he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren
we grant but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny I shall have liberty to enter my dissent in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description First You say it is a company that we grant Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church Secondly You say it is a particular Company and that there never was nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ any other than a particular company I must confess to my dear Brethren that I cannot fathom their notion of particular we use to say particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis An universal theme in Logick is that as our Brethren know which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many I think Church is such a Theme Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant that their Congregations at London Norwich Yarmouth may each of them be called a Church Now the Question is whether all these Churches may not be considered together and called a Church Or if you will Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth may not by an universal notion be called a Church or is not called a Church in Scripture You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company but not an universal Church that is as I suppose you mean a body capable of Officers otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons who are visible Saints should be called a Church Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad p. 40. and seven hundred should not If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches Acts 8.3 Gal. 1.13 Acts 26.11 Acts 9.31 compared together Acts 12.1 Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 All these Texts will prove that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called But you will say This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it Brethren have you read what Mr. Hudson saith to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholick Do they not when they Baptize admit into the Catholick Church Pag. 232 why else are not your Members baptized again when they are translated from the particular Church into which according to this principle alone they were Baptized Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church Or will our Brethren say that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion Were the Apostles think our Brethren Officers only to a particular Church If to the Vniversal then there was an universal Church once existing capable of Officers Nor is that irrefragable Text 1 Cor. 12.28 as our Brethren say prest to the service of the Catholick Church No it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth You say Brethren that what it is written ver 18. of that chapter God hath set the Members every one in the body doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body as God hath set some in the Church proves a Catholick Vniversal Church I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body together with ver 12. and all the members of that one body being many are one body will prove that the body is Totum integrale So also saith the Apostle is Christ i. e. the Church of Christ If our Brethren will but grant us this That the Church is a Totum integrale you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum If you say there is no other Totum called a Church but only the particular Church I have proved the contrary that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church If you say this Church hath no Officers that Text 1 Cor. 12.28 confutes you neither will your consequence follow that because an universal body is not proved from ver 18. therefore an Vniversal Church is not proved from ver 28. viz. from the whole verse If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body but would serve any other particular bodies as he doth of Church Officers ver 28. I hope it would have proved an Vniversal body You tell us Brethren you renounce the name and thing of an Vniversal or Catholick Church you must then renounce the Holy Scripture witness the Texts before mentioned and renounce right reason and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren who generally acknowledge both the name and thing only deny it to be Organical But you think you have five Arguments will prove that a particular Church cannot be a part but a Totum 1. You say first every part is in power incompleat But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church And may act in all Church work not as a part but as a whole I must deny your Minor Brethren I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod and to consult at least a piece of Church work to which Gods word gives a power Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod We say the like for Ordination except in cases of absolute necessity and for excommunication where the Church is very small there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited 2. You tell us next that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is you know not This is Brethren such a fallacy as scarce deserveth an answer the body of a man is a whole all his members are parts now when you have found out where that body is which is really distinct from all the members and wherefore it is you will have answered your selves The Nation of England is a whole every Parish is a part finde us where that Nation is which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together We use to make this a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis unitis That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united 3. In the next place you tell us there can be no visible universal Church because
preaching of the gospel c. which he may do as an officer of Christ in any place of the world We do not say he is bound to do it in all places that is impossible nor to travel up and down as the Apostles were for that work is ceased at least as to those places where people have received the gospel But we say he may do it as opportunity is offered And we believe that in case it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England The Church might by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands set apart some particular persons to the office of the ministry without a particular designation of them to this or that place but only designing them as the officers of Christ to preach the Gospel amongst the Indians and to baptize such as should receive the Gospel and though not by their single Act as the Apostles yet by the advice of the Church and with their assistance these might ordain Elders in their Cities and form them up into complete Gospel order yet the office of such would differ from that of the Apostles both in regard of their mission being more ordinary and also in regatd of their power being more limitted These things being