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
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
would follow in that case would be this that this place must be laid aside both by our Brethren and by us as not demonstrative to the point in hand This being premised I come to our Argument which is taken from 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. where the Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers and which is most considerable placed before the Evangelists I know our Brethren think to blow away this with a breath They say Nothing can be gathered from the order of the words seeing oft-times the worse is placed before the better as Priscilla before Aquila the woman before the man p. 93. And thus far it is true that the bare order is no sufficient argument to prove a priority in dignity and that the same things are sometimes in Scripture placed first sometimes last so that in all cases the order is not to be regarded and yet in some cases it is not to be slighted especially when it is punctually observed that wherever Prophets in concrete are mentioned they are placed next after the Apostles and that this is done so solemnly and with such emphaticall words 1 Cor. 12. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And as it may fairly be collected that the Apostles are the chief of these Officers because generally they are placed first and that the Pastors and Teachers are the lowest of them because generally they are placed last so also it is considerable and I doubt not our Brethren would make good use of it were it for their cause as much as it is against it that Prophets are generally placed in the second order For what they adde If Prophets be Officers 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. then those places must be understood of extraordinary Prophets who did foretell of future events as Acts 11. yet this hinders not but this prophesying 1 Cor. 14. may be only by gift c. Ans. 1. It was not the sole work of Office-Prophets that I may accommodate my discourse to our Brethrens conceptions to foretell future events for Iudas and Silas as Prophets did exhort Acts 15. 32. 2. To say that there should be two sorts of New-Testament-Prophets the one by Office the other by gift as it is but a begging of the question so it will by wise and indifferent Readers be lookt upon but as subterfuge and why may we not as well make two sorts of Apostles two sorts of Evangelists c. the one by Office the other by gift It had been somewhat tollerable if these in 1 Cor. 14. had been said to Prophesie but not called Prophets seeing as our Brethren say the doing of some Acts occasionally as v. g. ones teaching occasionally doth not denominate a man a teacher but seeing they are also called Prophets impartiall men will easily gather that they are the same which are known by that name in other places Thus much for the first Proposition which being dispatched I now come to the second and shall try whether that succeed better in our Brethrens hands and that is That Prophesying is an ordinary gift and still continuing in the Church This they undertake to prove as followes Arg. 1. Prophesying was in use and no Gospel Rule can be shewed for the repeal or ceasing of it p. 96. Ans. A gift may cease in the Church two waies 1. Either by a positive act of God in his Word forbidding it or 2. By a privative act of God in his Providence withdrawing it Who knows not that the gift of Tongues praediction and infallible explication of the Scripture is ceased and yet it would be a most vain Argument to dispute against the cessation of it thus because there is no Gospel-rule for the repeal of them Arg. 2. This Prophesying is ordinary Ergo still continuing Ans. The proposition is altogether needlesse for if it be ordinary that is sufficient and indeed that is the Antithesis of the assertion of the Provinciall Assemby that this Prophesying is extraordinary And therefore let us hear what they have to say or what they alledge to prove it ordinary For the self-contradiction they say God hath left us to p. 97. I shall only say this Wise men before they had made such a bold charge especially making use of the dreadfull Name of the Lord would have understood the grounds of it which indeed are none at all for the Authours of the Ius divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici were only three or four reverend City Ministers whereof one or two are since gone out of the City and not one of them was a member of the Provincial Assembly when the Ius divinum Ministerii came forth And being different persons though agreeing in the main of this controversie it is no disparagement to any of them to differ in some circumstance however all of them do agree in that which our Brethren here oppose i. e. that the gift was extraordinary Besides I suppose our Brethren would be hard put to it to prove that there is any contradiction for these two may very well consist together to say that these Prophets were extraordinary Officers in respect of their gift and yet the ordinary Pastours of Corinth in regard of their Office and relation And seeing there was a competent number of extraordinary Officers residing in that Church it was most fit they should be the ordinary Pastours of that Church quoad exercitium muneris And in this sense we may safely embrace both what the worthy Authors of that excellent piece Ius divin regim affirm and also what learned Mr Rutherford asserts i. e. that these Prophets were the ordinary Pastours of that Church and yet both grant that for their gifts they were extraordinary and that is the thing now in question So that in stead of a contradiction feigned here is a real agreement found out all of us agreeing in the two principles which our Brethren here oppose and all asserting 1. That these Prophets were Officers 2. That they were extraordinary as to their gifts To which their special relation to Corinth and residence there and doing the acts of Pastours is no more a prejudice than it was to the Apostles who though they were extraordinary Officers yet some of them at some times were as Pastours to some Churches c. which occasioned that apprehension that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem c. That this Prophesying was ordinary our Brethren offer some Arguments to prove Arg. 1. The rules to regulate the work are ordinary p. 100. Ans. I see no rule but what may very well agree to extraordinary Officers Extraordinary Officers 1. Must act orderly 2. Must speak in a known language 3. Must speak to edification 4. Must be subject to the trial of other Officers yea people also as the Provincial Assembly fully proves of which our Brethren take no notice Paul commends the Beraeans for examining his doctrine Arg. 2. The work of these Prophets is ordinary i. e. to speak to edification and exhortation and comfort Ans. 1. This
and moreover it is not unknown to many that a work of far greater concernment and paines and trouble and care did lie in my hands all along interfering with this which indeed required the whole man besides many other occasions not inconsiderable which is needlesse and impertinent for me here to speak of Onely thus much I have here mentioned by way of Apologie why this Reply comes forth no sooner and it may further Apologize for the frequent defects which may be observed in it because I was so continually incumbred with distracting cares about other affaires whereof I have many witnesses This delay therefore the Reader is intreated to pardon and to accept of the service as it is now tendred wherein though I doubt not it will be easie to the wise to observe many weaknesses yet God and my conscience are my compurgators that I have managed it with sincerity and I hope my Reader will witnesse that I have handled it with the same candor and moderation which our Brethren have shewn and which I think ought to be shewn in such differences as these For the successe of this work as I am not without hope that there will be found some ex meliore luto who laying aside partiality will own the evidence here brought and yeeld to it for I may without vanity say that there is some evidence and cogency at least in some things in difference so I must confesse when I consider how weak and injudicious most are and unable to discern between things that differ how supine and carelesse the generality even of good men are in the weighing of things of this nature and yet usually such as are least knowing are most confident and heady how apt the most are to be led by the reputation of some particular men of their party for ability and piety how deeply mens interests are concerned herein and in particular their honour in not seeming to be bafled and deserting that way they are once ingaged in I say when I consider these things I am full of fears lest what is here said and whatever is spoken hereafter will vanish into the air without any successe However this is sufficient incouragement to me that I have born witnesse to the truth of God in these declining times and hope it may be usefull if not for the reduction of such as are gone astray yet for the confirmation and settlement of others who may be wavering herein There are three sorts of Readers principally which I expect to meet with 1. Weak and well-minded soules who are in this much to be pitied that being insufficient to see by their own eyes and to look through the vail of holy pretences and pious ends are apt to be abused by others and to be carried to and fro by every wind of doctrine These I wish they had followed the Apostles direction and never given way to doubtfull disputations But having once entertained them and being overthrown by them if they do not give very diligent heed and receive not more then ordinary assistance are never like to recover themselves 2. Proud wilfull and self-conceited persons the pride of whose hearts hath led them into wayes of singularity and will oblige them to make good their ground Their Motto is Cedo nulli And because a recesse from their received perswasions would import something of weaknesse and humane frailty they being conscious to themselves of their own great worth are resolved and unmoveable from their present apprehensions 3. There are an intelligent and ingenuous sort of men who being sensible of their own weaknesse dare not suppose themselves beyond a possibility of mistake and therefore alwayes have an eye open to discern further conviction when ever it is offered and keep one ear open for the adverse party whose language is that of Jobs That which I know not teach thou me and wherein I have thought amisse I will do so no more It is for the sake of those that I have taken this trouble upon my self and I hope as to persons of this allay my labour may not be in vain in the Lord. But I shall detain thee no longer in the porch but let thee into the house desiring the God of Truth to lead us into all Truth which is the hearty prayer of Thine in the Lord Matthew Poole Touching the Relation of the MINISTRY COncerning the Epistle prefixed by our Brethren to their Book I shall say nothing because they run out into impertinent Controversies concerning the Catholick visible Church the matter of a Church Church Covenant c. And indeed it is needlesse I should say any thing about them they having been so fully ventilated by so many Learned Authours as Hudson Rutherford Wood Cawdrey and many others and Dr Collings in particular hath Answered this Epistle whither I referre the Reader and therefore I come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Answer of the Book Wherein I shall crave no more liberty then our Brethren took and I shall use their own words Pag. 1. Though I intend not to Reply to every particular yet I shall give such Animadversions upon the most considerable things as will leave it unnecessary to speak to the rest This I shall solemnly promise that I will not willingly decline any thing which is either strong or plausible or considerable but only such passages as the foundations being shaken do fall of themselves And under this promise I hope I may be excused from following our Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly occasions personal reflections and heterogeneous excursions And although it were easie to cast the work into a more convenient mold yet that the Reader may with greater ease compare their Book and the Answer I thought fit to observe their order and to distinguish it according to their Chapters CHAP. I. 1. THey Question What is meant by the Ministry And here to passe by impertinencies because a Minister is called so from ministration they infer That gifted men whose ordinary work or calling is to Preach may properly be called Ministers of the Gospel pag. 3. For my part I shall never blot paper with contending about words Our Question is not about Names but Things And if the word Minister may be applied to twenty persons we are not concerned in it for the Question is not Whether a Gifted brother whose work or calling is to preach may be called a Minister for even he who never preaches if he any other way minister to the Gospel may be called a Minister of the Gospel according to their own arguments but Whether such a Gifted brother may preach and Whether the title Minister in its special and distinct acception may be applied to him And in both these we hold the Negative 2. Their second Question is not much more important viz. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the Work of the Ministry or to the Church And here they tax the Assembly for saying that the Office of
