A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 5

A Vindication of the Preacher Sent · Chapter 5

p. 65CHAP. V.

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 p. 66ſo 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 [onelyonly] 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. foreign 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly the Baptiſme of John (which did give no knowledge of Ordination) is a full proof, that p. 67he 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 onelyonly 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 p. 68exterius 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 69To 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 onelyonly 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 p. 70and 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 p. 71ſay 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 p. 72may 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 foreign 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 foreign We anſwer it was in the midſt of the 120. that Peter p. 73ſtood up and ſpake, for they are expreſſely ſaid to be foreign in one place, and therefore not onelyonly 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 foreign 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 foreign there mentioned.

And as it were purpoſely to anſwer this objection of the term Diſciple being diſtinguiſhed from foreign it is ſaid Luke 6. verſ. 17. foreign the company of …is Diſciples. And that the directions about the choice ſhould be given to all the 120. in that one place, and onelyonly the eleven Apoſtles (who leaſt needed ſuch directions) ſhould be the onelyonly 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, p. 74Act. 1. 23. is foreign which is the ſame that is uſed to expreſſe Ordination, Act. 6. 3. Tit. 1. ver. 5. onelyonly with the addition of the Prepoſition foreign 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 p. 75be 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; onelyonly 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 p. 76upon, 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 onelyonly, 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 p. 77much as to be a Deacon; for as no Church, ſo no Officers in theſe dayes are extraordinarily gifted.

Oject. 5. foreign 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.

p. 783. 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 foreign be not joyned by appoſition with foreign and foreign, 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 onelyonly thoſe that confirmed and exhorted, ver. 22. Or that the Diſciples, the Churches did foreign, and not Paul and Barnabas onelyonly, 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. foreign doth anſwer to the queſtion, if it be asked who did foreign, Vid. Preacher Sent. p. 243.

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

And thus Paul and Barnabas might be ſaid foreign though they onelyonly 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 foreign be joyned by appoſition with foreign & foreign 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, p. 79yet [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 foreign 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 foreign expreſſeth any act which is uſed in ordination.

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

Even Dr. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 55. telleth us, that foreign 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 foreign nor foreign into it, unleſſe it can be proved that foreign was uſed to expreſſe a choice in an aſſembly by the ſuffrage onelyonly 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 p. 80made two, and that is the Plural number ſure.

We anſwer, they could not, partly becauſe foreign 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 foreign and this anſwereth his ſecond particular, Vind. Revind. pag. 129. 130.

3. The greek is as ſtrong for us as the Engliſh tranſlation, for foreign denoteth the peoples Election by ſuffrages, and is not ſo clearly in appoſition with foreign & foreign as he ſuppoſeth, but rather in di-junction, it being foreign … 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 foreign 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 foreign

p. 81Our 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 onelyonly.

But the power foreign 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 foreign 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 p. 82to 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,

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.