is not any Constitution for the peoples conveying the Office-power to Ministers 2. If the word jurisdiction be taken strictly there is a difference made between Ordination and Jurisdiction but if by an act of Iurisdiction they mean nothing else but an act of Authority for that is the thing in question then we have before proved that it is an act of Authority and it were easie to make it good by Arguments We never find Ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament but by persons in authority towards their inferiours Moses Ordained Aaron Aaron his sons Christ his Apostles the Apostles other Ministers And if in all these it be granted to be an act of Authority surely to deny it to be so in other Ministers carrying on the same work is an assertion neither true nor probable Again Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in Office and therefore must be an act of authority But I must remember my work is not now to prove but to answer and therefore I forbear and shall give my self and the Reader a writ of ease Only that the Reader may see the fruit of our Brethrens opinion as indeed posito uno absurdo sequuntur mille I shall present him with a list of some novel and strange assertions which they have been hurried into by the force of their principles Novel and strange passages 1. They implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Iews as a teacher by Office for thus they say p. 13. A man is not a teacher by Office to all that he may preach to If he preach to Heathens such as will not receive iustruction yet they are said to be taught though they stumble at the Word Mat. 13. 54. He i. e. Jesus taught them and yet v. 57. they were offended at him But a man is not a teacher by Office unto such heathens And the Apostles according to them were no Officers to Heathens for they thus argue pag. 18. That such are no Officers to people as cannot exercise Church-government over them But say I the Apostles cannot exercise Church-government over heathens What have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo. 2. One that is really gifted for preaching for ought we know may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others p. o. 3. It is the work of God and Christ onely to send Preachers let it be proved wherever a Presbytery was impowred to send pag. 126. And the Church is in no better case with them for they say The person sending is Christ neither a Church nor a presbytery pag. 125. And afterwards Sending is nothing else but Christ commanding to go and preach not by a Presbytery but by the word And how a Presbytery can send but by exhorting to follow the command of Christ we know not And in such a doctrinall way for ought we see a private Christian may exhort to go and teach pag. 130. So that now both Presbytery and Church are thrust out of Office and every one that is apt to teach is commanded to preach though neither Presbytery nor Church send him And every private Christian hath as great a power to send Ministers as either Church or Presbytery which who can read without wonder 4. If the Major part of a Congregation be wicked we suppose then it is no true Church and if once it were a true Church yet now it ceaseth to be so or is unchurched pag. 237. 5. They talk of Pastors administring the Sacraments not as Pastors for thus they say If Pastors preach and give the Sacraments to their own flock they act as Pastors but if they perform these acts to any not of their own Congregation they do it not as Pastors pag. 280. Then they do it as gifted-men for that is the other branch of the distinction He that preacheth to strangers not as a Pastor preacheth as a gifted-brother that they grant And therefore he that administreth the Sacraments to any not as a Pastor doth it as a gifted-brother 6. We see no inconvenience in asserting that heathens converted to Christianity may be a Church before they be baptized pag. 288. 7. A minister as oft as hee changeth his place and people needeth a new ordination pag. 290. 8. They say It is our mistake when we assert that Baptisme doth admit or make a man stand in relation to a Church whereas baptizing is not into a Church but into the name of Christ pag. 292. 9. They say If a people turn hereticall or starve a Minister or combine to vote him out the sin of the people doth nullify the office of the Minister pag. 296. And that I may tread in our brethrens steps who were so ready to catch at the appearance of a contradiction in the Provinciall Assembly I shall put them in mind of two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeming repugnancies at least if not grosse contradictions Self contradicting passages They say pag. 20. that one that is really gifted for preaching may for ought we know lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others pag. 20. And they urge 1 Pet. 4. 11. to prove it the duty of gifted persons to preach and surely if it be a duty then it obligeth whensoever a man may do it lawfully And yet pag. 149. they say We grant that to a mans exercise of his gifts in this or that place there is praerequired a call from the people or Magistrate And how can any man preach but he must preach in this or that place Quod nusquam fit non fit 2. They say When an ordained Minister removes from one charge to another They chuse him not as one that is to be made a Minister but as one already made and now to be made their Minister pag. 300. And yet pag. 302. They say when he removes he is to have a new Ordination and a new Election The Gospel knoweth no difference between making a man a Minister and making him their Minister pag. 302. 3. They say Men to be sent to the heathens to convert them should be Ordained because the conversion of soules is a proper work of the Ministry pag. 300. And yet pag. 302. they say When men are sent to heathens if they be Officers yet they preach not as Officers The conversion of souls is the work of the Ministry not the proper work FINIS Suarez Metap Predestinati nondum congregati Aug. right foot Hammond Selden Analogum per se positum sumâ—â—ur pro famosiore analogata
of Authority for if a man preach to Heathens where no Church is How can he usurp authority over the Church Reply True he cannot usurp authority over the Church but authority he useth towards them to whom he preacheth when Paul preached to Heathens it was an authoritative act no lesse than when he preached to the Church He preached as an Ambassadour to one as well as to the other And seeing that Paul or any other Minister preaching to Heathens or such as are yet unreconciled preacheth as in Christs stead it can be no other than an act of authority 2. They say There may be other waies to give authority to men to preach besides Ordination Reply Our Brethren should do well to remember that Golden saying of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in nothing without Scripture evidence Ordination we know and there are clear Scriptures warranting that and much more clear and undoubted for that than for Election as hath been often observed but for a Scripture warrant for another way of authorizing men to the work of the Ministry without Ordination we know none and if our Brethren know any they should do well to inform us 3. For Heb 7. They say Indeed he that blesseth by an original inherent power as Christ doth he is greater than he that is blessed and of such a blessing the Text speaketh but he that blesseth Ministerially and instrumentally is not alwaies greater than he that is blessed Reply This is very grosse and contrary to the Text which evidently speaks of Melchizedek who blessed only Ministerially and not by any original power and yet that kind of blessing the Apostle alledgeth as an evidence of his superiority over Abraham as the party blessed and if this were not spoken of Melchizedek it were wholly impertinent to the present cause which was to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham 4. They say There is a plain difference between teaching and usurping authority over the man so the Text runs But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence 1 Tim. 2. 12. Reply 1. This should not have been said by such as pretend to know any thing which belongs to the interpretation of Scripture wherein it is so familiar a thing to use a conjunction disjunctive or a word disjoyning one thing from another when indeed the one explains the other Shall any who reads Rev. 22. 15. For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers thence infer that these sorcerers c. are not the dogs there intended because they are distinguished from them This would be plainly childish And to give an instance in the very same kind of conjunction Gal. 1. 