the Ministry is better defined by relation to the Work than to a particular people Where I desire it may be observed that the Assembly did not say The Office of the Ministry is better defined by relation to the Work than to the Church in generall but than to a particular Church It was not the design of the Assembly to deny the Ministry to be a relation to the Church nor yet was it their businesse accurately to insist upon the notions of relate and correlate they never called the Work of the Ministry the correlate but only obiter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they asserted the Office of the Ministry to be better defined by relation to the Work than to a particular Church which our Brethren have not here disproved but only endeavoured to prove that the Office of the Ministry rather consisteth in relation to the Church in general than to the Work so that all their labour as to that particular might have been spared To which may be added that we must distinguish between the abstract Ministry and the concrete a Minister And although the Minister in the concrete have the Church for his Correlatum yet that the Ministry in the abstract should have relation to the Work is no more absurd then that the Office of a King should have relation to ruling which I think no sober man will deny and especially when such a thing is brought in occasionally by a person not minding nor obliged to minde the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of words it were a vanity in any man to batter down such an expression by a quaternion of Arguments which our Brethren have attempted to do To which may be added that that rule upon which their first Argument hangs viz. Relata sunt simul do mutuo se ponere tollere is true only of Predicamentall but not of Transcendentall relations such as this is whose being is not wholly respective as the Masters of the Metaphysicks inform us And the same answer also may serve for the second Argument which indeed is but the same viz. That relations must be together but the Office is a means to the Work as an end and so the Office must needs be first and therefore they are not relatives To which I answer 1. As before The rule holds not of Transcendentall relations 2. A potentiall being is sufficient in relations My knowledge of a Rose to be in the spring is related to that Rose even in winter and yet the Rose doth not actually but only potentially exist in winter The other two Arguments are trivial and therefore I shall dilate no further about them because this is a Logical and no Theological Controversie CHAP. II. III. Qu. Whether Ministers are only Ministers to their particular Flocks IN handling of this I shall 1. State the Question plainly and faithfully 2. I shall offer some Arguments for the Negative 3. I shall enquire what our Brethren have to say for the Affirmative For the state of this Question we must take notice of another Question whence it hath its rise and being to wit Whether besides particular Congregational Churches there be any other visible Political Churches mentioned in Scripture It hath till these last times been universally received in the Church of God that Besides that union and communion whereby the members of a particular Church meet together in a Congregation for the Word and Sacraments there is another union and communion whereby particular Churches do by their Delegates because in their persons they all cannot meet together combine consult and conclude in common as they judge most expedient for the good of their particular Churches This sufficiently appears from the constant practise of the Church in all ages even from the Apostles times Acts 15. and so downwards which was when ever necessity required and opportunity was offered to meet together in Synods and in common to govern all their Churches And as these meetings were greater or lesse so they received a differing denomination being called Synods Oecumenicall Provincial c. And this is at this day the judgement of all the Reformed Churches in the world some few amongst our selves being excepted and our dear Brethren in New-England both known by the name of Congregationall men so called from this their first principle That the Scripture owns no visible Church but one Congregation From hence it must needs follow according to our Brethrens mind That Ministers are Ministers only to their own Congregations As on the other side they that own another Church besides Congregational do assert that Ministers have a double relation the one to their own particular Flocks the other to the whole Church And thus much for the rise of the Question For our Brethrens mind we shall not need to go far they affirm possitively that Officers stand in relation to a particular Church onely and they deny them to be Officers to a Church universall or to any but their owne Flocks Pag. 8. But here I cannot but take notice of a weighty difference amongst our Congregational Brethren in which they should do well to be reconciled before they endeavour too eagerly to obtrude their Notions upon the world It is this Mr. Shepheard and Allen in their answer to the nine questions assert that though Ministers are Officers only to their own Flocks yet they may perform acts of their Office towards others Pag. 133. And Learned Mr. Norton 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes that a Minister preacheth to another Congregation non tantum virtute donorum charitatis sed ex vi vocationis c. i. e. not only as a gifted Brother but as an Officer And it is sufficiently known that it is the judgement of persons of greatest note in that way among us in England Now on the other side Reverend Mr. Hooker expresly affirmeth that when a minister preacheth to another Congregation he preacheth not as a Pastour but as a gifted man Survey Part 2. P. 32. And our Brethren in this Book fall in with him and will not allow Ministers either to be Officers or to act as Officers towards any except their owne Congregation For the better clearing of the present Question I shall premise two Considerations which indeed do strike at the root of all their Objections I. That there are two waies whereby a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church 1. Actu secundo actually immediatly absolutely and independently so that he may without any other warrant undertake to teach and govern the whole Church if it were possible This was peculiar to the Apostles and surely this is abundantly sufficient to distinguish them from ordinary Pastors 2. One may be an Officer to the whole Church actu primo habitually aptitudinally mediatly conditionally and dependingly so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where Go preach the Gospel to every Creature but may not exercise that jus or power every where but by the consent of the Church
Bishop that the Church or his sheep are his correlatum because his end and his work was their salvation so also must it needs be in Ministers that their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lies For the minor no man can doubt of it that hath read the Scriptures especially those fore-cited places Mat. 28. Eph. 4. If it be said Conversion indeed was the great work of the Apostles but not so of ordinary Ministers those were to build up what the Apostles brought in I answer 1. Both those places do evidently relate as well to ordinary Ministers as to the Apostles For Eph 4. they are equally named and for Mat. 28. it is clear because those Ministers who are there spoken of and set apart for that work of the conversion of Heathens they are assured by God that they shall continue to the end of the world which is not true of the Apostles in their own persons unlesse to them you adde their successors the ordinary Ministers And 1 Cor. 3. 5. Who is Paul and who is Apollo c. but Ministers by whom ye believe And that text will continue true to the end of the world Faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. of ordinary Ministers as well as the Apostles 2. If conversion be a work common and necessary in these daies as well as in the Apostles daies then Ministers are now appointed for that work as well as formerly they were For while the cause and reason remains the effect also must needs remain But conversion is a work common and necessary now as well as then For though men are not Heathens now as they were formerly yet many are but professors and titular Christians by vertue of their Church-membership and so do need a work of conversion 3. Either the ordinary Ministers of the Church were appointed for conversion or else Christ hath appointed no Officers to take care of the greatest and most principal work which is the conversion of sinners But this is highly absurd that Christ should take least care where there was most need and therefore ordinary Ministers were instituted for conversion And thus I have done with the first thing which was to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to others besides their own Congregation The second thing propounded was To Answer their Arguments and to vindicate the Arguments offered by the Provincial Assembly against that contrary opinion that Ministers are Officers only to their own Congregations And for the better methodizing of it I shall first with all brevity propound the Assemblies Arguments then our Brethrens Answers and then adde a Reply And this I chuse to do in this place although these things are discussed by them under another Head p. 227 c. because they properly concern this Question But I shall passe them over with more brevity because it is but a collateral Question and our Brethren are lesse accurate in this than in the other point 1. This opinion is unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years Provinc Ans. It sufficeth that it is heard of in the Scripture Reply But you know that is denied and for the Churches judgement as it is not to be advanced into Gods throne so it is not easily to be slighted where there is an universall consent of all Churches as there is in this case which it is hard to shew in any Errour Nemo pacificus contra Ecclesiam 2. This opinion is contrary to our Brâ—threns practise who hold the administration of the Sacrament to be a Ministeriall act and yet give it to members of other Congregations Provinc To this there is a double Answer given by our Brethren 1. The main Answer where they lay most stresse which therefore I propose first is this that In ministerial acts some things are common to men as men as the Word and Prayer some are common to them as Church members or as confederates with any particular Church not considering this or another Church as the Sacraments other things as special and proper to a particular Church c. as Excommunication Election c. So that a man may claim the Sacrament as a confederate with any Church And as a father giving instruction to his children and servants teacheth them as a Father and Master but if strangers come in and partake of the instruction he teacheth them not by vertue of any such relation so if a Pastor preach and give the Sacrament occasionally he acts not as a Pastor and Officer to them This is the strength of what our Brethren say p. 278 279 280. Reply 1. If our Brethren perceive not how they have overshot themselves I question