A treatise of the nature of a minister in all its offices to which is annexed an answer to Doctor Forbes concerning the necessity of bishops to ordain, which is an answer to a question, proposed in these late unhappy times, to the author, What is a minister?

SECT. X.

His Second Argument refuted.

HIS Second Argument to prove his kind of Office, is drawn from the•• 1 Tim. 3. 8. where the Description how he must be qualified, is set down: I grant it; but is it set down, that he is an Officer to dispose Church Treasure, and nothing else, which he disputes for? For he offers at such a thing, and therefore that place, in his own Judgement, can speak nothing, for it proves only, that there is such an Office as a Deacon; and how he should be qualified, but no one word what the duty of that Office is, and therefore he draws no Argument from it, but

only sets it down with a figure of 2. for his second Argument, although he argue nothing from it.

His Third Argument refuted.

HIs Third Argument is drawn from the place before hand led, Acts 6. to which I have (I doubt not) spoken e∣nough; but that it may appear wherein he and I agree, and wherein differ, in this point; Consider with me, that he saith, that this was a publike Office; I grant it. Secondly, that this service was about Tables: I grant it. Thirdly, page 35, that the full and carefull attendance upon this work, could not stand with carefull, constant, and consciencious Attendance upon the Ministry of the Word, as the Office of a Minister so employed did require; This I deny: because I have proved they were Ministers of the Word, and have before answered his Argu∣ments drawn from the Apostles, It is not meet, &c. vers. 3. and do now adde; It is one thing to say, It is not meet; another to say, It is inconsistent, it cannot stand with it. Again, many things might be and were sit for Inferior Ministers, which were not fit for the Apostles: It is not meet, was truly said by the Apostles: But now I doubt, whether this Office was for this occasion only, or for their lives. I 2dly. affirm, as before, that these men were Ministers. And 3dly, I deny that this was of that Deacon St. Paul speaks of, and was after used in the Church. His continued Discourse is but a repetition, only a passionate expression or two, that we make a Deacon half a Priest, or a Preparation to it, and he saith, that this was the first In-let into the Usurpation of Bishops. I let these things passe, and come to his Dispute against us.

His First Argument from Reason, Answered.

THat which is made by Christ a distinct Office from Pa∣stor and Teacher, that cannot be any part of either, or a preparation to either. But so the Office of a Deacon is.

I answer: That, First, I deny that ever the Office of a Dea∣con was instituted by Christ; but by the Apostles. Secondly, although I grant that the Apostles instituted this O••••••ce distinct from them, yet it may be a preparation or part of either; for that which is a preparation, is distinct from that it is prepared for, and although all the parts united together do not differ re∣ally from the whole, yet any one part doth. And Thirdly, I say, that although it were neither part nor preparative, yet it may be subservient to them, in which Consists the Office of a Deacon.

His Second Argument from Reason, answered.

HIs Second Argument: That Office which is to attend Ta∣bles, hath nothing to do with Pastors, or Doctors, &c.

But this Office is to attend Tables.

To the Major: That Office may do both, those in the Acts did.

To the Minor; I deny that the Office of a Deacon is solely to attend Tables; but if he leave out that word solely, his whole Argument is lame▪ that which he urgeth out of Acts 6. is not to the purpose, for as I may deny them to be Deacons, because never so called in the Scripture: so I do deny them to be those Deacons St. Paul directs, 1. Tim. 3.

His Third Argument answered.

HIs Third Argument: If the Apostles who were extraordi∣nary persons, could not, shall men of ordinary Abilities be sufficient?

I have answered this before. It is no where said, that they could not, they could without doubt have done much more; but as they were men of extraordinary abilities, so they were men of extraordinary employments; and it was not meet, that that employment should be impeded by any of these lesse affairs. Again, we deny that the Office of a Deacon exacts the duty of a

Pastor from him, but only that he should minister to the Pastor, which he may do well with such a Charge upon him.

Page 36. Number 3. I understand not those Figures; He saith somewhat that would be answered.

Another Argument from 1 Tim. 3. 8. answered.

THE Gifts of Deacons which are required by the Apostle, are such as will not furnish a man to be a Minister; (he means a Presbyter, I think) for such should be Apt to teach: to be a teacher, and not apt to teach, is to be a Bell without a Clapper.

I could answer this in his own Coyn, but I love not scurrility and sharpnesse in these Grave and Serious things; they taste not of that lowlinesse of mind which should be amongst fellow Members.

I answer therefore; That the Gifts of Deacons are not such as qualifie a Bishop, of which St. Paul spake there; but I will tell you, very like them; and as that Clause is not inserted to a Deacon, that he should be apt to teach: so it is not required of him; but when he is found fit to teach, and it is required, he may: I think I have spoken enough to him. If I knew any more of this kind, I would not account it lost time to handle it, although tyred with this.