12. speaking of the Gospel he saith For I neither received it of man neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Iesus Christ where the latter is not distinct from but expositive of the former for how could he receive it from man any other way then by being taught it 2. For their phrase in this place the Apostle hath so hem'd it in on both sides with an exegesis that no rational man can doubt of it 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 speaks of that usurpation of authority which consisted in teaching and is opposed to silence And for what they adde That the Apostle speaks of her usurping authority over the man i. e. her husband not over the Church Answer This is indeed to seek a knot in a bulrush For the man here is not to be understood singularly for her husband there is nothing in the Text which either commands or warrants such a sense but indefinitely for any man For the Apostle is comparing sex with sex in the general not husband and wife in particular And if this Text concerns such women also as have no husbands which I beleeve our Brethren will not deny then the Apostle speaks of usurping authority over the male kind in the Church not over an husband To which may be added that the authority here spoken of is not an Oeconomicall but a Politicall an Ecclesiasticall authority not an authority in the Family but in the Church not an authority assumed in some Family administration but in a Church affair If it be further said for I shall improve their Argument to the highest that the Apostles forbidding this usurping of authority to the women allows it to the men I Answer It no way follows no more then it follows that the French Laws when they prohibit women from usurping authority or wielding the Scepter do allow it to all men or then it would follow if a Law were made that no woman should usurp authority in a corporation that therefore every man ought to do it which is so far from being true that on the contrary such an act would not only forbid women also but all others untill they were called to it 3. To shut the door to all such cavils and unhandsome wrestings of the Text a parallel place will put an end to it 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence it is not permitted for them to speak but to be in subjection as saith the Law Whence the inference is plain and undeniable that to speak i. e. in the Church is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection And because all unofficed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women therefore by the same reason they are forbidden to preach for my part this is so clear that he that shall resist such evidence I shall despair of ever seeing him convinced by man I shall pass over this only taking notice of two things which concern our present controversie 1. That it is not only constant preaching but even occasionall preaching which is here forbidden them And so by a parity of reason gifted men unless in case of necessity and with order to trial for Ordination which also is necessary as hath been argued may not so much as preach once and their preaching though sparingly is as clearly though not so grossly contrary to this prohibition as to preach constantly 2. That it is the work and not the manner of working which is here forbidden The very work of publick preaching is here forbidden them This I say to prevent a common evasion of our Brethren that gifted men may not and cannot preach in the same manner as ordained persons i. e. they cannot do it authoritatively yet the work they may do And why may not I have the same liberty and apply it to the case of women and say that they may do the work although they cannot do it in the same manner i. e. with authority If I should say so it would be easie to silence me by saying that the very act of preaching is spoken of as an act of authority and that may justly silence them too The sixth Argument was
have nor is it necessarily required that they should have these Ergo they are not capable of giving the Essence of the Ministeriall Call I shall prove both propositions 1. For the Major there are two ingredients c. of both I shall speak in order 1. I say to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call is an act of authority I think this is unquestionable in all other cases wheresoever the power of calling to any office lies there is an authority in relation thereunto For instance in a Corporation If it belongs to the Court of Aldermen to give the Essence of such an Office it is an act of authority in them So if it belong to the Court of Common councel to do it it is an act of authority in them Et sic in caeteris It is true a man may give an Office to another which he himself hath not But if he have it not formally he must have it virtually In democraticall governments where the officers are chosen by the body of the people there I say the authority resides and upon that very ground the people taken collectively are superiour in authority unto the Officers to whom they give the Call And as the Apostle saith The lesse is blessed of the greater so may I say the lesse is called of the greater And as it is in civil respects in some Parishes where the People are Patrons of the place and give the Essence of the civil call to a Minister to be the Minister of the place as to all legall rights c. there I say the People are eo nomine invested with authority for that worke and their collation of this place upon that Minister is an act of authority So in like manner if it belong to the people to give the essence of the Ecclesiasticall call unto a Minister then the people hereby are impowred with an authority and their act is an act of authority And this is the first branch Authority is necessary c. The use of this we shall see when we come to the Minor In the mean time we must prove the other branch of the Major or rather that is proved already that ability to Judge of a Ministers fitnesse is necessary to put a man into a regular capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry And therefore I now come to the proof of the Minor where I must shew 1. That people have no authority c. 2. That they neither have nor by divine appointment are required to have ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry 1. That people have no authority nor can do any act of authority in the Church is plain from hence because they are by Gods appointment placed in a state of subjection at lest it is a cleare case concerning women who are forbidden to do an act of authority i. e. to preach publickly because they are in a state of subjection And this is the more considerable because in that instance which our brethren so much insist upon Acts 1. in that election of an Apostle not only the men but women also did concurre which they could not have done if election were an act of authority or if it were that act which gives the essence to an Officer 2. As they want authority so they want ability And here there are two branches 1. They have not 2. they are not required to have ability to judge c. 1. The people have not ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry This we have proved before and thither I refer the reader and indeed if our brethrens principles did not oblige them to the contrary it would be out of doubt that for the body of almost all the congregations in the world they are exceeding unable to judge of divers of those abilities which are required to the Ministry It is little lesse then a contradiction to say that unlearned men should be fit judges of another mans learning and that learning is of necessary use to a Minister neither will our brethren deny nor can any one doubt but he that is wholly a stranger to it and it is no lesse absurd to think that those persons who are unacquainted with the stratagems and subtilties of gainsayers and hereticks should be competent judges of a mans ability to convince gainsayers If it be said it is true the people are not able to judge of these things themselves but they should and may call in the help of neighbouring Pastors I answer They may do it and they may forbear it According to our Brethrens mind this is not necessary to the being but to the well being of it It is the people that have the whole and sole power of giving the Essence of the Ministeriall Call So that if they will perversly or proudly refuse the help of Pastors as some of our brethrens mind have experienced the giddinesse and unrulinesse of Congregations even when they have had Ministers to guide them and much more when they have been left to themselves they may do it Or what if a Congregation be in an Island or where there are no Pastors to help them in that case they want ability to judge 2. Who ever they are that are intrusted with a power to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call they are to see with their own eyes And surely they that blamed the Bishops because they delegated the Pastorall work to others which they ought to have performed personally cannot excuse the people if they were indeed intrusted herewith that they manage it by others care and wisdom Or else 3. This great inconvenience will follow that Christ hath intrusted this great power in such hands as are unable of themselves to manage it And thus I have dispatched the first branch and shewed that the people are not able to judge The second branch is this The people are not necessarily required to be able to judge of a Ministers abilities as they ought to be if it did belong to them to give the essence of the Ministeriall Call I say if it doth belong to every Church-member as such as his priviledge to have a joint power to give the essence of the Ministeriall call then it belongs to every Church-member as his duty and he ought by divine appointment to be fit to judge of a Ministers abilities and this would be a necessary qualification in every Church-member not onely that he be pious but also judicious and prudent c. and in all respects able to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry so that if a man were never so godly and desirous of Church-membership c. if he were apparently unfit to judge of a Ministers abilities as many hundreds of godly people unquestionably are he ought not to be admitted a Church-member because he wanted one necessary qualification for that relation Which because it is a grosse and manifest absurdity therefore it is not necessarily required that Church-members should