not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it how they are fallen from their own principles Indeed the Answer were tolerable if preaching and giving the Sacrament were of the same nature and quality and did proceed pari passu but seeing it is generally granted by our Congregational Brethren That Preaching is not alwaies an act of Office and that it is an act which may be done by Gifted men and that the administration of the Sacrament is alwaies an act of Office and cannot be done but by one in Office it is most incongruously done to jumble these two together and to make them alike in this very case where they acknowledge the difference 2. To the Sacrament two things are required which are warily to be distinguished 1. A right in the Receiver to claim and that indeed we have in the supposed case according to our Brethrens principles 2. A power in the Giver to administer and this none hath but an Officer and none can do it but as an Officer and therefore no man can give it to any but to them to whom he is an Officer and acts as an Officer and therefore they cannot give it to any member of other Congregations And this acute Mr. Hooker is so sensible of that he grants it in terminis using these words Touching the partaking of the Sacrament by some of one Congregation in another it hath been a course which I have ever questioned and against it I have alledged many Arguments professing the course unwarrantable for this reason among others because the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministerial act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and what authority hath he to do it and they to receive it from him to whom he is no Pastor as he is cited by Cawdry Inconsistency of Indep Way p. 203. Nor do I see how this can be fairly avoided by any that stick to Congregational principles and I think such a strange paradox as this asserted by so considerable a person and flowing from such principles may justly render them suspected to all impartial judges And whereas our Brethren here imply the contrary and talk of a Pastors giving the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor 1. Let all men take notice that in this they have
deserted their own principles and have through incogitancy precipitated themselves into the gulf of Anabaptism which I doubt not in their next either their prudence or their ingenuity will obâ—ige them to retract 2. The Provincial Assembly were not obliged to take notice of the excentrical opinions of every particular Congregational man but of those which were owned by the generality of them and by such as seemed to be Pillars among them and sure I am such will reject this notion of a mans giving the Sacrament as a Gifted brother They know the rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali If a Pastor gives the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor or Officer but as a Gifted brother for that is the other member of the distinction then every Gifted brother may administer the Sacrament which I suppose our Brethren will tremble to grant and therefore they must call back their own words too loosely delivered 2. But however say they this is an argument against our practise not the assertion Reply Yes it may give just cause of suspicion of the truth of that assertion which inevitably draws along with it such a strange conclusion as this that no man may receive the Sacrament any where but in his own Congregation which is in a great measure to cut the sinews of Christian and Church-communion and yet for ought either I or Mr Hooker see either this conclusion must be embraced or the principle rejected I passe on to the Reasons There are say the Assembly seven ill consequences which follow this assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation I shall reduce them to two or three 1. Then a Minister at the same time preacheth to his own members as a Minister and to others as a Gifted man only 2. Then a Minister baptizeth only into his own Congregation not into the Catholick Church contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 13. and so a Minister can baptize none but those that are members of his own Congregation and so there is no way to baptize Heathens converted nor the children of such parents as cannot be members of any Congregation And here our Brethren bring in that Argument mentioned by the Provinc That a Minister Ministerially admits into and ejects out of the Church-Catholick and therefore is a Minister of the Church-Catholick and not only of his particular Congregation p. 281 c. Let us now hear what our Brethren have to Answer 1. They say We see no absurdity in saying that a Minister preacheth to some as an Officer and at the same time preacheth to others not as an Officer Reply 1. This is a conceit for which there is no shadow in the Scripture Nay it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only without but against the evidence of Scripture Ministers wherever or to whomsoever they do the work of Ambassadors whomsoever they beseech to be reconciled to them they act as Ambassadors And whose sins soever they remit Doctrinally which is an act of Office they are remitted and whose sins soever they retain in preaching they are retained whether their hearers be strangers or of their own Congregation And this they do by vertue of their Office Surely it is very harsh to say that all strangers which hear a Minister are no more bound to hear and obey him then to hear or obey any woman discoursing privately of those things and that a stranger rejâ—cting his message is no way guilty of the contempt of his Office it will be an happy thing if that will be a sufficient plea at the last day Nay by this rule the very Apostles themselves as we have more largely seen must when preaching to Heathens be canton'd into the order of Gifted men and if that be true it was no act of their Office to disciple Nations and to gather in the Saints And all those Heathens which are now converted by Ministers are not converted by vertue of the Ministers Office nor was the Office of the Ministry appointed for the gathering in of souls but only for the building up of such as are brought in contrary to Mat. 28. Eph. 4. as hath been argued 2. They argue against that position That a man is made a member of the Church by Baptism p. 284. whereas indeed it is none of our assertion and so all that labour both of theirs and Mr Hookers is lost They cannot but know that we allow Infants to be born Church-members and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism and a par a Heathen converted and professing the faiâ—h is a Church-member inchoatè before Baptism this only we say That the solemn publick and visible way of admission of members into the Church is by Baptism and this cannot be easily denied by any one that looks either to the Jewish or Christian Church For as since the New Testament began it hath alwaies been the door of admission so was it also unto Proselytes in the Old Testament who used to be admitted into the Jewish Church by Baptism as divers Learned Men have proved Or if our Brethren question that yet at least Circumcision to which our Baptism answers was the door of admission into the Jewish Church But of this more hereafter 3. They deny that a Minâ—ster ejects out of the Catholick Church Not the Minister but the person renouncing his profession ejects himself out of it He may be ejected with and not by Excommunication And how can a mans being ejected out of a particular Church make him no member of the Catholick Church if being ejected out of Office in a particular Church doth not make a man no Officer to the Catholick visible Church p. 285. Reply 1. Here two things are opposed which may be conjoyned For both the person ejects himself and the Minister ejects him He ejects himself meritoriously the Minister efficiently and juridically 2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church ejects him out of all other Churches and that cannot be but by vertue of a Catholick Church c. or he is not juridically ejected out of other Churches and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches which what horrid confusion it would introduce into the Church of God and how incongruous it is unto his wisdom in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge to appoint a remedy so short and insufficient for the disease I leave to all sober men to judge And this is not a bare suggestion for experience shews that the effect of this principle is such and persons juridically and justly ejected out of one Church have been admitted into another Church who it may be apprehend him to have been unjustly dealt with and according to this principle there is no remedy but so it must be 3. For the ejecting of Officers I say 1. That a Church in their sense i. e. the body
of the people hath no power of ejecting of Officers as our Brethren suppose 2. That when a Minister is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by deposition he ceaseth to be an Officer to the Catholick Church 4. They say according to our way also we cannot baptize Heathens for if there be a Catholick Church Ministers are only Officers in the Church and not to the Heathens converted so cannot baptize them Reply Ministers are Officers not only to those that are actually members of the Church but to all that shall be brought in as we have shewn they are Officers even to Heathens in the sense before explained as they do ex officio offer them a pardon and give it upon their repentance so they do ex officio admit them into the Church 5. They say in such a case Heathens may joyn as members to some Church and so be baptized Reply Our Brethren should not obtrude such uncouth notions upon the world without evident proof Their answer implies as if there were some other way whereby a man might be made a compleat Church-member without Baptism whereas in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission If there be let our Brethren shew it sure we are the New Testament way was by Baptism But of this more by and by And this is all of any moment which our Brethren have to say by way of Answer to the foregoing Argument 3. Another Argument used by the Provincial Assembly was this that From hence it will follow that when a Minister leaves or is put from his particular Charge he ceaseth to be a Minister and so when he taketh up a new Charge he needs a new Ordination which is absurd because every Minister is seated in the Catholick Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. And as a private Christian removing from his Church doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church for then his Baptism should cease for every baptized person is a Church-member and needs not to be baptized a new so a Minister going from a Congregation needs not to be Ordained a new To this our Brethren Answer divers things 1. They say This runs into direct Anabaptism for by this rule an Excommunicate person ceasing to be a member his Baptism ceaseth and so he needs to be re-baptized when he is re-admitted p. 292. Reply I. But this followeth not for a double reason 1. It may be said that an Excommunicate person ordinarily is a member though a diseased member 2 Thess. 