premised let us consider our Brethrens Arguments their first reduced into form is this What the Gospel knoweth not no Gospel officers can be correlates unto Of Preaching without ordination cap. 2 p. 8. But the Gospel knows no Universal visible Political Church Ergo 1. At the first dash our Brethren here take away the subject or at least the suppositum of the question The suppositum of the question is That there is a Church Particular and Vniversal The question is to which of these the office of the Ministry is related They say to the Church Particular we say to the Church Vniversal to prove their assertion they tell us there is no Church Vniversal This is foul disputing 2. But secondly The whole may be granted and yet nothing proved by it for whether the Gospel knowes a Church universal under a political form or no is not the question it is enough if it knowes a Church Vniversal under any notion 3. Thirdly the minor is false as Mr. Hudson abundantly proves the Church universal is in scripture set out under the notions of a political body it is called a Kingdom a City Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens it is called an Army terrible with Banners Cant. 6.10 see Mr. Hudson more p. 133 134 135 c. for it nothing concerns me as to the present question as I said before Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto these officers viz. Pastors teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Overseers Acts. 20.28 1 Tim 3.2 Titus 1.7 Themselves form their argument thus or at least should have formed it thus Arg. 2 That Church alone which is committed to ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But the universal Church is not that Church which is committed to a Minister to feed teach and oversee Ergo I am sure that the Argument must run thus if it concludes the question which at present is not whether a particular minister but whether the office of the ministry residing in all ministers be a correlate to the particular or to the Universal Church And therefore our Brethren may see a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the question stated by themselves Now to the argument thus formed I answer By denying both the propositions I deny that That Church alone which is committed to a ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate For I suppose that our Brethren mean which is more especially committed to his charge as pastor thereof in a restrained sense if they do so I say that Church alone is not correlate to his office or to the office of the ministry because another Church viz. the catholike Church is also in some sense committed to his charge viz. so far as pro re natâ as occasion serveth he may and ought to feed others besides that Church yea such as are of no Church but may for ought he knowes be members of the invisible Church of Gods elect and so his office doth relate to them But secondly the Minor is apparently false viz. That the particular Church is that alone which is committed to a ministers eharge to feed teach and oversee Go preach the gospel to every creature is a commission which hath put all the reasonable world under the charge of the ministeral office And although as our Brethren of London say right that no minister is an Actual Minister to the Vniversal Church viz. in these two senses 1 None can be here and there and every where thus the Spirit of God is only an Universal actual teacher Nor secondly is any Minister set in a particular Church bound as the Apostles to an itinerant Execution of his office yet our Brethren of London do not say but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens the Church may by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands confer the office of the Ministry uppon some persons with a special designation of them as Christs officers to carry the Gospel to people all over the Nation or over the world Neither do our Brethren of London say but that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church wherever he preacheth preacheth as an officer of Christ in the worke of the Gospel whom people are bound to hear nor do they say that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church may not by vertue of his ministerial office so far as his opportunity strength and finite nature gives him leave feed and teach by the word and as a minister oversee any others that are not members of his particular Church Though indeed that be in a more special manner committed to his trust care and oversight But I observe that our Brethrens argument though put into the best form I could and cured of one fault yet is sick of another and indeed the Argument should have run thus That Church or those Churches alone which are committed to all ministers respectively to feed teach and oversee respectively are the Churches to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But those Churches are only particular Churches Ergo. As they put it thereâ—s a great fallacy in it for suppose this or that particular Minister had no work appointed him by Jesus Christ to do but onely in his particular Church and so the office of the Ministry as it resided in that single man were only a Correlate to his particular Church Yet it would not follow That the office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister in the world had no other Correlate
for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. That they may do acts of office and authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him
who preacheth is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty This is so rational that none can deny it for sin is the transgression of a law and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural divine positive or humane now this is certain that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse or reads a chapter he must be specially authorized to preach or I shall not be specially obliged to hear 2. The second principle is this That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer I think that none in their right wits will deny this hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow from this principle 1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed let who will preach none are bound to come to hear but they may all stay at home and read a good book if they please for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach and so none under an obligation to hear 2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait upon any publike Ordinance which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls than reading a chapter at home doth The reason is because no particular Churches are formed and there can be none in office It is not the place or company but the person administring who makes the ordinance publike 3. Where there is a particular Church formed it is true the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer but for all others if they do stay at home and read a chapter or a good book they sin not for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them than they have to preach at home one to another 4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach if he be not a member of his particular Church he cannot come in faith believing upon the account of any precept or promise that the word heard shall profit him any more than if he had staid at home and heard his servant read a chapter for he that preacheth stands in no office is clothed with no more authority toward him No he is only in office to the members of his own Church 5. If any pastor of any particular Church at any time uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person who is not an actual member of his Church he sinneth against God doing an act of office to a person to whom he is in no office and hath no authority And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to consider to what Atheiâ—m and confusion this one principle improved would in a short time bring us And I am verily perswaded that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion are of another mind from these three in this point for so wise and learned men can never surely think that when at any time they preach in any place or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches they preach but as gifted brethren so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom is under as much appointment of Gods for the salvation of souls as theirs is yet this is a true conclusion from this principle up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be performed by an officer which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world As for their third chapter I might spare my pains in answering of it for it is but a conclusion from their premises in the first and second chapter and it is too much to deny the premises and conclusion too In this third chapter they give us the description of office then indeavour to prove it and lastly draw two conclusions from it their description is this Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified Preaching without Ordination p. 14. founded upon a special and regular call 1 This definition offends two logick rules say we which are these Aristot l. 6. top cap. 5. That all definitions should be adequate That is nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel as I proved before yet that is put into the definition secondly Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified or in the notion of a regular call which I suppose our brethren will not grant Arist top l. 6. a p 1. 2. A second rule is this That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species The ministerial office is a Genus here defined but there are diverss ministers say we that have no such particular Church for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo without a title to a place was no divine order but prudential to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministery and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense doth relate to a particular Church but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense and as it is used in Scripture both in Jeremy 3.15 Eph. 4.13 Our Brethren expound their description For the Genus we allow what they say Office is a Relation Their terms of relation we deny we say the particular Church is not the only correlate but the Vniversal Church is also a correlate to the office yea and the work yea God himself and all Nations of which before Here 's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered besides that term Angel of the Church used Rev. 2.1.8 c. To which I answer that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est it is very disputable whether a single person or the Presbytery be meant by that term 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church But not the flock as our Brethren say The Apostles ordained the Deacons not the flock It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy Acts. 6. and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete As to the formal cause
we cannot agree with our brethren that a special regular call is it in the sense they understand all we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External and the Apostle proveth it How shall they preach except they be sent that is they cannot Rom 10.10 Now Forma dat esse Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5 where they argue thus If the Church should chuse a Deacon much more their pastor Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis from the lesser to the greater and they argue affirmatively See more as to these texts in â—â—y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer then they ought to chuse the greater But this is false Logick our brethren will easily see it in other things will these things follow If a man can carry an hundred pound weight then much more a thousand If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant then much more a Colonel Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching Besides did the peoples choice there make them officers surely the text sayes no such thing the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves ver 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained not chose as our Brethren do The word signifies to stretch out the hand and by that sign to chuse 2 Cor. 8.19 but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here Not alwayes witness Acts 10.41 Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining and so it signifies saith Stephen when it governs an accusative case But allow it to signify chuse they were Paul and Barnabas that chose not the Church in our brethrens sense Let any one one compare v. 20 21 22 23 and ell me of whom that word is predicated So that both â—ur Brethrens texts fail with all that is built upon them in their book As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general That the work of the Ministry is the End and so far allow their proof Eph. 4.11 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant I am sure the text sayes no such thing nor any thing like it except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries or inferences First That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church The second is this That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono by office and by gift is founded on Scripture 2 Conc. As to the first I have already proved the contrary for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the worke but to the Church Nor to the Vniversal Church but to the particular Church which foundations I think I have shaken so that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure As to the second we allow it in two cases first for Trial sake for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons 1 Tim 3.10 and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I mean ordinary officers for Apostles c. were not the same species of officers 2. In cases of Necessity In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had which was the case Acts 9. Necessity we say hath no law In such a case as I said before the Levites killed the sacrifice at Hezekiahs passeover which else they ought not to have done We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono by vertue of gifts only Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say by way of Limitation or Explication of the question is summed up their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed and stated IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject and the Predicate For the Subject they tell us it is not every Christian but every one that hath gifts 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts but who really hath and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no according to Acts 6.3 but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach especially in some cases without such approbation As to the Predicate By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to be it in publike or in private to a Christian or to an idolatrous assembly thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify Lu. 16.16 1 Cor. 9.16 Acts 13.32 Rom. 20.15 Acts. 5.42 Acts. 8.35 Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching Jus divinum p. 77. much they say to them who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively they say authority is taken for a right and lawfull power Lu. 20.2 Secondly for majesty and gravity Mar. 1.22 Tit. 2 15. Thirdly for office-power In the last sense they grant it in the two first they say gifted men may preach authoritatively this is the substance of what they say in many words To all which I answer 1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question if I mistake not it amounts to no more than this Every private Christian may not preach but every one that can or will may for what should hinder him who shall be judges of his aptness to teach shall the Church but by what rule Secondly suppose he will not submit shall the gifted man sin no say our Brethren It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents but for ought we know it is lawfull So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak Our Brethren tell us the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was
a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 â—te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone◠〈◊〉 â—is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the
therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith We use to teach our People that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will and the prayer is in Faith while he that prays believes God will do that which is most good for him so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift that he might be able to prophesie but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will and wisdom of God and doing so he might pray in faith though there were no such particular promise Object But say our Brethren this was impossible to be obtained 1 Cor. 12.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be If I should tell our Brethren here To God nothing is impossible they would think I equivocated with them yet it is the coyn they have much used in payment to me but where lyes the impossibility in respect of Gods revealed will they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be That Text indeed proves that all the Members of a particular Church cannot be officers to that Church and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word ears to hear and heads to govern whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage But surely it will not follow but that all those who are members in this particular Church may yet be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea and they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides universal holiness our Brethren know may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained We allow also that Text to prove that all the Members of the universal Church should not be ordinary Officers But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers Much less doth any thing they have said prove that all Christians in that Church might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office when God should set them in such relations Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound which our Brethren hint pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts as if God pleased so to imploy him he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an unerring Spirit and speak with tongues or be able to heal the sick provided his End were right in desiring For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by Joel and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for them they might pray for but 1 Cor. 14.5 I would that you all spake with tongues They proceed to the proof of the Minor viz. That the prophecying spoken of ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth this they prove from the terms ye and all v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer 1. Having denyed the Major and made good our denial of it I need not trouble my self with denying this 2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not include every individual always Are all Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29 Let us hear what they say to our Arguments to prove that these prophets were Officers 1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. Where they stand distinguished from the people and enumerated amongst officers placed before Evangelists and next to the Apostles To this they answer p. 93 94 95. 1. That priority of order is no infallible Argument 2. That some not Officers are enumerated 1 Cor. 12.28 and prophecie is called a gift Rom. 12.6 3. Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Prophets such as Acts 11.27 28. To all which I shall give a short answer 1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argumen where there is any other Scripture or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men to express the Order but we say our brethren have no such Text nor reason neither and that the Apostle in that Text Eph. 4.11 12. seems to rank Preaching Officers according to their dignity beginning with Apostles then reckoning Evangelists Thirdly Prophets Fourthly Pastors Fifthly Teachers And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints and the common Members of the Body of Christ 2. We say there are none but Officers mentioned Eph. 4.11 12. Nor any 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But such as were either officers or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost from whence we conclude That Prophets were either extraordinary officers or ordinary officers or gifted with extraordinary gifts peculiar to that state of the Church Now it is indifferent to us as to the present controversie of which it be understood So our Brethren will grant that one of them must be meant and so much that Text will evince If Gifted men be meant I wonder who are the Church in which they are set ver 29. Our Brethren say prophecie is called a Gift Rom. 12.6 but there is nothing plainer than that by gift is meant office to him that readeth ver 7.8 3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets Pag. 96. we take them at their word and say it is all we have been contending for only then it lies upon our brethren to prove that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church 1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it So say the Prelates for Arch-bishops and Bishops where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches and committing government to them was enough and the cessation of their extraordinary Mission was enough So we say for these Prophets the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experience is a demonstration to us that prophecie is ceased where is there any now that can without study and meditation infallibly give the sense of Scriptures from revelation or can foretell things to come we have pitifull experience every day that those pleaded for cannot do the first and the year 1657. being come and gone and the Jews not converted proves that John Tillinghast though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for prove they cannot do the later As we say to the Prelatical party so we say to our Brethren St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased Secondly Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift and therefore it continues the gift of tongues and healing in those days were ordinary yet
gifts though every one had not more than one yet some might as Paul had the word of knowledge and wisdom and tongues and miracles and interpretation of tongues So I see nothing to hinder but he that had the special gift of prophecie might besides have the word of wisdom and knowledge 3. Supposing prophecie to have been a gift of foretelling things to come or explication of Scripture by an infallible Spirit without use of means yet they might speak edification exhortation and comfort which is all mentioned 1 Cor. 14.3 the Prophets of old Isaiah Jeremiah c. did all but the nature of their gift and the specifical difference of it did not lye in the thing spoken or the End but in the principle enabling them so to speak 4. Our Brethren therefore shall never prove that exhortation c. was the distinctive act of the Prophet as they would insinuate for they themselves must grant that common to Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers with them and this is an answer to their third thing For what they say before that prophecie Rom. 12.6 7 8. is distinguished from exhortation it signifies nothing because exhortation was not the act of Prophets as Prophets It was told our Brethren that 1 Cor. 13.8 the Apostle saith Whether there be prophecies they shall fail whether there be tongues they shall cease whether there be knowledge that shall vanish away Our Brethren answer ver 9 10. it shall be Page 114. when that which is in part is done away 2. Not till the ceasing of knowledge in part 1. We may as well maintain tongues not to be ceased for they also are mentioned ver 8. as things which should fail and we know they are failed and so we judge are prophecies too nor will it help our Brethren which they say that ver 9. it is not said tongues are in part for the reason is because they were perfect in their kinde and so need not be done away when that which is perfect should come but if we take perfect in a true sense for a perfection of the Saints in glory then indeed they were imperfect things serving only as means in order to that end Neither doth the Apostle speak of the coming of that which is perfect as the moving cause or reason of that ceasing of things that were in part he doth not say that which is in part shall be done away by the coming of that which is perfect but he speaks of it as a consequent The true sense is this Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church shall cease when we come in heaven we conceive by tongues and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary By knowledge ordinary gifts and offices these shall all fail at that day but some of these shall fail before others We lay no great stress upon this Text I have only said thus much to prevent our Brethrens using of it as they here do though without any just ground for the truth is it will serve neither party It was told our Brethren that prophecying 1 Cor. 14. is said not to serve for those that believed not and therefore our Brethren must keep their Gifted men to their Churches If any thing can be clear in Scripture surely this is from that Text 1 Cor. 14.22 To this our Brethren Answer 1. That it will warrant their preaching in Church Assemblies 2. That the Apostles intent seemeth to be but to deny prophecy to be a sign to unbelievers and to serve onely for Believers to edifie them but they say the Apostle acknowledgeth it to be usefull to unbelievers to convert them To which I answer 1. If there were any Prophets indeed this would warrant the exercise of their gifts to Church Assemblies but our Brethren cannot prove any such Prophets now existent But Secondly It is well our Brethren say no more than this seemeth to be the Apostles intent for the Letter of Scripture is express against them in these words Wherefore tongues are for a sign 1 Cor. 14.22 not to them that believe but to them that believe not but prophecying not for them that believe not but for them that believe Our Brethren would make us believe that the sense is only that prophecie was not for a sign to them that believed not but for their conversion it might be Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little and judge betwixt us 1. It is plain that if prophecying were for any sign it must be for unbelievers for believers needed no sign they had already received the Gospel but the Apostle plainly says it was not for unbelievers 2. Let any Reader judge whether those words But prophecying not for those who believe not do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to unbelievers if it were a sign at all it must be for them who believed not but say our Brethren it is denied to be a sign for them and the words are plain enough it is not for them Object Oh! But though it be not a sign for them yet it might be to convert them Answ Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convetsion now that prophecy should be for their conversion and not a sign for it seems very harsh considering