or Rulers not as if there was any defect in his authority but only because there is a manifest inconveniency and disorder in such a promiscuous and unlicensed exercise which therfore is unlawful because it is repugnant to Order and obstructive to Edification and this is the case of ordinary Pastors II. I shall premise another Consideration which being well digested is sufficient to enervate all that is said by our Brethren as to this point it is this A generall respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church Suppose one having a vast number of sheep needeth and chuseth twenty Shepheards to look to his sheep and these shepheards because each of them cannot possibly look to all do therefore distribute the sheep into twenty parcels and each undertakes to look to his share yet so as that in things of common concernment to all the sheep they all meet and consult together c. but in matters of private concernment every man looks to his own parcel In this case every shepheard hath a double relation the one general to the whole the other particular to his own parcel which he doth more especially take care for and feed and keep and watch over c. And in case any of those sheep which properly belong not to his charge go astray if he see them and can keep them in he is obliged by vertue of his office to do it and if through his neglect they miscarry he doth not only sin against Charity but against his Office This is the case of the Church and so it was out of doubt with the Apostles unto whom Christ committed the care of his sheep indefinitely And because each of them could not look to all therefore the sheep were divided into parcels and every Apostle takes upon himself a special relation unto some one parcel and had his proper line 2 Cor. 10. And because the sheep multiplied so fast that to look to them all was a work too heavy for the Apostles shoulders therefore the Flock was divided into more parcels and they ordained more shepheards who although peculiarly entrusted with their proper Charge yet were not freed from their Care of the whole but in things of common concernment did meet together with the Apostles in their daies Act. 15. And afterwards among themselves Or as it is in Germany where every Elector and Prince of the Empire sustains a double relation He is related more especially to his owne peculiar Territory to which he is an Officer acting ordinarily and constantly c. But over and besides his he hath a general relation to the whole Empire and is an Officer to the whole not singly and by himself but together with others being intrusted with a joint-power of governing the whole as in case of chusing of an Emperor or other weighty affairs of the Empire as the necessities and occasions of the Empire require Just so it is in the Church which is one entire body as the Empire is governed by one Systeme of laws and molded under one Government every Minister hath a double relation the one special and peculiar to his owne Flock which he is to feed constantly the other general to the whole Church which he is to feed occasionally as far as his ability will reach and as the Churches exigencies command and which he together with others hath a power to govern This will be put out of doubt by considering more fully that which even now was intimated of the Apostles themselves who also had this double relation one to the whole whereby they were Pastors of the whole Church and yet because they could not possibly each of them look to all the Churches therefore the work was divided among them and they undertook a special relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles Iames to Ierusalem c. Which division did not proceed from any defect of authority in the Apostles to feed the whole but from the impossibility of the thing in regard of the vastnesse of the work and because they were to carry on all Church-work as most suited with edification In like manner we that are ordinary Pastors sequimur patres non passibus aequis and though every Minister is a Minister of the whole Church and hath an Authority extending to it suo modo yet because it is impossible for every one to look to every Church and all things are to be managed with special respect to the Churches edification therefore Ministers are forced to divide the work both as to Teaching and Ruling yet so as that there still remains a relation to the whole whereby he is obliged to teach and with others to rule other Churches so far forth as his ability reacheth and the Churches necessities require And by the way I cannot but take notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which is the great Rule in all Church-administrations for a Minister may jointly with others rule a far greater proportion than he can teach David as a King could rule all Israel but David as a Prophet could not vivâ voce teach all Israel at least not ordinarily and constantly And the Apostles though it was impossible for every one of them actually to teach every Church they neither could do it nor did it yet it was possible for each Apostle joyntly with the rest to govern every Church and they did actually rule all the Churches at least all the Churches there mentioned in that famous Synod Acts 15. in which whether they acted as Apostles or as ordinary Elders all is one to the present Question And this may serve for Answer to that specious Argument so much insisted on by the Reverend and Learned dissenters taken from the conjunction of Teaching and Ruling These things premised I shall now come to the Arguments And here I shall have a double work 1. To lay down an Argument or two to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to more than their own particular Churches 2. To Answer their Arguments and to justifie those inconveniences objected by the Provincial Assembly to the contrary Opinion For the former I shall not here dilate only I shall propound three Arguments The first Argument is this If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens then they are not Officers only to their particular Congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens The Minor is the only Proposition that can be denied and that I shall now endeavour to prove 1. The case is plain in the Apostles That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel-Church was erected is undeniable and appears plainly from Mat. 28. The Apostles at that time were Officers for they had actually received their Commission they being relata must have a correlatum A correlate