3. Admonish him as a brother He towards whom I owe the duty of a fellow-member is a fellow-member But I owe the duty of a fellow-member viz. fraternal admonition to such an one Again He who is under a Church Ordinance appointed for his good is a Church-member though diseased and under cure But such an one is under an Ordinance Ergo. 2. Though his Baptism ceaseth at present actualâ—y and really as to all the actual priviledges of it and so ceaseth that while he repents not he is to be looked upon after a sort as an unbaptized person or as an Heathen yet when he doth repent and renew his Covenant and re-admit himself to the Church he needs no new Baptism for as much as God is pleased to impute to him his former Baptism and the Church accepts of it And this is the benefit of his repentance that God looks upon his sins repented of as if they had never been committed and so in that case he looks on him as if he had never fallen from his Baptism and so he needs no new one Just as it was in the case of Circumcision when any turned Heathen or Idolater and renounced his Circumcision he was to be reputed as an Heathen while such and yet whenever he repented he needed no new Circumcision but his former Circumcision was accepted by God for him II. The Argument fals upon our Brethrens principles not upon ours For to us who assert that Baptism is the door of admission into the Catholick Church it is uncontroverted that a man removing from one Church may be admitted to any other because his Baptism gave him a compleat visible and political membership not only with that Church he was admitted into but with all others And this membership and Baptism though they were lost in the sense before spoken yet upon his repentance are recovered But our Brethren who make Baptism only the door of admission into a particular Church they must own this conclusion That upon every removal there must be a new Baptism Even as it is in civil Corporations which because they are distinct from one another and there is no general Corporation of which each of these are members therefore whenever a member passeth from one to another he needs to be admitted a new by what way soever they use in the admission of members And to save them from this intollerable inconvenience they have no shelter but one which comes in the next place 2. They say Baptism doth not admit or make a man to stand in relation to any Church either general or particular but it is a solemn sign of a persons taking the Name of Christ upon him and therefore that remains wherever he removes pag. 293. Reply 1. Our Brethren granted even-now that Baptism was a sign of a mans admission to the Church 2. This may well stand with its being a sign of a persons taking the Name of Christ nay indeed it is the same thing in substance for what is a Church but a company of men professing the Name of Christ and what then is it to be a solemn sign of a mans admission into the Church but to be a solemn sign of his being a professor of the Name of Christ 3. What a monstrous paradox is this Baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church This should not have been dictated without any proof but demonstrated by clear evidences it being against the judgement of the whole Church Surely the Apostle was not of this mind when he said We are all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12. 13. By which it is most evident that Baptism gives a man relation to some Body and it is also plain that he speaks of a visible body because it is an organical body having the distinction of teachers and taught c. And this Body if it be the Church Catholick as we say and as the place proves for as much as Jews and Gentiles are all members of it then we have our desire If it be a Church particular then Baptism makes us to stand in relation to such a Church And if this were meant of the invisible body and this Baptism of internal Baptism yet it rationally follows that as the inward Baptism makes a man stand in relation to the invisible Church so doth the external Baptism make him stand in relation to the visible Church Again That which makes a man visibly stand in
relation to Christ that makes him visibly to stand in relation to the Church But Baptism makes a man visibly to stand in relation to Christ Ergo. The major is plain because the Church and the Church only and the members of it stand in visible relation to Christ The minor is evident from Rom 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Iesus Christ were baptized into his death Gal. 3. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Therefore Baptism makes a man stand in relation to the Church Again That which makes a man visibly to stand in a Covenant relation makes a man to stand in relation to a Church But Baptism makes a man visibly to stand in a Covenant relation Ergo. The major cannot be denied because of the identity of a Covenant and Church relation All and only they that are really in Covenant are really members of the invisible Church And all and only such as are visibly in Covenant are members of the visible Church The minor must needs be granted by every one that understands the nature of Baptism Baptism is the seal of the Covenant and to say the seal of the Covenant makes not a man to stand in relation to the Covenant is a contradiction Lastly That which makes a man capable of Church-priviledges makes him stand in relation to a Church But Baptism makes a man capable of Church-priviledges v. g. of the Supper c. which unbaptized persons are not capable of Ergo it makes a man stand in relation to a Church So then this paradox being disproved that I may reduce these things to my main scope and it being evident that Baptism makes a man stand in relation to some Church and that visible too which all grant it remains either that there is a Catholick visible Church to which Baptism makes a man to stand related or if the Church into which it admits a man be only a particular Church then upon every removal there must be as a new admission so a new Baptism 3. They say An Officer may be said to be set in the whole Church though his authority reacheth only to a part as it may be said There are set in the Commonwealth Iustices Constables c. and yet this proves not that besides their relation to their Precincts they have a relation to the Common-wealth and a power to act there Reply 1. That phraseology sufficiently implies that the Commonwealth wherein they are set is one Political body and so a pari that phrase God hath set in the Church whatsoever that Church is it proves it to be one Political body 2. The case wholly differs for Justices Constables c. have limited Commissions confined to their particular Precincts whereas the Commission of Ministers is large and universal as hath been proved If our Brethren would chuse a fit resemblance let them take it from that of the Empire before mentioned wherein the Princes are set in and over the whole Empire and he that shall say In the Empire are set Princes States c. shall imply that such Princes and States besides their special relation to their particular Territories have another relation to the whole Empire 3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon but the sense and the explication of the phrase given us by other Scriptures and which necessity requires in this place as plainly appears from the Apostles who were so set in the Church that they were also set over the Church so are not Justices they are in not over the Commonwealth and who besides a special relation to their particular parts which we have before discoursed of have also a relation to and over the whole Church And so have other Ministers to suo modo as hath been proved and both Apostles and Ministers are equalized in this that they are in and over the whole Church and so have a relation to it 4. They say The Church in 1 Cor. 12. may be taken for this or that Church and so the body to be edified for this or that particular body Eph. 4. Reply That cannot be for it is one Church in which all the Apostles and Ministers are set 1 Cor. 12. It is one body which all the Apostles and Pastors c. were given to edifie and perfect It is that body into which we all are baptized both Jews and Gentiles 1 Cor. 12. 13. It is that one body which is Christ i. e. mystical which is made up of all the members of Christ v. 12. It is that one body which is called the whole body Eph. 4. 16. From whom the whole body fitly joyned together c. And surely he had need have a good confidence of his abilities that will assert that all this is true of a particular Church Another Argument used by the Provincial Assembly was this That hence it follows that if a people unjustly through covetousnesse starve a Minister from them or through heresie or schism vote him down in that case it is in their power to nullifie the Office of a Minister To this our Brethren answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 1. Though the people sin yet indeed they do nullifie the Office of a Minister as if they should murther a Minister they nullifie his Office and if they may debar him from the exercise of his Office why may they not make void his Office Reply 1. Our Brethren confound two things vastly differing to wit the nullifying of the Office and the hindring of the exercise of the Office It is true the peoples opposition nay indeed one mans violence may hinder the exercise but cannot nullifie the Office 2. I demand whether this hold of the Apostles or no The Apostles were made Officers to the Church only say our Brethren and they say they were constituted Officers by the Church alledging Acts 1. although the Scripture tell us the Apostles were neither of man nor by man Well then this being premised Suppose when the Catholick Church was confined to one Congregation this Congregation had proved hereticall and voted down the Apostles I only suppose it and suppositions are allowed by all and to deny that liberty is a tergiversation Nor doth this supposition imply any contradiction to that promise that God hath made that he will preserve his Church for that might have been preserved in the Apostles alone I now Quaere Whether in this case the Apostolical Office had been null or no If they affirm it as it is a strange assertion so it is also false For 1. The Apostles were not constituted by man and therefore their Office could not be nullified by man 2. The Apostles in such a case had a power officially and authoritatively to denounce the wrath of God against them Mat. 10. 14. And whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words when ye depart shake off the dust of your feet 3. They were Apostles even to Heathens to be
because there are some other passages which seem to be argumentative though scattered elsewhere I thought fit to do them that right as to bring them in here that so the Reader might see all their strength together Their second Argument is this This makes the power of ordinary Ministers as extensive and large as that of the Apostles Ans. I Answer plainly and clearly that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation If any assert it let them prove it but in the independency superiority and singularity of jurisdiction which if it be not sufficient to distinguish between Apostles and ordinary Ministers besides their excellent and infallible gifts I dare make our Brethren Judges Their third Argument is this Ministers are only Pastours to them whom they can govern as well as teach but Ministers cannot exercise Church-Government towards Heathens for they are not their Flock and therefore in preaching to Heathens they act not as Officers but as gifted brethren p. 18. The Answer to this is not difficult If the not exercising of Government be a sufficient foundation for this assertion that a Minister preacheth not to such as a Pastour then the Apostles did not preach as Officers to Heathens for towards such they could not exercise Church-Government What have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. But the Apostles did preach as Officers to Heathens which hath been already fully proved Their fourth Argument is That this brings in Episcopacy to make one man an Officer over many Churches And this Argument I have often wondred to meet in all sorts of anti-Presbyterians Greeks and Barbarians wise and unwise learned and unlearned all agree in this charge and they prosecute it with so much confidence and eagernesse that if a man had so much charity or so little judgment as to beleeve them he would think there were no difference between Geneva and Canterbury For Answer to omit other differences which might be insisted on as 1. That the Episcopal way leaves to inferiour Ministers nothing but the Name and Title of Officers all power of jurisdiction being ingrossed into the Bishops hands whereby all other Ministers are made a strange kind of men being Officers without Office Rulers without rule c. Whereas in the Presbyterian way every particular Officer is confessedly invested with and hath liberty for the exercise of his Office and power as need requires 2. That Government by Bishops is a Government by forreigners as it were the power of Ruling being neither in the hands of the people nor of any chosen by them as it is in the Presbyterian way but in the hands of persons wholly extraneous to most of the Churches they rule and generally neither knowing of nor known to those whom they undertake to govern But I wave these things and many other as being extravagant in this place This only I observe for the present purpose The formality of Episcopacy lies in this in the superiority of one Pastour to another and to many other and of one Church to all the rest in a Diocesse