A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
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,
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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 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 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 onelyonly 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.
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 foreign but foreign acquiſivit, comparavit, he got, procured, took Twelve into his family, &c. pag. 89. 90.
Anſw. He cannot be ignorant that foreign ſignifieth to conſtitute or make, and this very often, as Mat. 4. 19. foreign, I will make you fiſhers of men, Mark 10. 16. Mat. 19. 4. male and female foreign made he them, Acts 17. 26. foreign, 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.
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.