there was none but those who were to be made Disciples who were to be converted So that one of these two must necessarily be granted either that the Apostolical relation wanted a correlatum which to say is grosly absurd or that the Heathens and Jews to be converted were the correlatum to them There is but one thing that can be said to wit that at that time there were divers already converted Christians who were a sufficient correlatum to the Apostolical Office To which I Answer If we suppose that all such Christians had died or forsaken the profession of the Faith which might have fallen out without any detriment to the perpetuity of the Church seeing the essence of the Church had been preserved in the Apostles if they only had continued in the faith I say suppose they all had thus fallen away yet had the Apostles been Officers and therefore the Heathens had been their correlatum 2. And such indeed are clearly expressed Matth. 28. 19 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostolical Office and relation From whence will follow that a Minister may be a Minister though he have no particular Church to which he stands related Just as the Eunuch was a member of the Church visible though there was no particular Church into which he was admitted Acts 8. The only probable Answer which I can apprehend is this That the Argument no way holds from Apostles to ordinary Ministers But in this case I conceive it doth For 1. The Apostles as well as Pastors say our Brethren are Officers only to the Church Chap. 3. p. 18. they say of Ministers That it is lawfull for them to go and preach to unbelievers and they instance in the Apostles preaching to Heathens Acts 11. 16. and yet say they they are no Officers to such unbelievers Whereby it is plain that they deny not only ordinary Pastors but also Apostles to be Officers to Heathens which also further appears by the reason they adde why such Ministers are no Officers to Heathens which is common to Apostles with other Ministers viz. Because they cannot as Officers exercise Church-government towards them which holds true even of the Apostles What have we to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. Now if the Apostles who were according to our Brethren only Church-officers yet acted as Officers towards such as were wholly without the Church and towards Heathens much more is it true of ordinary Pastors that albeit they are Officers in special to their particular Flock yet they are Officers and act as Officers towards other Churches 2. Apostles and Pastors are paralleld in this case Eph. 4. 11 12. And he gave some Apostles and some Pastors and Teachers For the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. From whence it is most evident that the object of the Apostolical and Pastoral Office is one and the same both of them being by Office related to the Saints not only that are actually brought in but also to those that are to be gathered And the Offices were appointed and the Officers bestowed for this very end for the edifying of the body of Christ By which Body of Christ we must with judicious Interpreters 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 so that if one of them were lacking Jesus Christ should want his fulnesse as he is pleased to express himself Eph. 1. 21. And answerably to this the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or edifying is not to be understood as in some other places for building up of such as are brought in only but also for the bringing in of those who are yet without for that indeed was the great end why the Ministry was instituted Mat. 28. 19 20. And the very phrase of building implies as well the gathering together of stones for the building and the laying of the foundation as the raising up of the building and the nature of the body as we have now explained it necessarily requires that this edifying should be understood extensively as well as intensively I shall contract all this into a short Syllogism The body of Christ in its latitude 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 The major is plain from the Text and what hath been said the minor also is no lesse evident that Heathens are a part of Christs body They are called his sheep Iohn 10. 16. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold Heathens to be converted Christ laid down his life for else they had never been converted and yet he laid down his life only for his body Eph. 5. And therefore they are his members and part of his body and therefore they are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office And as the whole Church in all ages to wit including persons yet uncalled but by election belonging to it is the correlatum of the Ministers and Ministerial Office in all ages so the whole Church in one age including such as by predestination though not yet by actual vocation and congregation belong to it is the correlate of the Ministers and Ministerial Office in that one age So that not only a particular Church is the correlate of a Minister but also such as are not yet members of any particular Church nor of any Church at all The second Argument may be taken from 2 Cor. 5. 20. where the reconcilable world which consists of such as are yet without and no members of the Church are made the chief object and correlatum of the Office of the Ministry and from thence I shall thus argue To whom Ministers act as Ambassadours to them they act as Officers But Ministers preach as Ambassadours to Heathens convertible and to be converted Ergo. The Proposition is evident from the terms To be an Ambassadour is nothing else but to be an Officer and it may receive further light and strength from this consideration that Ministers are not Ambassadors a pari ad parem from one King to another as equal but a superiori ad inferiorem from one superiour in authority to all from a Prince to his subjects whom he is calling in from one who may and doth require all Heathens as well as others to hear and obey his Ambassadors I mean from the Lord Christ. For the Assumption that Ministers preaching to Heathens do preach as Ambassadors where all the doubt lies I proceed to make good 1. If the Scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others then there is no difference Ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum But the Scripture makes no difference c. Wherever a Minister preacheth he
is to preach with all Authority Strangers are as well obliged to obey him as his own people 2. Even Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them and that not only ex vi materiae because of the matter they treat of but virtute muneris by vertue of their Office He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Luke 10. 16. And therefore as the Jews and Heathens were bound to hear Christ not only in regard of his message which he brings but also in respect of his Office as he was the Mediator and the great Prophet in the Church Deut. 18 15 19. So also it is with Ministers who act as in Christs stead they are to be heard even by Heathens for their Office sake as well as for their Doctrine And those Jews or Heathens which disobeyed the Doctrine of the Apostles are not only charged with the guilt of rejecting the truth but also of contemning the Persons and Offices of the Apostles which could not have been if the Apostles had not preached as Officers to such And surely it must needs be reputed strange doctrine to say that a Minister yea an Apostle preaching to Heathens doth preach no more authoritatively than any woman or child that is occasionally discoursing to such of the things of God The Apostles might challenge Maintenance of those Heathens to whom they preached Mat. 10. 10. 1 Cor 9. which such women and children could not pretend to which clearly demonstrates that the Apostles preached not as gifted persons but as Officers to them The Apostles preaching to such had a power authoritatively to pronounce pardon or to denounce wrath to them upon their believing or disobeying which are the two acts of the Keys and which to do requires an Office-relation to them If it be objected that this may be true of the Apostles that they were Ambassadors and preached as Ambassadors to Heathens and yet not true of ordinary Pastours I answer either ordinary ministers are Ambassadors or else Christ hath not had any Ambassadors in the world since the daies of the Apostles But Christ hath had and hath Ambassadors still in the world therefore Ministers are ordinary Ambassadors the Major is plain for if only extraordinary Officers be Ambassadors then where there are no such extraordinary Officers there are no Ambassadors The Minor also is no lesse clear that the Office of Gospel Ambassadors was a continuing Ordinance and it is most ridiculous to think that while the design and work of the Ambassador lasts his Office should not continue and besides Christ hath perpetuated the Office Mat. 28. 