not in the superiority of a Colledge of Pastors or convention of Churches over one Pastour or Church Will any indite the Apostles for introducing Episcopacy because all the Apostles met together Acts 15. did assume a superiority over Paul who was there met as the rest in the capacity of an Elder and examine and judge of his Doctrine Shall any man say the united Provinces in the low-Countries are under a Monarchy because every particular Governour c. is subject and accountable to the rest of the Governours the States Generall this no man will say but he that understands not the difference between Government by one and by many And therefore it is equally absurd to charge us with Episcopacy because we would have every particular Officer and Church subject not to any one man that and that alone is Episcopacy but to a convetion of Officers c. And therefore for the future I shall desire our Brethren to forbear such frivolous and intemperate accusations And this is all that I shall say to this present Question closing only with this intimation that I principally recommend the serious and impartial consideration of what is here said unto such who though they professe they will be ordained and we are obliged to believe their professions yet for the present refuse it because they are not called to any particular charge I hope what hath been said will satisfie some at least that although it is convenient that every Minister should have relation to some one Church yet he hath also a relation to the whole and his relation to a particular Church as a Lecturer is foundation fully sufficient for his Ordination CHAP. IV. THe principall Question is this Whether Gifted persons may preach ordinarily without Ordination State of the Question I shall not need to take much pains about the stating of the Question that being fully done in the Assemblies Book These things only I shall say 1. We speak of persons truly gifted not every one that conceits himself to be gifted not of them who however in their own conceits they are gifted yet indeed have need to be instructed in the Principles of Religion And that is the true case of many of our gifted preachers in England For such our Brethren say they do not plead and yet I cannot tell what to make of this if it look not that way when they say Though one that is really gifted for ought we know may lawfully preach without approbation from the Church or others yet it may be inexpedient so that hereby it is left to every man as to the lawfulnesse of it to judge of his gifts and to preach if he think himself fit This also must be said that the assertion of this Doctrine was that which opened the gap unto all that crew and which hath been the unhappy occasion of involving this poor Church and Nation in those crouds of errors and confusion which are now too rise amongst us 2. We dispute not what may be done in cases of necessity either in preaching to Heathens c. or in preaching in order to trial which is necessary to take an account of a mans sufficiency for the Work 3. We do not in this place restrain Ordination to our way of Ordination Whether it belongs to the Presbytery or to the people to ordain we are not concerned in this Question which is barely this Whether a solemn mission or setting apart be necessary for a mans ordinary preaching Our Brethren deny We affirm But for the full understanding of the Question I refer the Reader to our Ius Divinum wherein because out Brethren acquarrell some things I shall take notice of what deserves Animadversion The main thing is this They find fault with the definition given of Preaching and they say Any publishing opening or applying Gospel-truths to any persons for the
one may preach seldomer or oftner as they please and as the Church desires and the other must preach frequently constantly and even those upon whom the lest obligation lies in our Brethrens opinion are commanded It is true no preachers are in Scripture obliged to preach in such or such a place nor to preach so often the determination of these and other like circumstances is left to the rules of prudence and general direction of the word yet all are obliged to be instant and diligent in the work And as the service of the Church is unspeakably to be preferred before the best merchandize and Gods glory before their own wordly interest so when a man hath received gifts for the service of preaching if these commands oblige him to preach they oblige him to throw off all the impediments of that noble work and to give himself wholly to these things And the rather because of our Brethrens own Argument A man must exercise his gift as he hath received it Now if a man have ability to preach ordinarily and constantly every Lords day if he would use sufficient diligence such a man dischargeth not his trust in preaching sparingly and occasionally only Obj. But they say that the case of a Minister and a gifted brother are alike in this A Minister sins not if he be put out of employment and cast into a place where his gifts are not desired c. And so it is with gifted men c. Ans. Will our Brethren then say that others not desiring a man to exercise his gifts will justifie him in the not exercising of it Can any man dispence with anothers wrapping his Talent in a napkin What if Paul had come to a place where he was not desired to preach which often was his case was he then free from his necessity of preching Or what if a Church grow weary of hearing and preaching so that they desire not their Pastour to preach among them Will this excuse him if he throw off preaching For my part I must professe were I in that case though I might think it more advantageous to the Church to dispose of my self in some other place yet should I by no means look at it as a dispensation from the work of preaching though no man should desire me were there but any that would hear me Nay more where the Apostles were not only not desired but forbidden to preach yet they accounted it their duty to continue in that work Whether that hold in ordinary Ministers I shall not now dispute this only I shall say and that is fully sufficient for our purpose that if a Minister be put out of employment or be in a place where he is not desired to preach yet if he may be permitted to preach and the affairs of the Church require it he ought to do it or to employ himself in some other way which may be equivalent for the Churches service I shall adde but one Argument to our Brethren taken from their own words Whatsoever duty a man may lawfully do that he is bound to do But one that is really gifted for preaching for ought we know may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or from others say they Therefore one that is really gifted is bound to preach although neither the Church nor others do approve it much lesse desire it The major is most clear and it were a contradiction to say that such a thing is a duty which may in such a case be lawfully done and yet that it is not his duty or that he is not bound to it The minor is their own words And this is the first inconvenience their sense of this place runs upon A second is this That hereby it will follow that women may nay must preach A third is That by the same rule every one who hath a gift to be a General Magistrate c. may undertake those places To these our Brethren say something by way of Answer but the Reply I must leave to him who is more concerned in them they are so fully and largely discussed by divers already that it is needlesse to say any thing more of them and we may have occasion to speak of them hereafter But the fourth and principall thing is this It is true every one is to exercise his gift but in his own sphear publick persons publickly private persons privately and so did Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. and those women Phil. 4. 3. And because here the shoe pincheth our Brethren make a strong attempt against this assertion and endeavour to batter it down by divers Considerations For the examples of Aquila and Priscilla they say 1. It appears not whether they were apt to preach publickly or no. p. 42. Ans. 1. It appears that they were excellently gifted in such a measure that Paul cals them his co-workers or fellow labourers for so much the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports in the work of the Gospel Rom. 16. 3. Nor is it in the least intimated that they were not gifted to speak in publick and therefore seeing the excellency of their gifts is mentioned without any note of restraint or diminution it is most ingenuous and reasonable to conclude they were apt to speak publickly 2. They instructed Apollo privately for that was most expedient p. 42. Ans. It is true it was most fit to do it privately yet not so as that it was inconvenient to advise Apollo to be a diligent hearer publickly They might have taught Apollo with others publickly without any reflection upon him Seeing therefore we reade of their doing it privately not a word of their doing it publickly it is a certain truth which we assert that they instructed privately and but a meer supposition that they did or might do it publickly 2. As to the main Objection they say many things To take notice of all they say will be needlesse The strength of what they have lies in these things 1. Private men may do the same work with preaching i. e. they may open and apply Scriptures exhort rebuke c. p. 44. And because they know we grant this and say they may do the same work but not in the same manner not publickly they adde 2. That every Church-member is obliged to teach and admonish every fellow member as occasion requires p 46. Ans. If they mean that every member is bound to do this publickly else it is nothing to the purpose for to do it privately we allow then not only gifted brethren but all the brethren yea and sisters to not only may but must turn publick preachers 3. A publick gift cannot be fully improved if it be not used publickly but privately only p. 47. Ans. 1. If therefore any really have publick gifts and desire to use them publickly let them with the houshold of Stephanas addict themselves wholly to the work of the Ministry and not interlope betwixt two Callings 2. I would know of our Brethren whether this
that he is converted nay possibly he may not clearly understand what the work of conversion is 2. Whereas it is further said that Apollo's might have a Commission from John to preach They say Let them prove it that can the Gospel is silent as to that p. 71. Reply 1. Our Brethren must remember the proof lies upon them to make good that he was not ordained not upon us to prove that he was ordained For if we lay down this position That meerly gifted men ought not to preach c. if they offer any instances to the contrary they must make this good that such were only gifted men and not ordained They are not so unacquainted with the laws of disputation as not to know that the proof lies on the opponents part which they manage in this place 2. The Gospel is silent as to the Mission and Ordination of divers others We reade nothing of the Ordination of Titus of Epaphroditus of the Pastors of the seven Asian Churches Rev. 2 3. Shall we therefore conclude they were not ordained 3. Whereas it is said he preached only where there was no Church They say Let them prove that it is more unwarrantable to preach where a Church is than where no Church is Reply This will easily be proved by that ingens telum necessitas I hope there is a far greater necessity of gifted mens preaching where Ministers are not than in a Church where they are 4. To these I may adde that we do not find Apollo's preaching in a Christian Church but disputing in a Jewish Assembly a liberty which we as readily allow to gifted men as to write in defence of the truth 5. Say that Apollo's were not ordained which is all our Brethren can extort or desire yet this gives them no help at all for the extraordinarinesse of his gifts might well supply the defect of an Ordination and that is no president for such whose gifts are but ordinary And thus much for their first example The second is that locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that famous instance of the scattered Saints Acts 8. about which I shall not ingage my self nor detain the Reader with repeating those various Answers that are given to it by the Provincial Assembly which might easily be vindicated from their exceptions I shall not stand upon this That the persons scattered were if not solely yet mainly the Officers of the Church who might therefore preach c. But that which wholly invalidates this place as to their purpose is that which is commonly said that this was an extraordinary case a case of necessity And mark the weight of our Brethrens deduction from this place Because the scattered Disciples in a persecuted state of the Church in a time when all Church-order was broke preached and taught Jesus Christ to Heathens and unbelieving Jews occasionally it may be in private or with Paul in the market places c. or in their Synagogues disputing with them therefore now unordained persons may preach publickly and solemnly to a Christian Church settled and constituted wherein are plenty of able and godly Pastors and where as their preaching is not necessary so to many fearing God it is highly scandalous This is the true state of the Argument and if our Brethren be not sick of this consequence I shall say they have good stomacks But this must not passe so and therefore they make an assault upon it and there are three or four things which they say lest they should say nothing which stand in the room of Answers with which I must professe I wonder how sober ingenious and conscientious men such as I hope our Brethren are can satisfie themselves But such as they are we shall give them a fair hearing 1. They say Persecution laid no necessity upon them to preach p. 85. Ans. Yes it laid a necessity upon them i. e. in order to Gods glory and the salvation of souls which could not be had without preaching Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way upon this supposition that in those times God would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth it was necessary that they should preach for as much as there can be no salvation without preaching Rom. 10. 