, pag. 13.

And therefore are the object and correlate of the Pastoral office, ib.

3. He saith of an excomunicate person, that while he repents not, he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person, or as an heathen; yet when he doth repent, he needs no new baptism, forasmuch as God is pleased to impute to him his former baptism. pa. 27.

4. He saith that the difference between Apostolical and pastoral power lyes not in the extent of their relation pa. 36.

5. He saith, Vzzah was punished not principally, at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his heads, but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders, pag. 99. which is against 1 Chron. 13. 10.

6. He is not positive in it, but giveth it as his opini­on, that Apostles had not their commission as Apostles till Mat. 28. pag. 105, 106.

2. Self-contradicting passages.
1. That a man is made a member of the Church by baptism—is none of our Assertion, pag. 23.1. What a monstrous Paradox is this, baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church, p. 28. In Scripture there is [...] quidem, of any other door of admission, p. 25.
2. Either a Minister e­jecting a man justly out of his own Church, eject him out of all other Chur­ches;-or he is juridically ejected out of other Churches, and so he is in a capacity of being re­ceived into other Chur­ches, which what horrid confusion it would in­troduce, &c. pag. 24.2. It may be said that an excomunicate per­son ordinarily is a mem­ber,—a Church-member, though diseased, p. 26
3. If a Religious Ge­neral in speaking to his Army, principally aimes at the salvation of their Souls, yet this is not preaching,—though his end in speaking be their salvation, pag. 41.3. Speaking of Paul he saith, the end of the actor or speaker is purely & solely the salvation of their souls; & so it is tr [...] ­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 con [...]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. 1052. 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 fel­lowshi [...]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.

[Page 210] 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 Church­m [...]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. Ʋind. 26.

19. Whether from gifted mens preaching it [Page 211] 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 Sph [...]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.

[Page 212] 27. Whether gifted mens preaching doth mak Officers void or un-necessary, as to that act? Neg. Pr▪ S. 156. vindicat. 55, 56, 57.

28 Whether if gifted men may preach, will it follow that they may administer the Sacraments? Neg. Pr. S. 165 Vind. 169. 170.

29. Whether gifted men be under any promise in their preaching? Affirm. Pr. S. 189.

30. Whether preaching be an act peculiar to Offic [...]? Neg. Preach. Sent. 196. to 199. Vindi­cat. 53.

31. Whether gifted men may require and re­ceive maintenance when they preach? Pr. Sent. 214, 215. Vind. 61. 183, 184.

32. Whether Election of a Minister belongeth to the major part of a Church? Aff. Pr. S. 216. to 240. Vindicat. 71, 72 185, 186, &c.

33. Whether an argument from the lesse to the greater affirmatively be valid, and in what cases? Pr. S. 224. to 228. Ʋindicat. 75. 187.

34. Whether the whole essence of a call to office doth consist in Election? Affirm. preac. S. 241. to 321. Vind. 190.

35. Whether Ordination doth give the essenti­als of the Ministerial Office? Neg. pr. S. 244. &c.

36. What is ordination? preach. Sent. 257. to 266.

37. Whether imposition of hands be so necessa­ry unto ordination, that it cannot without sin be o­mitted? preach. S. 259. to 262.

38. Whether an Officer may administer the Sacrament, to some that are not of his particular Church? pre. S. 278, 279 Vindicat. 101, 102

39. Whether baptism admits into, or maketh to stand in relation to any Church? Neg. pre. S. 284, 25. Vindicat. 109, 110. &c.

[Page 213] 40. Whether an Excomunicate per­son be Ejected out of all Churches? pr. S. 284. Vind. 104. ib.

Whether baptism ceaseth, when Church member­ship ceaseth pag. 292. Ʋind. of Epist. Vindicat. 105 107.

41. Whether blessing be an act peculiar to Office? pr. S. 289.

42. Whether a Churches sinful rejection of a Mi­nister doth nullifie his Office? pr. S. 296. Ʋin. 115, 116.

43. Whether if an officer removeth and becometh an officer to another Church, may there be an ite­ration of ordination? pr. S. 297, 298.

44. Whether in a Church which hath no Officers in it some believes may ordain without Officers? pr. S. 323. &c.

45. VVhether the difference between apostolical and pastoral power lyeth in the extent of the rela­tion? Aff. Vind. 120, 121.

46. Whether Apostles were Apostles before, Mat: 28, 19, 20? Aff. Ʋind, 169, 170.

47. Whether officers be before Churches? pr. 303, 304.

48. Whether it were an ordinary or an extraordi­ry Presbytery, that is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. v. 14? pr. S. 327, 3 28. Ʋind.

49. Whether womens state of subjection doth for­bid all un-officied men preaching? Neg. Ʋin. 177, 178.

50 Whether it be the duty of gifted men to preac [...]Aff. pr. S. 36.

Whether in some cases they may not warantably or without sin omit preaching? or whether gifted men be obliged unto constant preaching, if they have other callings? pr. S. 159 Ʋindicat. p. 129, 130, 131. 167. 184.