19 20. If it be said they are Ambassadors indeed but it is to their own people not to Heathens I answer yes rather they are Ambassadors to Heathens for as the great work of other Ambassadors is to make peace so also Gospel-Ambassadors their great businesse is to beseech men to be reconciled to God and therefore their principal object is not the Church who are already supposed to be reconciled but Heathens and Strangers who are yet unreconciled and seeing ordinary Ministers preaching to Heathens have a power upon their repentance to remit sin i. e. To declare their sins remitted officially it must needs follow that they are Ambassadors to such And the Apostle in this place ascribes both the name and work of Ambassadors unto ordinary Ministers speaking in the plural number We then as Ambassadors c. And he attributes the name to himself upon a ground common with him to ordinary Ministers i. e. because he besought them as in Christs stead to be reconciled to God and as we rightly infer the assurance of salvation of ordinary believers from the Apostles assurance because he fixeth his assurance not upon any peculiar revelation but upon grounds common to all Christians so may we that are ordinary Ministers justly take to our selves the Name and Office of Ambassadors because the Apostles assum'd it upon such grounds as are common to all Ministers and not upon such as are peculiar to the Apostolical Dignity And this may suffice for the enforcement of this second argument but there is one block that must be removed It is plausibly objected by Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepheard in there answer to the nine Questions That Ministers though Officers to their own Flock yet may do the acts of their Office towards others as a Steward of an house acteth as an Officer in the entertainment of strangers c. And thus Ministers may preach as Officers to others and yet be only Officers to their own Congregations To this I answer 1. This concerns not our Brethren here who do possitively determine that Ministers preaching to others do preach only as gifted men not as Officers p. 18. So that I might without disparagement wave this Objection 2. This is a meer fallacy the resemblance it self is misunderstood or mis-applied for a Steward of an house it is true he acts as a Steward in the entertainment of strangers but how he acts as the Steward of that house not as a Steward to them whom he entertains But a Minister preacheth as an Officer with authority not only in relation to his own Church but any others that occasionally hear him as hath been proved And yet 3. If the similitude were well laid there is a further dissimilitude in the case in hand for a Steward of an house is a Steward only to that particular Family but Ministers are Stewards to the whole Church all which is called one family and one houshold 1 Tim. 3. 15. How thou shouldst behave thy self in the house of God Gal. 6. 10. Do good to all especially the houshold of faith Eph. 2. 19. You are fellow Citizens of the Saints and of the houshold of God And the reason why the Steward of an house is no Officer to strangers is because the Lord that makes him a Steward hath no authority to make him a Steward over strangers nor further then his house or jurisdiction reacheth But Christ who makes Ministers Stewards hath authority to make them such over the whole Church yea over Heathens and indeed so he hath done as the former Arguments have proved and he requires of the world to own his Ministers as Ambassadors and will severely punish their rejection and contempt of them The third and last argument shall be this If the conversion of Heathens c. be the principal ground and end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted and the principal work of the Ministry then the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens But the conversion 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 For the major it is evident from the very terms every Minister is unquestionably related to those among whom his work lies And as it is plain in Christ Jesus our great
converted as we have proved If they deny it I prove it thus that it must needs follow from their principles For 1. The Church being according to them the adequate correlatum of the Apostles the Church ceasing they must needs cease also 2. Ejusdem est instituere destituere and seeing they allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people 3. I thus disprove that monstrous paradox That which renders it in the power of mens lusts or humours to nullifie the promises of Christ the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadors is most absurd That which makes it in the power of men whether there shall be any Officially to preach peace to remit sins c. is highly dangerous But such is this doctrine I prove the minor by these steps 1. There are now none but ordinary Ministers in the Church 2. The essence of a Minister say our Brethren consists in relation to a particular Church which is his correlatum and sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum so that when that relation ceaseth his Ministry ceaseth 3. It is in the power of the people to dissolve that relation to eject a Minister so say our Brethren and it is generally asserted by Congregational men 4. That which one Congregation may do another may do and so every one may do Suppose then that there are twenty and but twenty Congregations in the world if each of these resolve severally to eject their Ministers through covetousnesse heresie c. I say then it is in the power of these men to falsifie Christs word and destroy the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadors But you will say it is in the power of men to kill these Ministers one as well as another and so thereby as well as by our way it is in the power of men to disanull the promise of Christ. And therefore as it would be answered in that case that the bones of Christ were breakable yet by divine providence were kept from being broken so though it is remotè in the power of men to kill all those Ministers yet God will restrain them from the act of killing them that he may keep his promise in like manner though it is in the power of such Churches to depose them yet God will hinder the act c. I Answer the case is wholly different the one is an act of horrid violence the other a juridical act and here is the great inconvenience for a man to assert that Jesus Christ hath given to every Congregation a juridical power to depose their Ministers when ever they please for the power of judging is left by our Brethren in their hands and to disanul an Ordinance of Christ and to punish an Officer and Ambassador of Christ without his fault and without all hope of remedy In what a sad condition were Gospel Ministers if it were in the power of their people upon every Capricio when ever the humour takes them to rob a godly Minister it may be for the faithful discharge of his duty among them of that which he accounts better than a world and that without any possibility of redresse forasmuch as he hath none to make his appeal to How secure might a people be in their wickednesse if when a Minister reproves them sharply for their sins they might take away from their Minister the power of reclaiming their sins or officially denouncing wrath against them But they have a second Answer to relieve them If such a rejection of their Officers do not nullifie his Office the reason is because he is de jure and of right still over that Church as their Officer though hindred from the exercise of his Office And this indeed is much more tolerable than the other but our Brethren have lost the benefit of this refuge forasmuch as they positively acknowledge that the people have a power to annull his Office And besides it helps them not at all for if the people and they only they beyond appeal have a full juridical power of deposing and rejecting their Ministers as our Brethren hold then they only have a power to judge whether the cause of the deposition be just or unjust and be it just or unjust the Minister hath no way but to acquiesce in their sentence for if once this gap were opened either in Church or State that a person judged and censured might thwart the judgment of the supream Court by his private opinion it would introduce intolerable confusion It is true in such a case he may appeal to God and find comfort in this that in fero Dei his cause is good but as for the forum humanum he is gone irrecoverably And however neighbouring Churches or Ministers may endeavour to convince and rectifie such a Church and to perswade them to own him as their Minister yet if they will persist they must all be contented and he must not be owned for a Minister And thus much may serve for the Vindication of those Arguments which were urged by the Assembly I shall now take notice of two or three of their Arguments Their chief Argument is this A Minister is a Pastour only to his own Flock But it is only a particular Church which is his Flock Ergo He is a Pastour only to his particular Church The minor is proved thus All that is a mans Flock he is commanded actually to feed and to take heed to and he sins if he do not Acts 20. 28. But no Bishop is commanded actually to feed the whole Church Ergo the whole Church is not his Flock p. 8. Ans. 1. The major of the first Syllogisme is untrue A Minister is a Pastour to his own Flock especially but not only 2. The major of the second Syllogism is denied A Minister is not obliged actually to feed all his Flock and I suppose I shall give an unanswerable reason for the deniall of it Every Apostle was a Catholick Pastour and so had the whole Church for his Flock Mat. 28. 19 20. Here our Brethren are consenters But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church and all Nations they neither did it nor was it possible for them to do it and therefore their work was divided among them the Circumcision being more especially committed to Peter and the uncircumcision to Paul And yet although by this distribution Paul had a special relation to the Gentiles and was obliged to feed them more especially yet he had upon him the care of all the Churches and it was his duty as far as his ability and occasions reached to feed the whole Church and no farther And so it is with ordinary Ministers though they are especially obliged to feed their own Flocks and indeed can do no more constantly yet according to their ability and opportunity they are bound to feed the whole Church by teaching and consulting c. And this is the only Argument urged formally in this place against our Assertion But