2. They say It is questionable whether necessity can make that lawfull which is in it self unlawfull as to forswear a mans self p. 86. Ans. There are two kinds of evil and unlawfulnesses Some things are simply and absolutely evil and prohibita quia mala forbidden because they are intrinsecally evil as to forswear to blaspheam God c. and these no necessity can excuse But there are other things which are in themselves indifferent and only mala quia prohibita are therefore only evil because they are prohibited and because they are against positive precepts Now those things which are only evil this latter way and such is preaching without Ordination they may though not ordinarily yet in cases of necessity do Thus in a case of necessity David might eat the Shew-bread the rest of the Sabbath might be violated Periculum mortis pellit Sabbathum And of this kind is order in a State or Church which is a duty to be observed ordinarily and yet in case of evident necessity may be violated And as in a State in such a case every man is a Constable so in the Church in such a case every man may be a Preacher 3. They say It is an extraordinary case when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way i. e. when Election doth not go before it p. 86. Ans. 1. That Election must necessarily and continually go before Ordination is but one of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and suppositions to be confuted hereafter 2. And if ordinarily Election must go before Ordination yet as we say of preaching when Ordination cannot be had it may be done without it so it is true of Election when it cannot be had Ordination must be taken without it and when Ordination cannot be had exactly in Gods way as to all the particulars it must be had as it may The Shew-bread was ordinarily according to Gods way to be eaten by the Priests alone but in cases of necessity it might be eaten out of Gods way it might be eaten by others 3. It is not every extraordinary case that carries it it must be a case of necessity such as this is not for what if neither Election nor Ordination can be had by them in Gods way There is no necessity of their preaching in a Church which is constituted And thus we see how firmly this Answer stands against all their exceptions and that all their assaults are but like the beating of a storm against the wall So that there is one flaw in their Argument which will for ever condemn it of insufficiency But that is not all Mark how the Argument is laid by our Brethren Those who were scattered abroad they preached
Evangelists for ought we read to be immediatly and infallibly indued c. then what wonder if in this they partake with the Apostles who as they were not of men so neither by men and needed no Ordination nor had it unless in relation to some special work as Acts 13. 1. 2. Say they They must be discerned to have the gift before they be ordained and therefore some not ordained may have the gift of prophesie Ans. This Argument is built upon the former mistake as if there were a necessity of such a Prophets Ordination whereas I say Gods indowment of him with extraordinary gifts is a kind of Ordination and supplies the defect of an Ordination by men But complying thus far with our Brethren to own these Prophets to be unordained persons and their gifts but ordinary I further Answer that this is wholly impertinent as was intimated before for in the case of a Pastor the question is not Whether one not ordained may have Pastoral gifts which we assert he may have nay he must have and must be known to have them before he be ordained but the question is Whether a man not ordained may commonly and ordinarily exercise those Pastoral gifts which is quite another thing It is one thing to have gifts another thing to exercise gifts A man may lawfully have divers gifts v. g. of ruling an Army or a State c. which yet he may not lawfully exercise But let us now come to their next Proposition which is more to the purpose viz. That this prophecying is not an Office but a gift If this be proved it amounts to something but I doubt the premises will fall a mile short of the conclusion I passe by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they run into which Dr. Collins takes notice of and shall rather consider how they attempt to prove it which they do by two Arguments 1. All who have the gift of prophesie are Prophets But all that have the gift are not Officers Ans. If these Prophets were ordinary persons I deny the major for then besides the gift they must be ordained as in other ordinary cases But if these Prophets were extraordinary persons I deny the minor for the very having of such a gift extraordinarily inspired is an immediate call and makes them extraordinary Officers as it was in the Prophets of the old Testament Arg. 2. That which ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth was not an Office but a gift For 1. God no where promised to make every one an Officer there 2. This was impossible for then all the body had been the eye and if these were extraordinary Officers much lesse might they covet to be such But now this prophesying they ought and might covet in faith v. 1. 39. Ans. 1. The major is denied 1. An Office might be coveted as well as a gift 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any man desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth a good work Yea an extraordinary Office might be coveted as is evident from the desires and endeavours of the sons of the Prophets in the old Testament 2. Let our Brethren shew where God promised to every member of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts and I will shew them where God promised to every one of them to be Officers 3. If extraordinary gifts might be desired as our Brethren say why not an extraordinary Office If an extraordinary Office might not be desired this is either because this is an Office or because it is extraordinary not because it is an Office that hinders not but it may be coveted as we have shewn nor because it is extraordinary for then extraordinary gifts might not be desired That extraordinary gifts might be desired appears from the very words cited by our Brethren 1 Cor. 14. 1. Desire spiritual gifts but rather that ye may prophesie whence it is most evident that not only prophesying but the other gifts mentioned there i. e. of tongues interpretation c. were to be desired So that our Brethrens Argument is feeble to prove this to be an ordinary gift because it was to be desired 4 For every member in the Church of Corinth to be an Officer was not impossible True it was impossible for all to be Officers there in that Church but not to be Officers in other places And this I would desire our Brethren to ruminate upon whether supposing that all the members of the Church of Corinth might in faith desire and so obtain gifts fitting them for Office which our Brethren grant supposing that the exigencies of the Church required their Office-relation which might well have been in those times and that their being in other callings ought not to hinder it as our Brethren sufficiently intimate pag. 53. I say whether supposing these things it were either impossible or unlawfull for every member of the Church of Corinth to desire to be an Officer where he might be serviceable to the Church That in this case it is unlawfull or impossible I suppose our Brethren will not readily say and if they say it nothing more easie then to disprove it And if they grant it to be possible and lawfull then all their Argument fals to the ground then every member ought in duty and might in faith covet as to have gifts necessary for an Office so in due order and fit time to be Officers though not in that Church yet in some Church which is enough to our purpose Adde to this that if this prophesie be an Office this is no more then that wish of Moses so much insisted upon at least according to their sense of it I would that all the Lords people were Prophets And thus I have shewn the insufficiency of their proofs alleadged for the defence of their first and most considerable Position That the prophesying here spoken of is a gift not an Office This Position they uphold only by two Arguments which I hope any ingenuous Reader will discern to be so farre answered that they have no great reason to be confident upon these grounds And yet I must intreat the Reader to consider that here lies the great stresse of the cause for if it be not a bare gift which you have seen our Brethren cannot prove but an Office then the preaching of these Prophets is no warrant nor example for the preaching of any that are not Officers Now although I might acquiesce here for as much as if any assert that these were barely gifted men it lies upon them to prove it yet ex abundanti there is a reason given whereby it doth more then probably appear that these Prophets were Officers In the mean time let this be remembred that if we could not prove that these preachers 1 Cor. 14. were Officers no more then they can prove that they were only gifted persons yet our cause stands unshaken and all that
