A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
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.
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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.
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.
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, onelyonly 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; onelyonly 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 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 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 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 foreign, the Epethite of members Eph. 1. 1.
The Church in other Scriptures (not Officers onelyonly) 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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.
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 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 an immediate miſſion. We uſe theſe words [it is not an immediate miſſion, but mediate, by the word] Preacher Sent. pag. 130.
2. Gods commanding men to Preach, is his ſending, Jer. 14. ver. 14. 15. I ſent them not, what is that? neither have I commanded them. His not commanding is his not ſending; therefore his commanding is his ſending, ſo Mat. 10. 5. Mat. 28. 19. Chriſts commanding them [go Preach] is his ſending. We have proved that gifted menare commanded to preach, and that proves that God ſends them by his word.
Let him prove that Ordaining or any act of a Presbytery is Gods ſending, unleſſe in the ſence we mentioned, Preach. Sent. pag. 137. which will not at all ſerve his purpoſe, becauſe no Authority to Preach is conferred by the miſſion we there ſpeak of.
We do not ſay, that Gods commanding men in his written word to believe, repent, &c. is called ſending; yet ſuch commands in the word, are mediate Calls to ſuch works, though no men ſhould urge ſuch duties upon thoſe that are to perform them. So, his commanding gifted men to Preach, by his word, is a mediate Call, and his ſaying by that word, go, is a mediate miſſion, though no Presbytery by Ordination or otherwiſe faith go.
3. That ſending makes them Officers we deny. That no man can ſend another, but he is in Office, as to that whereabout he is ſent, in a large ſence we grant; but that ſending ſetteth men over thoſe to whom they are ſent, or maketh them Officers in a ſtrict ſence, we utterly deny; neither doth any thing he faith (pag. 113.) prove it. The Kings Ambaſſadour is his officer in the former, but not in the latter ſence, for every Officer properly ſo is ſuperiour to thoſe that are the object or terminus of his Office, ſo are not Ambaſſadours unto them to whom they are ſent, and however unleſſe the miſſion, Rom. 10 15. could be proved to be Ordination, the Argument thence cometh to nothing.
And many more words are ſpent about the travelling of Paul and others from place to place, and many other matters▪ alſo which were no greater Goſpel myſteries then this, though it be underſtood of a miſſion of thoſe who before were made Preachers, and not of an office-making miſſion, eſpecially ſeeing their ſending was to the Gentiles, which was a thing in thoſe dayes, ſo much queſtioned by the Jews.
His other exceptions (pag. 114.) againſt a providential ſending, viz. 1. That none can run before they be ſent. 2. That then the creep. houſes, 1 Tim 3. 6. were ſent, muſt needs be vain; ſeeing in the ſame page he confeſſeth that we do not own a bare providential ſending, without a command by the word.
4. What he ſaith (Vind. Revind. p. 115.) giveth no evidence that Ordination is the miſſion intended.
1. That the command of God in his word is ſending, we have proved. And that Act. 13. 3. cannot in the leaſt prove Ordination to be miſſion, he might have ſeen proved, Preacher Sent. pag. 253 254.
2. That Ordination of Officers by a Church to it ſelf cannot ſtrictly be called ſending, proveth that Ordination is not miſſion. If as in the caſe of Deacons, Act 6. there may be Ordination without miſſion, then theſe are ſeparable each from other, and ſo are not the ſame.
Pag. 115. He ſaith the miſſion mentioned, Mat. 10. ver. 5. 6. 7. and Mat. 28. was extraordinary miſſion. It is true, they had it immediately from the mouth of Chriſt▪ men in theſe dayes mediately, and ſo the way is different, but the miſſion may be the ſame ſtill. Chriſt by his own voyce commanded his Diſciples to watch, Mat. 24. ver. 42. and 25. 13 and 26. ver. 41. and the ſame which were immediate commands to them, 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.