by immediate revelation yet not so as that they did not at all exercise their ordinary gifts or that they never spake as ordinary men For even the Prophets and Apostles themselves sometimes spake their own private opinions And why might not these Prophets after the delivery of their revelation amplifie it and open it according to their private opinion by the help of their excellent though ordinary gifts which though they were much to be valued and respected yet well might be corrected by some immediate revelation manifested to another But say they this requiring the first to hold his peace doth not necessarily forbid his proceeding so far as he intended or command a sudden silence c. but only commandeth so to contract a mans discourse as there may be opportunity for others And I confesse nothing is more easie then to dictate This is soon said but if you ask our Brethren for a proof I am afraid they will stick in the mire In the mean time they having offered no proof for it must needs allow me to rely as much upon my affirmation which yet is not mine but the Apostles as they upon their negation It is plain from the words that it was a thing that fell out beyond expectation and therefore is brought in conditionally If any thing be revealed which condition was needlesse if the revelation spoken of was ordinary and common And this may be abundantly sufficient for the Vindication of this place from which I may justly expect this fruit that ingenuous men of a contrary mind to us may abate some of their confidence and see cause to make a further enquiry into this point then yet they have made And this may suffice for Answer to their Arguments whereby they attempt to prove that gifted persons may preach Let us now see whether we have not more convincing Arguments to prove that they may not preach Albeit this must needs be said that in course of disputations it is not incumbent upon us to prove the Negative but upon them to prove the Affirmative Asserenti incumbit probatio So that I might here take take up and having shewn the invalidity of their Arguments I might supersede further trouble And this memorandum I shall leave upon the file that this Assertion of our Brethren That unordained persons may preach ordinarily is neither commanded by any Gospel precept nor countenanced by any Gospel example which hitherto hath been alleadged But because our Arguments whereby we have proved our Assertion are assaulted by our Brethren it will be convenient to say something by way of Vindication CHAP. VII THe first Argument is put into our hands by the Apostle and it is Rom. 10. 15. How shall they preach except they be sent i. e. How can they do it lawfully The summe of our Brethrens Answer lies in this That the mission here spoken of is not Ministeriall whereby they are constituted in their office but providentiall whereby they are sent into any place and that this mission is indeed necessary to preaching i. e. naturally not morally As it is true How can a man preach except he have health strength c. And besides it may be morally necessary and yet not constitutive of a Minister For it is morally necessary to a Ministers preaching i. e. lawfully that he have all the Gospel qualifications required to a Preacher and yet though he want some of these he may be constituted a Minister To which I Reply 1. To the last clause there is an apparent fallacy which will plainly appear by this one distinction That a mans preaching may be unlawfull two waies 1. Circumstantially when there is a defect in the principles or in the manner of acting c. 2. Substantially when there is a defect in the substance of the act both as to the matter and manner of it When a Minister wants some necessary qualification c. he preacheth lawfully for the substance of the act though he sins in the manner of acting but when one that preacheth wanteth mission the very substantial act of preaching is unlawfull As when a Magistrate acts vaingloriously he sins in the manner of his acting but his act is lawfull in it self but when a man usurps the power of a Magistrate there he sins in the substance of the act because he wants authority c. Or as it is in the case of the Lords Supper it is wholly unlawful for a scandalous sinner to receive it but it is lawfull for a regenerate man though weak in grace to receive it though he sins in the receiving of it In a word the act is lawfull quoad specificationem actus for the kind of it and per se though it is sinfull quoad exercitium actus in the exercise of it and per accidens 2. It must be granted that the word sending is vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken variously in diyers places Sometimes it is taken for the mission of a person already authorized to any place or people but sometimes also it is taken for the authorization of a person to a work or office yea so it is frequently taken as Ioh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me so send I you i. e. As the Father authorized and sealed me to the Office of a Mediator so do I authorize you to be Apostles c. 1 Cor. 1. 17. Christ sent i. e. commissionated me not to baptize but to preach John 1. 6. A man sent of God Thus Christ often said that he was sent in Answer to that Question of his enemies By what authority doest thou these things 3. This providential mission and Ministerial mission need not to be opposed to one another but may well consist together A providential sending of a Minister to any place such as that of Paul Acts 16. to Macedonia doth not at all exclude but rather presuppose a Ministerial ' mission that Paul was an Apostle before hand Nay indeed upon further search these will be found to be much coincident How can they preach unless they be sent Sent by whom They say by God Well then we must enquire in the Scripture how God sends Preachers Thus much is apparent that God sends them by some call distinct from the gifting of them Whether this call be by people or by Officers that is another dispute which now I shall not meddle with this is sufficient to our purpose A call authorizing men to preach is that whereby God sends men to the work of preaching If they were extraordinary Officers then God sent them oft-times immediatly if ordinary then God sent them by the ministry and mediation of men And all those that were providentially sent by God to any place were called either one way or the other And this calling or designation of them to their office and work is that which is commonly known by the name of Sending This authorization of Isaiah is called the sending of him Isa 6. So it is called sending by Moses
to preach for then they sinne if they neglect it c. 9. None may do the work of a Magistrate or a Deacon who is not called to it and therefore none may without a call do the work of a Minister which is a work of far greater difficulty and more importance 10. None may administer the Sacraments because he is gifted unlesse withall he be solemnly set apart for the work Ergo none but such an one may preach for as much as God hath joyned both these together 11. Preaching is an act of authority and therefore must not be done by such as are under authority by such as are not officers 12. Scripture reproves uncalled men for Preaching 13. Christs Ministers have been alwayes carefull to prove their Calling as well as their Doctrine 14. Gifted men uncalled cannot Preach in Faith neither are they commanded to Preach nor People to hear them c. 15. All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance But all Gifted men though Preaching cannot challenge maintenance Therefore they are not Scripture-Preachers The Tenth Chapter concerns Doctor Collings and is by him answered CHAP. XI THus we have dispatched our main work now it onely remains that somewhat be spoken as to the businesse of Election and Ordination and here a threefold question should be ventilated 1. Whether Election by divine right belong to the people 2. Whether the essence of the Ministerial call consists in Election or Ordination 3. Whether Ordination may be done by the people For the First Whether Election by divine right belong to the people there is no need to say any thing about it because it hath been so fully ventilated by others only for those three places alledged in favour of this Election and answered by the Provincial Assembly which they have here undertaken to vindicate it will be convenient to say something as also of the absurdities objected by the Assembly to the Affirmative The first place is Acts 1. 