the work or the giving of them commission to preach Now there are but two Scripture waies of giving men commission to preach that we know of the one extraordinary from God immediatly which our Brethren have too much modesty to pretend the other ordinary by men setting them apart to that work whether the Officers set them apart in the Name of Christ or in the Name of the Church all is one as to this question it sufficeth us that some solemn designation or setting apart is necessary and that gifted men may not preach meerly because they are gifted unlesse they have some further call or mission which although our Brethren here seem to grant in saying that the bare gifting of men is not the sending of them yet indeed they are obliged to deny by vertue of their interpretation of that Text 1 Pet. 4. 11. where the meer having of that gift is propounded as a sufficient ground to put a man upon the use of it But however let us hear what they have to prove that this mission is not Ordination 1. They say We cannot find it Ans. If you cannot finde it in expresse terms yet others have found it in clear consequences 2. Then Deacons are sent for they were ordained Acts 6. 6. Ans. Very true Deacons were sent and had mission What advantage can our Brethren pick out thence 3. Mission may be repeated Ans. That was answered before 4. A Parochial Presbytery if sufficient c. may ordain one for that Church but they cannot send one to themselves Ans. 1. That Presbytery doth not send an Officer in such a case to themselves but to the Church and so there is a sufficient distinction between the person sending and the person sent 2. A locall distinction is not necessary between the person sent and the persons to whom a man is sent Isaiah was sent to the whole house of Israel now put case Isaiah be in the Temple when he is sent and with him divers Jews I say he is in Scripture phrase sent as well to those that are locally present as to those that were absent 5. They adde That mission is propounded at the end of Ordination Mark 3. 14. And he ordained twelve that he might send them forth to preach Ans. 1. The strength of this Argument lies in the ambiguity of the word Sent which as we readily grant sometimes it signifies a locall mission to a place so again at other times it signifies a constitutive mission to an Office 2. Though the words in the English make some shew for them yet indeed if one look into the Greek it is but a meer shew for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquisivit comparavit he got procured took twelve into his family bred them up under his roof that he might fit them for and so send them into the work of the Ministry so that indeed the word whereby their Ordination is signified is plainly that of sending and the other however it came to be rendred by our Translators he ordained who neither meant it in such a sense as our Brethren do nor ever dreamed that it would be so made use of yet indeed signifies nothing but barely the taking of them into his family his constituting of them members of his family and not his ordaining of them to be Officers in his Church And thus I have dispatched all that hath any moment which is alleadged by our Brethren as to this place There are divers other things they adde which being lesse material I may trust the judgement of any common Reader with them as when they say It is not a Church nor a Presbytery but Christ who sends Ministers Which if they understand thus that Christ only doth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soveraignly authoritatively they have not us for their adversaries but if they so mean it as they must or else it is nothing to the purpose that men cannot send 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministerially it is too gross to be beleeved by any man that reads the New Testament and therein finds so many rules and examples of Gods sending by the Ministry of men as Acts 6. Acts 13 c. So when they say That the mission of Ministers is not by a Presbytery but by the Word and that Christs command to go and preach is a mediate calling to all lawfull preachers though no Presbyters should urge it upon them and that a Presbytery only sends in a Doctrinal way as a private Christian also may do by saying Go and Teach Where we have almost as many absurdities as words 1. Two things are opposed that ought to be conjoyned to wit the Agent and the Rule the Presbytery sends but this they must do according to the Word 2. All manner of calling either by a Presbytery or by a Church is made wholly superfluous For they here plainly assert that Christ's saying Go preach is a calling and a mediate calling to all lawfull Preachers and that gifted men are lawfull Preachers is their great businesse to prove and if they say a call is further necessary here is a call reaching to all gifted men I am much mistaken if many of their own Brethren of the Congregational way will not reject and abhor such loose assertions as these 3. They allow as much to a private Christian as to a Presbytery both of them send in a doctrinal way But the very mention of these Paradoxes is an ample Confutation And thus much for the first Argument CHAP. VIII THe second is taken from Heb. 5 4 5. No man taketh this honour c. but he that is called of God To this they Answer two things 1. If this prove a call yet it proves not a call by imposition of hands which is that they contend for Ans. We are not now medling with that particular kind of call nor is this place alledged to prove it but only to prove this in the general that notwithstanding the highest gifts and qualifications fitting them for any Office they must also have a call and designation to that Office and that remains unshaken by all that they have said 2. They say he speaks not of Gospel Ministers but of Priests and of the high Priests only which are an higher order than Ministers and prefigured Christ and it follows not because a call was necessary to the highest order of Officers therefore it must be necessary to an inferiour order Reply 1. Let me take the boldnesse to question whether the Gospel Ministers are an inferiour order to the high Priest or no If it be affirmed upon this ground because they are types of Christ then upon that account the inferiour Priests were of an higher order That I say not the goats and sheep and buls c. which also were types of Christ. If this be the reason because they expiated sin they did it only Ministerially and Declaratively and by typifying and applying the true expiatory sacrifice and
that also is the Office of a Gospel-Minister Ioh. 20. 23. Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted However it is sure I am the Lord Jesus doubts not to preferre Iohn the Baptist before all the old Testament Officers and that in regard of his work and to preferre the meanest New Testament Minister before him 2. If the work of the high Priest was higher and that must be weighed on the one hand then let it be weighed on the other hand that the gifts of Christ were more glorious And this assertion I may venture to lay down that Jesus Christ had more warrant to undertake the highest Office in the Church without a call than one who is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man hath to take the meanest Office without a call The third and fourth Arguments I shall omit because there is nothing that I find in our Brethrens Answer which will need a Reply The fifth Argument is taken from those rules laid down about the calling of men into the Ministry and about the tryall of their qualifications and one main reason of it was this that false Doctrine might be prevented 1 Tim. 1. 3 4. T it 1. 5 9 10. To this they Answer 1. This concludes for the ordaining of Officers only not against the preaching of gifted brethren who lay no claim to the Office Reply The best clew for the guiding of us in the interpretation of every Law is the reason of the Law Now if one great reason why the Apostle was so carefull to try and approve of Officers c. was this to prevent false Doctrine then upon the same account he was obliged to be as careful to try all Preachers for else he had made a hedge about the sheep and yet left one gap open which indeed was enough to frustrate the design of the hedge What if none be allowed to be shepheards by Office but such as are called will it not be of as bad consequence if the wolves be allowed to take upon them the exercise of the shepheards work We see by experience some gifted men preaching occasionally and disseminating their pernicious opinions have done more to poison the people than an able Minister by his instant and diligent labours could do to preserve and nourish them What is the ground of the Apostles strictnesse in admitting men into the Ministry Lay hands suddenly on no man but this the difficulty and importance of the work And what work is more difficult and important than that of preaching to do it as becomes the Gospel Paul prefers it before the rest 1 Cor. 1. And in regard of this work it is that he cries out Who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2. 16. So that it were a strange incongruity and self-contradiction for the Apostle to use so much care in the constitution of Office-Preachers and yet to be wholly carelesse as to another sort of Preachers who may preach frequently yea as often as the other according to our Brethrens Principles without coming under such a harsh and ungratefull examination and ordination 2. They say There ought to be care to chuse Officers that are sound in the Faith but this the people must look to in election Ans. But this relieves them not for what care shall be taken as to their gift-Preachers who may preach without the Churches election nay are under a command to preach as they are pleased to expound 1 Pet. 4. a command of God I say which no man can dispense with I know our Brethren say that to a mans exercise of his gifts in this or that place there is required a call from the people or the Magistrate p. 149. But this will not help them for I demand whether in case the Apostles had neither been called by people nor Magistrate Whether that had been a sufficient discharge to them from the execution of their Office I trow not Nay they preached when they were forbidden and why but for the reason now mentioned to wit that they were under a command of God which no mortal man could dispense with And therefore if gifted men are under a like command pressed with the highest penalties to preach as our Brethren say they may and must preach though they have no call neither from people nor Magistrate The sixth Argument I am sure will stand upon its own legs taken from that confusion which will necessarily come into the Church by this means which indeed the sad experience of our Church in these daies doth so unquestionably demonstrate that I shall need to confute him that denies it only as the Philosopher did confute him that said there was no motion by walking before him so I shall only point him unto reall Arguments and desire him to make use of his own eyes reason and observation and he will quickly be of the same opinion But these Arguments were not directly levied against our Brethren whom we acknowledge to be more sober but against such as pleaded for a promiscuous assumption of the Office The next Position laid down by the Provincial Assembly indeed doth more nearly concern them which is this That none may do the work of the Ministry without Ordination CHAP. IX ANd to this purpose they urge eight Arguments which to me still seem very considerable and my perswasion is that if any judicious man of another minde could but redeem himself from the prevailing power of prejudice and duly ponder our Arguments and their Answers he will find that all the assaults they make against them are vain and ineffectual But it shall not be taken upon my word I will 1. propound our Arguments 2. Take notice of their Answers wherein I promise them not disingenuosly to conceal or neglect any thing wherein their strength lies 3. I shall adde something where it is needfull for the vindication of those Arguments Arg. 1. That work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his own neither ought nor may be done by any others But God hath designed special Officers for this work of preaching The minor is granted but all the doubt lies about the major and that is the Proposition which our Brethren deny and they give three instances to the contrary Prayer is the special work of Ministers Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves to prayer And so is exhorting and reproving c. T it 1. 5 c. Distribution of worldly goods is the Deacons work and yet others may Pray Exhort and Rebuke give Almes c. Reply 1. For Prayer it is true it is the duty of all men and of Ministers more than others but that it was a work for which the Office of the Ministry was appointed neither doth this text assert nor did ever any man dream and so that is wholly impertinent to the case in hand One may as well say that the Office of the Ministry was designed for the work of hospitality because they especially must be given to hospitality 1