Some Texts of Scripture opened in the preceding trea­tise noted by Vind. or in the Preacher Sent, noted by Pr. S. those places which are largely handle [...], have an Asterick note against them.

Book.Cap.ver.Pr S. pagvin. p
Levit. [...]9174 [...], 4 [...]. 
* Numb.81034 [...]. to 346 
* Deutr.113272. 273. 
* 1 Sam.139, 10.155. 
* 1 Chron.139, 10.155165
* Jerem.1414. 15.127. 130. 
 2313. 21.128179,
Malach.316, 17.189 
Math.101. 5, 6, 7.122. 124. 
 1354. 57.13 
 1817. 18.176 
 2518 25. 26.47. 60. 
*252962. to 
 281 [...], 20.121. 123. 
   125. 127. 
* Mat.2819, 20.166. 167.169.
   188. 200.170
   289. 293. 
 424, 25.64, 65. 
* Iohn104▪ 5.22582
* Acts.117. 21. 22, 23217 to 22071, 72 &c.
 542.21. 79. 
 6 15, 16, 20 
   30, 81. 
   152, 162. 
   236 268. 
   270, 318. 
   32674 &c.
*6.v. 2. 3. 5.221 to 228.185 186
*8.1. 3, 4.72, to 88.32, 137.
 10.46 47.95 
 1119, 20.74 
   77 82. 
   83, 84 
*131, 2, 3.83, 195. 
   251 to 257192
   267, 268, 
   299, 326 
*1423228 to 23578 187
   16, 242 
   243. 274. 
   275, 303. 
 1512. 22.352. 
   109. 179 
*1824, 25, 26, 28.56. 66. to 7330 137
 1 [...]3, 4, 5.69. 70.&c.
*20177. 15 
  288, 9, 11118
* Roman.101516. 249.119
   21, 8062
 126, 7.117 to 138154
1 Corin11750 89 
   202 203 
 720. 24253 
  1348 65 
  21, 22.286 
 13 93 94. 
  8 9, 10.113 
*14many verses88 to 11636 144.
2 Corin.818, 19.  
Galat.111, 12.181 
Ephes.116, 17, 18105 
 411.6, 9. 17. 
  1293. 295. 
Colloss.31644. 45. 
1 Thess.51246. 205, 
* 1 Tim.2   
 31, 2.9, 15, 16. 
  4, 5.20, 32. 
   222, 311 
*414234, 275 
   3 [...]3 to 3 [...]5 
2 Tim.22209 to 21359.
2 Tim.163 [...]3, 314. 
* Titus.15.194, 309 
   329, 353 
* Hebr.54, 5.138. to 141161
 10 174173
  7. 17.17, 205 
   247. 249. 
* 1 Pet.410, 11.32, to 6223 &c. 126 &c.
 51, 3.61 
2 Pet.119, 20110 
  21. 30.111 
1 Iohn316.51. 


In printing the book called the Preacher Sent beside those which were printed with it.

In the Epistle,

Page 2 Read [...] and [...] page 13. line 19. for not Read now.

In the Book.

418. 19.Read, they say.
144dele, of their
1824r. Acts 13 v. 16.
211r. [...]
241r. Preaching
4633r. 2
595add, and
668r. Argument 4.
7913dele, Jus Divin.
836r. christians (though no officers)
837dele, though no officers
1019r. foretelling future-events
10133r. Impostors or Seducers.
10315r. Object. 1.
12920r. undenyably
1354r. no mention
13611r. but that
13733dele, Acts 8. 14.
1425add Jus Divin. 72, 73.
14317r. break their trusty
14535r. make
15230r. his own
15519r. before designation
15529r. did performe
16022r. an Officer
16633dele, that
1739r. was preached to
2031r. himselfe asserteth
20317r. ingenuously
 24r. or the distinctive
21715r. limit it unto
 29r. needless
2209r. it was
23036dele that
23932r. was a stone
24715r. such a power
24911r. to prove
25122r. was not of the Essence of, but
27321r. Church officers
 29r. It is
28411r. not nullifie
29924r. oblige
30022r. object
30114r. Answer
31019r. [...]
3155r. Presbyter
 31r. fift
31624r. relatives
31710r. Solemnities
32331dele, upon
32536r. Text in which
33414dele, are
3383dele, that
34316r. immediately
34532r. fully evidence
34613r. in the Tent
35316r. visit the
35432dele, or else and, r. and it must

Add [Jus Divin. Minist.] and its page, in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent.

Jus Div. min. pa.Preach. S. pageline 
111782Add [Ʋind. Min. Evang. by Dr. Col­lings] & its pag. in the following pages of our book called the Preacher Sent.
73 7414424
74, 751476
Jus Div. Min. pa.preach. S. pag.lin.Dr. Coll. Vin. pa.preach. S. pag.line
811542649642. 28.
85159215010712. 30.
86162295111 [...]12. 22.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.