23. It was answered 1. These words they appointed two do in all probability relate to the Apostles v. 5 17 21 22. To this our Brethren reply The exhortation about chusing was given to the 120 brethren and therefore they did chuse Reply It was not an exhortation to chuse nor a direction in chusing here is not a word of the knowledge piety prudence c. of the person to be chosen which useth to be the subject of the Apostles discourse when he exhorts to or directs in chusing but onely a declaration that one must be chosen which was very congruous and convenient whether the Apostles or people did appoint and however the Apostles might and did appoint yet it was fit the People should consent and be satisfied I forbear other things as to this place because they will recur in the next place whither I refer them only this I leave to the consideration of ingenuous men that it is at least doubtful who it was that are here said to appoint two the Grammatical construction and Logical connexion possibly will bear either I am sure it will beat the Apostles and therefore great stresse cannot be laid upon this place The next alledged Text is that Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons To which it was said That the people were guided and limited in their choice by the Apostles so that if they had swerved from the Apostles directions the Apostles would not have ordained them To this they Answer That Lawes and Rules directing in the choice hinders not the entireness of the choice A Corporation have entire power of chusing and yet are limited by Lawes Reply It is true 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 to wit the regulation being such as here it is wherein the Apostles or their vicegerents the Ministers have not only a bare vote in the election but a negative voice whereby it is in their power either to chuse or refuse So it was here and therefore surely the Apostles had a share yea the great share in the choice and therefore the people had not the whole and sole power in the choosing of Deacons which was to be proved This case is not unlike our Colledges when the Fellowes have a power to chuse c. yet under the direction and regulation of the Master who hath a power to chuse or refuse the person chosen by the Fellowes Can any sober man in this case say that the sole power of choosing is in the Fellowes Is it not in the Master also And so it was in the Apostles 3. Our Brethren forget the maine thing that was driven at which by their own acknowledgement was this that The essence of the call consists not in Election and that plainly appeares from this place For if the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds I desire our Brethren to Answer whether they think they would have been Deacons notwithstanding whether the Apostles would or not If they say yea that is so injurious to the Apostles and their jurisdiction that they will have few followers if they say no then the essence of the call to the office of the Deacon and so of the Minister by their own Argument consists not in Election unlesse they will say that a man can be a Deacon and yet want the essence of a Deacon Excep If this Election had been frustraneous it had not been for want of Ordination but for the neglect of observation of Gospel-Rules in chusing Ans. Nay on the contrary it had been the want of Ordination For suppose the people had proceeded according to Goâ—pel-Rules in the Election and choosing a person visibly fit and the Apostles by the spirit of discerning seeing something in him which renders him unfit had denied Ordination In this case the Election had been null though according to Rule Ergo The want of Ordination makes it null efficiently or rather deficiently though the want of fit qualification makes it null meritoriously And againe let us suppose that both the people and the Apostles had not exactly kept to the Rule in choosing for the Apostles might erre in matters of fact though not in matters of doctrine and the people had chosen and the Apostles ordained a man not fit for the office according to rule in that case to say that this call had been null would be a venturous assertion It is harsh to say of every man chosen to the office of a Deacon who is not full of the holy Ghost and wisdome for those are the required qualifications that his choice is null I am confident our brethren have too much modesty to affirme it and if they do not affirme it then that which in this case had made the election null had not been the not observing of Gospel-Rules but the want of Ordination 2. It was said that though the people might have the sole power of chusing Deacons yet
doth strongly justifie the use and necessity of Ordination to other Officers 2. Something extraordinary and peculiar to wit that the essence of their call did not lie in this Ordination but in the immediate appointment of God which therefore cannot be applied to ordinary Officers To say nothing of that which peradventure may be said that Paul had the essence of his Call from this Ordination and yet no prejudice to that other assertion that Paul had his Office neither of nor by man Gal. 1. for though men were used as instruments in the dispensation of the rites belonging to Pauls Ordination yet to speak properly it was not men but God that was Pauls Ordainer for the holy Ghost said separate me c. It was not men that nominated Paul to be an Officer but God did it from heaven Their third Argument is taken from the nature of Ordination Ordination say they is nothing else but the solemn separation of an Officer by prayer and fasting they after adde and laying on of hands to the work whereunto he is called It can be imagined to consist but of three things 1. Fasting and that is no act of worship 2. Laying on of hands and that was not essentiall to Ordination then and it is questionable whither it be still continuing or not 3. Prayer which therefore must be the act giving essence to Ordination seeing the others do not Now upon all this they build a double argument 1. Ordination consisteth in an action performed to God only i. e. in prayer therefore it cannot give the Essence of an externall call to office from men 2. That action which cannot be performed in faith before a man have his outward Call to office cannot give him that outward call But Ordination is such an action c. For how can a man pray in faith for his blessing upon a person in a work of an office before he can conclude that he is so much as outwardly called to that office For Answer 1. For the last clause I also would ask our Brethren one question Suppose the Essence of the Ministeriall Call did consist in Election and that Prayers are to be used for the person to be Elected before his Election which I know our Brethren will not diflike in this case I ask them their own question How can they pray in faith for a blessing upon that person in the work of his Office before he have the Call to the Office Whatsoever they shall reply with reason will serve for our use as well as theirs 2. In such cases our prayers have as most frequently in many other cases a tacit condition that God would blesse him in the work viz. if he shall be set apart for it I may pray in faith that God would go with me in a journey that God would blesse me in the exercises of the Lords day c. Although I do not certainly know that I shall live either to go one step in my journey or to do one exercise upon the Lords day 3. All their Argument proceeds upon a grosse mistake and unacquaintednesse with our principles In a word we hold that the Essence of Ordination consists in none of those three things mentioned neither in fasting nor prayer nor laying on of hands all which are only the modifications of the work but in something else to wit in this the designation of fit persons by Officers unto the work which designation indeed is signified by imposition of hands and deservedly introduced with fasting and prayer as being a work of greatest weight yet still the Essence of it lies not in this 4. For imposition of hands it is granted by most Presbyterians that I know of that it is not so Essentiall to Ordination as that they will pronounce that Ordination null which wanted it although they conceive in being a rite instituted by Christ cannot without sinne be neglected by men Whether imposition of hands ought to continue in the Church is excentricall to our present question and therefore I shall wave it leaving onely this Memorandum for the Readers consideration That the great Argument used for the abolition of it because it was used in those daies for the collation of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost hath to me very little cogency in it both because by the same reason Preaching must be now laid aside because when Peter preached the holy Ghost fell upon them that heard him Acts 10. 