that the world had no greater sign of the truth of the Gospel than Prophecies For what our Brethren say that ver 25 26. prove that prophecy is usefull for the conversion of unbelievers We grant it but it is When the unbeliever comes in to the Church Assembly not when the Prophet goes out to them ver 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place and ver 24. There come in one that believeth not or is unlearned he is convinced or reproved of all i. e. those that prophesie he is judged of all c. Mark the Prophet is tied up to the Assembly of the Church in one place If our Brethrens Brethren be of this sort of Prophets what do they travelling up and down Countreys whom they think unbelievers or intruding upon Congregations that are vacant where there is no Assembly our Brethren will own as a Church these Prophets were not by vertue of this Text to be sent out of the Church only to be heard in it This is all our Brethren say about these Prophets and although I really think their Argument from this Text the most probable of any they have yet I hope an equitable Reader will from what I have said judge it not conclusive in the case I wonder at the reverend opinion our Brethren express of their other Arguments in comparison of this But let the Reader judge Only led me add one text more to prove this prophecying an extraordinary gift not ordinary it is that Acts 19.6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text and conâ—ider whether that the Gospel-prophesying were not one
But our Brethren dare not say who shall judge that as I noted before therefore it is all that will Fifthly Our Brethren say true our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture But when the question is whether there be any ground in Scripture for this liberty or no and our Brethren have no plain Scripture to prove it no particular Precept no Presidents but of persons qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost that ever ordinarily preached We hope our Friends will judge that it is no light Argument to prove our Brethren mistaken in the Scriptures they pretend because their sense of them being granted a standing Sacred Office of the Gospel plainly confirmed by many Scriptures would be made frustraneous and of no use Sixthly But Lastly say our Brethren we do grant that Apostles and Evangelists might Preach yet was not the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless I Answer 1. This is no consequence for Apostles and Evangelists were Officers 2. They were virtually Pastors and Teachers they differed in nothing from them but the extent of their power 3. There was a plain need of Pastors and Teachers notwithstanding these extraordinary Officers for 1. They were to endure but for a time 2. They were not to be confined to a place it had been sin for them to have always staid in one place So that notwithstanding them there was an apparent use of Pastors Teachers 4. We say as to such times as they were resident in this or that particular Church there was no need of any Pastors or Teachers because they could do all their acts But we hope our Brethren will not say so for their gifted men And thus much may serve to have answered all they say against my third Argument My fourth Argument I laid thus Vindiciae Ministerii pag. 38 39. What things by Scripture-warrant are in publick Assemblies to be communicated unto others by faithfull men who shall be able to teach others and to whom such things shall first be committed by Gods Timothies those things private persons to whom they are not so committed may not so communicate But of this nature are Gospel-Truths 2 Tim. 2.2 Ergo. I granted our Brethren that the Greek word translated Commit did sometimes signifie to propound a thing to others But most properly such a committing as is of a thing which is committed in trust to one not to another as Luk. 12.48 Luk. 23.46 Act 13.43 Act. 20.32 1 Tim. 1.18 1 Pet. 4.19 I told them it could not be understood in the former sense here for so Timothy was to preach to unfaithfull men as well as faithfull but he is commanded only to commit these things to faithfull men and it was not enough that these men were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful but notwithstanding that they must have these things committed to them before they taught others Now let us hear our Brethren 1. They grant that none but such as are faithfull and able may teach others and such as are learned in Gospel mysteries This will go a great way for I hope our Brethren will not judge him able to interpret the Gospel that is not able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into his own Tongue I wonder how he shall distinguish betwixt the Jus Divinum of the Doway Bible translated into English and the Bible of our English translation as much may be said for the Old Testament So that the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew will be necessary to understand Gospel-Mysteries so far as to communicate them to others viz. Revealing the whole Counsel of God to them indeed in cases of absolute necessity where enough such men cannot be found something may be abated not because they are able but because none are to be found more able For other Learning as much might be said but this is not directly to our present purpose our question supposeth them able yet we say they are not Commissionated 2. Our Brethren tell us that the word translated Commit is to be taken here for a propounding of those things doctrinally 1. Because the end is to make them able 2. Because it doth not appear from any other Scripture that any other committing of Gospel-Truths viz. such as I speak of is required unto a Call no not to Office 1. But our Brethren have nothing in the Text to prove â—hat the end of the Committing of those things to them was to make them able it says no such thing 2. Our Brethren know the Enallage of Tenses is very ordinary in Scripture the future used for the present and the present for the future tense 3. If Timothy were to commit those things only to them that should be able to teach others his Rule was very incertain for how could he know who they should be 4. That there is an ordination necessary was elsewhere proved by me and more sufficiently by the London Brethren I told our Brethren That Timothy is commanded to commit these to faithfull men only and such as should be able to teach others therefore it could not be meerly doctrinally for so they should be committed to all To this I can finde no answer only our Brethren say that this is to shew unconverted men are not to be Preachers 2 Nor all that are converted but such as are able But how this answers my Argument I cannot guess for if as our Brethren assert the committing â—ere but doctrinal that is here meant it is sure enough they were thus to be communicated to the unconverted Again whereas our Brethren say