44. And because it continued all along in the old Testament notwithstanding this that sometimes it was used in those times for the collation of extraordinary gifts as Deut. 34. 9. And Ioshua was full of the spirit of wisdom for Moses had laid his hands upon him But I must recall my self and remember that it is not now my task to meddle with that point but only to shew that our Brethrens Arguments are not unanswerable And now that we have seen the weaknesse of their Arguments alledged to prove that the essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Election not in Ordination I shall consider whether we cannot find stronger Arguments to prove the contrary That the essence of the call doth not lie in the Election of the people but in the Ordination of the Ministers CHAP. XIII I Shall confine my self to one Argument which I shall desire our Brethren to chew upon which is this The essence of the call to the Ministry must lie in the act of those only who by divine appointment are and ought to be in a capacity to give it But the people neither are nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry Ergo The essence of the call doth not lie in the act of the people i. e. not in Election For the Major it is a plain case Wherever God puts a man upon a work he requires that he be fit for it God will have no man to undertake any work of Magistracy Ministry c. for which he is not fit The Teacher must be apt to teach c. And if it be one of the works of a Minister to send forth other Ministers then God requires this of him that he be in a capacity to do it And so doubtlesse if Election be the priviledge of the members of the Church as such and the Essence of the Ministeriall Call lies in it then by divine appointment this is a necessary qualification for every Church-member to be in a capacity to give it For the Minor which is this That 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 This I shall prove from those things which are requisite to put men into such a capacity And thus I argue Authority and ability to judge of the fitnesse of a Minister are necessary to make a man capable of giving the essence of the Ministers call But people neither
be able to judge of a Ministers fitnesse and by consequence it follows that the people are not intrusted with giving the essence of the Ministeriall Call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing to be shewn And thus much might serve for that point Onely whereas there were divers Arguments urged by the Assembly to shew that the Essence of the Call did not lie in Election which our Brethren here praetend to answer I am under some necessity of attending their motion But because some of them do manifestly refer to such things as have been fully discussed before I shall not need to follow them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely take notice of such things as have hitherto been omitted or are now more strongly fortified 1. It was argued from Acts 6. Where the Apostles are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to constitute appoint Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. They answer If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken for the constituting act in some places so is the word chusing taken for the constituting act in other places Luke 6. 13. And of them he chose twelve whom he named Apostles and the people here are said to chuse and that expresseth the putting of a man into office Reply It is true when chusing is put by it self it may signifie an appointing if it be ascribed to one that hath a power to appoint as it is Luke 6. But it is far otherwise where chusing and appointing are distinguished from and opposed to one another and the act of chusing ascribed to the inferiours the people and the act of appointing asscribed to the superiours the Apostles in such a case to say chusing is appointing or to say that the constituting act was that which was done by the inferiours is but one remove from impossible that I say not ridiculous 2. It was argued from Tit. 1. 5. I left thee in Creet to ordaine c. what was he left there to give an adjunct of their call It must be considered in what state the Church then was and how usefull the paines of Titus might have been in other places which necessarily called for his help so that we may rationally conclude if the people could have given the Essence of the Call without him and if Ordination had been but an unnecessary Adjunct it is no way credible that the Apostle would have diverted Titus from so great essentiall and excellent a service for the doing of a businesse which was but circumstantiall The onely answer they give that signifies any thing is this That Titus was left in Creet not onely to ordaine Elders but also to set in order the things that are wanting But that relieves them not for the setting of things in order it which concerns onely the well being of the Church was not to be put in competition with those other glorious services which Titus might have done in the mean time and which concern the very Essence of the Church â—2 It was argued from the nature of Election of a people which is not the making of a man a Minister but their Minister The people Deut. 1. 13. did look out men but it was Moses that made them Rulers If the people have not office power neither formally nor eminently they cannot make an Officer for nihil dat quod non habet They answer many things 1. That Election makes a man a Minister Reply That is a meer begging of the question 2. The act of Moses is not parallel either with Ordination or Election but rather with Christs act in making Church-Officers because onely Christ is the King of the Church as onely Moses was the supreme Magistrate Reply 1. To speak strictly not Moses but God was the supreme Magistrate of the Iewes and that policy was not a Monarchy but a Theocrasy as Iosephus well calls it and Moses indeed had no regall nor arbitrary power at all but was onely Gods Secretary to write his mind and Gods instrument to publish and execute Gods lawes And look what Moses was to the Iewes that are Ministers unto the Church Moses was the publick interpreter of Gods Law and Gods Vice-gerent who in Gods Name and according to Gods Word was to governe the people and they were to be ruled by him and albeit in some cases the people might have the power of Election yet indeed it was Moses his act which was the constituting act in the creation of Officers Just thus it is in our case Ministers are the publick interpreters of Christs lawes and Christs Vicegerents who in Christs name and according to Christs word are to governe the people and they are to be ruled by them And albeit the people have a power of Election yet indeed it is the act of the Ministers which is the constituting act of an Officer So that here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers in both it is depending and limited onely the one is Civil the other Ecclesiasticall 3. That rule they say is not universally true nihil dat quod non habet for freeholders by chusing may make Burgesses and Parliament men The freemen of a Corporation give the essentialls of their call to a Bailiffe and why may it not be thus with the Church Answ. There is dispar ratio Because all things are to be regulated by law and institution Civill things by a civill institution and Ecclesiasticall things by a divine institution Now what such freemen c. do they have a charter and a warrant for whereby they are quantum ad hoc authorized for the work If our brethren can shew a parallel divine institution for the peoples being authorized to give the Essentials of the call to a Minister then they do their businesse But that they have not been able to do In these cases the people have such office-power eminently in them though not formally And though each of the people considered distributively are inferiour to such a Magistrate after he is chosen yet all the people taken collectively are as to that act superiour to him who is to be chosen Another Argument was this That if the essence of the call lie in Election then it will follow that a Minister is onely a Minister to his particular charge and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place which is a strange and false assertion And this the Assembly prove by diverse considerations and Arguments to which our brethren answer But because all that is here said doth more properly belong to that former question i. e. whether a Minister be a Minister onely to his own particular Church c. I thought it more meet to bring it in there and thither I refer the reader for a reply to all that here they say which hath any sinews or substance in it Againe the Provinc urged this That thence it will follow that there must be Churches before Ministers which cannot be for every Church must