that it is the committing these things to them makes them able We grant it in the sense of that known Maxime Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus We say the Moral ability of the Preacher is created by his being authorized to the work by a solemn separation to the performance of it without which though many be naturally able yet none is morally able as it is the Judges Commission that makes him able to relieve the fatherless and oppressed Widow in Judgement Our Brethren therefore as their safest refuge flie to the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this was a Precept concerning Preachers by Office The Text saith no such thing however we own no others whereas they say we must restrain it to publick Preaching We say there is reason for it for the Apostles business is to direct Timothy in the setling of Gospel Churches as to publick Officers and Administrations And besides Reason will tell us that those need not to have Timothy commit the Scriptures to them who exhort from the obligation of Natural and Oeconomical duty But we say that all such publick Teachers of others are here meant as Preach with authority obliging the Publick Assemblies of the Church to hear them all such as administer that glorious publick Ordinance of God which we call Preaching and is the ordinary means of saving souls And this is enough for the
say God sends men tâ— relieve the poor But be it so at present We say the written word commands none to Preach but such as are ordained Our Brethren only say gifted men are allowed and they may do it occasionally no more therefore say they they are not to be maintained 2. Besides sending makes them Officers who ever I send is my Officer the Kings Ambassador is his Officer and so by this Rule they are all Gods Officers no man can send another but he is in office as to that whereabout he is sent nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary If a man be an Officer before another Mission makes him still an Officer those sent Luke 10.1 were Officers by their Mission though Mission may be repealed and yet the Office not lost yet Mission makes an Officer My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer as to that business and if I send him a second time my second sending makes him my Officer too I see no contradiction in that when the work is enlarged as in those instances Matth. 10.5 6 7. Matth. 28.19 Nor will it follow that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers because it is said How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard or how can they hear without a Preacher c. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases else a man may believe without hearing suppose a man be deaf and hear without a Preacher too c. 3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Providential sending and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach if God doth not by his providence direct or permit them to Preach if God doth not give them legs to stand and a tongue to speak Hence it follows That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is denied as if a man should say How can a man see if his eyes be out And this our Brethren own pag. 137. for they say all the other interrogations deny a natural possibility Christian Reader doest not thou think this had been a great Gospel-Mysterie worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans none could preach if they had no tongue to speak or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where But to evince this to be a vanity 1. If this notion of sending be true then none can run before they are sent for all motions are under the providence of God But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent 2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned 1 Tim. 3.6 were sent for they could never creep into houses but by divine providence Object But say our Brethren Gods command in his word must concur with his providence Answ What command is that 1 Pet. 4.10 say our Brethren As every one hath received the gift let him minister But say these men we have received the gift therefore we are sent who shall judge now Not the Presbyterie say our Brethren nor is it necessary the Church should say they Ergo t is enough they say they have and you ought to believe them and look upon them as sent till the great day comes which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order can any one think which Jesus Christ hath taken for his Church But I need not multiply words here our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending unless the Person â—o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word and they can shew no command conclusive in the case but for such as are otherwise sent then meerly gifted and providentially disposed Only I must examine their reasons why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended though we only contend it to be the ordinary Mission and that alone which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased as our Brethren easily will grant they be They say 1. They no where finde Ordination called Mission But this falls as heavily on our Brethren for they cannot finde us any Text where the Command of God in his written word is called sending 2. We find Acts 13.3 Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas They fasted and prayed and laid their hands on thâ—m and sent them away if the last words be not exegetical of the former our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth in sending them that is called by that name 2. Because our Brethren finde Deacons were ordained but they do not finde they were sent It doth not follow that because the Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending on the Churches part therefore no Ordination is or may where the persons are ordained Officers to more then those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them 3. Because Mission may be repealed but not Ordination According to our Brethrens principles Ordination also may But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned Matth. 10.5 6 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission we do not say Ordination is so There was a new work to do but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do which shall need require a new ordination 4. Our Brethren say None can send to themselves But a Church which hath a Presbyterie may Ordain its own Officers Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers no more will I if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Churches have excepting onely Cases of necessity but although a Church cannot send to its self yet it may send one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member a Citizen of Norwich may properly enough send a Message to the Corporation though himself be a Member of that Corporation and the person thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholick Church to all which he is sent And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15 My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a topick From the contrary practise and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches and all Reformed Churches Our Brethren make light of this But in cases where the Scripture speaks at best but so darkly on our Brethrens side and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty we think it very much if we can say with the Apostle If any list to be contentious we have no such custom neither we nor the Churches of Christ And in cases which are dark we follow the guidance of Christ while we walk by the footsteps of the flock and feed our kidds by the shepherds tents Cant. 1.8 CHAP. VI. Containing a review of some passages in our Brethrens Book and in my answer where is examined whether the Baptism of Christ and John are according to our Brethrens sense to be distinguished Our Brethrens three Texts for Election by a particular Church arâ—
it was given to them as their concernment it says not It saith Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly the crowd of names present was an hundred and twenty the word signifies a company of persons a multitude Mat. 4.25 Matth. 5.1.7.28 By Disciples ver 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant who are very often in Scripture distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multitude as Matth. 13.34 Matth. 9.36 37. and in many other Texts Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles and said to them in the hearing of the multitude I know the term disciple is sometimes taken in a larger notion but it seems to be here distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure I am our Brethren can give no sufficient reason to shew that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles not exclusively to others but emphatically and more eminently than others called Disciples as in many other Texts and if this sense be allowed they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two verse 25. according to our Brethrens own Argument 3. But lastly It is a plain case God here chose for two stood forth or were set forth when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle till God made the choice Hence it is plain that from this Text nothing can be concluded 1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor 2. It doth not say any chose them But they stood 3. If any did choose probably they were only the Apostles called Disciples by way of emphatical distinction 4. The truth is it was God who made choice If therefore our Brethren could prove that the Brethren set these two before the Apostles and as they say in doing that did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer yet this was just nothing for nothing was needfull from them in that Case Their second Scripture is that Act. 6. v. 1 2 3 4 5 6. where it is expresly said that the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples and said Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report c. In the former Argument our Brethren argued thus If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer then they ought to choose the less Here now they argue quite contrary If they ought to choose the less then they ought to choose the greater Surely both these Arguments cannot hold being both made affirmatively But as to the present Argument stated thus If the Church mentioned Act. 6. v. 3 4. c. ought to choose Deacons then a particular Church now ought to choose her Pastors But the Church Acts 6. chose her Deacons Ergo. 1. We deny the consequence 2. We deny the Assumption I will offer Reasons for both 1. For the denial of the Consequence 1. It is plain that Church Acts 6. was the universal Church as well as a particular Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all mankinde nor is this nonsense for by universal Church I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth in which were Catholick Officers it was furnished with twelve Apostles 2. It is plain that the persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning Spirits Act. 2. Act. 4.31 No particular Church now can pretend to any such thing 3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative from the lesser to the greater particularly it will not hold in this Case That in most cases it will not hold is evident none can argue thus if a man can carry a thousand weight much more an hundred thousand If my Friend will give me a nights lodging he will much more give me his house and land or a lodging in his house as long as I live On the other side it is true in some cases it will hold But not to run into a Logical dispute The present Question is How far it is lawfull to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another Our Brethren will grant that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God Now as to this I say 1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawfull to choose the greater and yet unlawfull to choose the less as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choose Parliament men and yet not Lawfull for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace and so again to choose the less and not the greater as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choose a Constable of a Parish and yet not lawfull for them to choose a Colonel of an Army or a Justice of the Peace so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law but the Law of God must justifie the Consequence so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is 2. It is probable that the Lord who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage Our Brethren must say no more than it is probable And then we answer 1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scripture is not a certain Rule for us to walk by 2. We say it is not probable because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon than of a Pastor 2. Because this Church was more able to judge â—f both than any Church is now Our Brethren see what they are come to 1. They â—rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church to other Churches the least members of the universal Church not in the least measure so gifted from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight 2. When all is done they argue it but probable â—nd this probable hath a great improbability attending â—t too 3. From a choice limited as to the persons to be chosen Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose yet the Argument is a lamentable Non sequitur But to their Minor Are our Brethren sure that either the whole or the major part of the Church here made the choice Our Brethren have to prove it ver 2. The twelve called the multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude in the Original all the multitude