Tim. 3. 2. as to say that it was designed for the work of prayer because they especially must give themselves to prayer 2. For the Deacons work that is not barely the distribution of worldly goods but the distribution of the Churches goods which our Brethren here do either subtilly or unwarily which I rather think confound and this latter none but the Deacon may do so that this may be retorted upon them that as the appointment of the Deacon for that work of distributing the Churches almes is a sufficient reason to prove that no private man ought to do it so also is the appointment of a Minister for the work of preaching a sufficient intimation that other persons may not undertake that work 3. For that work of reproving and exhorting they may do it but privatly not publickly Against this our Brethren object two things 1. If an Officer rebuketh a member in private this he doth as an Officer so that the publicknesse of an act is not necessary to make it an act of Office Reply This depends upon a meer mistake It is one thing to say the publicknesse of the act of exhorting c. makes it an act of Office or that a publick act is an act of Office that we affirm It is another thing to say that no act but a publick act is an act of Office as our Brethren mistake it this we affirm not nor is it for our purpose to assert it nay we assert that an Officers private rebuke is an act of Office 2. They say If it be the different way and manner of acting that maketh an act to be an act of Office then their Argument concerns not the work it self but the manner of working and so all which it proves is this that none ought to do the Officers work in the same manner as he doth it i. e. not officially and this we readily grant Reply Our Argument concerns the work but then it must be the work in question and that our Brethren well know was not exhorting in general but publick exhorting But of this more hereafter It must now be remembred that the Provincial Assembly confirmed the major by three Arguments The first was this Because God hath severely punished such as have done those works for which he hath appointed special Officers as Saul Uzzah To this our Brethren Answer two things 1. That these were cases of necessity and so if they prove any thing they prove that gifted men may not preach no not in a case of necessity which is allowed by your selves Reply The case is not parallel nor is the necessity alike of Preaching and Sacrificing Preaching as our Brethren will grant is absolutely necessary to salvation so is not Sacrificing nor was Sacrificing necessary in that case for Israels deliverance if God had denied an opportunity of sacrificing I conceive the paralell will lie right between their sacrifices and our Sacraments neither of which are necessary to salvation necessitate medii And hereby the Argument will receive further light and strength i. e. Because God hath appointed peculiar Officers for the administration of our Sacraments as well as their Sacrifices therefore they ought not to be administred by persons out of Office no not in any case of a pretended necessity forasmuch as there is no absolute and real necessity of either Sacrifices or Sacraments to salvation And thus far our Brethren must consent with us unlesse they will turn grosse separatists and allow a liberty also for gifted men to administer the Sacraments which I am confident they will not 2. They say the case is not alike for there was an express prohibition of these acts to any except Officers Num. 4. 15. 16. 40. Numb 1. 5. Numb 18. 22 23. The preaching of gifted men is not thus forbidden And besides not only the manner but the matter of these workes were forbidden to others Reply A thing may be prohibited two waies either in expresse terms or by solid consequence I suppose our Brethren are far from that dotage which divers Anabaptists and Socinians run into that we are not to be satisfied with Scripture consequences but to look for express Scripture as if men must not beleeve what God saith unlesse he speak it in their way There are many things confessedly unlawful which are not prohibited in express terms but only by some general rules and Scripture consequences What if I should keep to the instance of Uzzah who was punished not principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his hands but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders which the Levites were to do Now I say as in this case Gods command that the Ark should be carried upon the Levites shoulders was a command that it should be carried so only and it was a prohibition to the Levites or any other to carry it any other way so in our case Gods appointment of Officers to preach is a prohibition to others to invade that work Again let me make this supposition which no ingenuous man can disallow of Suppose that Paul had not expresly prohibited women to preach I desire our Brethren to answer me whether in that case it had been lawfull for gifted women to preach publickly or no If they say yea then I argue thus against them that Paul doth not establish a new Law but revives and interprets an old Law 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as saith the Law So that it was forbidden by the Law before that time and had been unlawful though Paul had never prohibited it If they say no then I argue thus that an expresse prohibition is not necessary for such there had not been in the case supposed nor had women been prohibited any other way but thus Preaching was committed unto certain men in authority commissionated for that work Ergo it was prohibited to persons under authority and because all women are under authority therefore are they universally excluded from this work I add further that it is a granted case in the businesse of the Sacraments the administration whereof is prohibited to all un-officed persons our brethren themselves being Judges and how prohibited There is no more an expresse prohibition to restrain men from administring the Sacraments then from preaching but only it is therefore judged prohibited because God had appointed Officers for the doing of that work and therefore implicitly prohibited the doing of it by others and surely the prohibition doth equally concern both preaching and administring the Sacraments by others forasmuch as both the manner of prohibition is the same in both and the reason of the prohibition to wit because Officers were appointed by God for those works And thus I have vindicated the first proof of the major wherein I have been the larger because it is a principal point and because what our Brethren
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
all Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance or onely such Preachers as are in office-relation to those to whom they preach and of whom they challenge maintenance But not onely such Preachers may challenge maintenance as are in office-relation to them Therefore all Scripture-Preachers may challenge this maintenance The Minor for that onely is liable to exception I prove thus The Apostles say our Brethren were onely in office-relation to the Church and other Teachers are onely in office-relation to their particular Churches as they assert But these might challenge maintenance from others The disciples Luke 10. had no office-relation to them to whom they preached they were no officers in the Jewish Church and the Christian Church was not then erected and yet for their very work they may require maintenance v. 7. And in the same house remaine eating and drinking such things as they give for the labourer is worthy of his hire And Paul where ever he sowes spirituals though it be among heathens he may require carnals 1 Cor. 9. And generally in Scripture the maintenance is rather thrown upon the work then upon the office The double honour 1 Tim. 5. 17. and the high estimation 1 Thes. 5. 13. is for their works sake And the oxe that treadeth out the corn though it may be he treadeth not out his own Masters but another mans corn ought not to be muzled I would desire our brethren to answer me this question Suppose a man will go into Wales to preach the Gospel Whether in that case they do not believe the people are obliged to give him carnalls for his spiritualls If they affirme it as I believe they have too much ingenuity to deny it and the foregoing places fully evince it then we have gained thus much that the maintenance is not due onely to such as are office-wise related to those to whom they preach but to all Scripture-Preachers which was the thing to be proved and so we have secured the Major For the Minor it is needless to spend time about it for our brethren grant it and besides it speakes for it self For if all gifted men be bound to preach as our brethren assert and if in Churches many men are and all ought to covet to be so gifted which also they assert then the maintenance of such would be both absurd and impossible And thus much shal suffice for the vindication of the Provinciall Assemblies Arguments to prove that none ought to Preach without Ordination And so I have done with the principall Question Onely that the Reader may be able more judiciously to compare things together I shall present him with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or enumeration of the Arguments on both sides The Arguments alledged by them to prove that unordained men may preach I am the more willing to propound all their Arguments together because I would not take them at advantage but set the best glosse upon their cause for it oft times falls out that quae non prosunt singula juncta juvant those Arguments which when they are pull'd asunder have but little strength in them being united together seem considerable so that if their cause have any reall strength in it we shall see it here when the arrowes are all put together in one bundle or else we may conclude that there is neither strength nor truth in it Their first Argument is this Election must go before Ordination which they take for granted though it never was proved But a person must Preach before Election and therefore before Ordination and so one not yet Ordained may Preach So that their Argument is this Because a man unordained may Preach in a case of necessity i. e. when he is to be tried for Election or Ordination therefore he may Preach where there is no necessity Arg. 2. Gifted men unordained are commanded to Preach And here because Peter 1 Pet. 4. 9 10 11. commands every man to exercise his gift they inferre from thence that this gift must needs include preaching though it may as well relate to hospitality and that this gift must needs be exercised in a publick way by such as have no further call thereunto Arg. 3. They argue from examples Because Apollos who was a man extraordinarily indowed and an Officer 1 Cor. 1. 12. spake publickly to divers Iews though not gathered together in a Church assembly and because the scattered Saints who it is doubtful whether they were officers or no in a case of persecution and necessity spake occasionally of the things of God to persons they met with therefore any gifted men may ordinarily and without a case of necessity preach publickly in a Church Assembly Arg. 4. Because some persons who are called by the name of Officers Prophets and therefore may well be concluded to be in Office because such being inriched with extraordinary gifts did Prophesie therefore persons who are unquestionably no Officers and whose gifts are but ordinary may preach And this is bonâ fide the whole strength of their opinion which whether it be of sufficient force to transport a man beyond the sentiment or judgement of the Church in all ages of the generality of the reformed Churches of the present ages of the far greater part of learned and godly divines among us I desire our brethren and all that are concerned in it in the fear of God to consider And now let us see whether we cannot give a better account of our assertion and whether it doth not stand upon a firmer basis The Arguments alledged by us to prove that unordained men may not Preach Arg. 1. None may Preach lawfully unlesse besides their gifts they have a mission from God Rom. 10. Arg. 2. Neither Aaron no nor the Lord Jesus would undertake their offices nor-do any work of their offices untill over and above their excellent gifts they had received from God a call and designation thereunto And therefore persons farre inferiour in excellency and gifts ought not upon the account of their gifts either undertake any office or any work of any office without a further call thereunto nor are they by 1 Pet. 4. or any other place obliged to it Arg. 3. Gospel-Preachers are called by names importing an office Embassadors Stewards c. And therefore such Preachers are onely officers for names must answer to things Arg. 4. Gifts and calling are constantly distinguished 5. Diverse rules are laid down to guide and caution men in the admission of persons to the office of Preaching the Gospel all which are superfluous if gifted men are eonomine warranted to Preach 6. To allow the Preaching of unordained men opens a door to all confusion 7. God hath punished such as though sufficiently gifted and qualified for the work they did undertook to do a work to which they were not called as Uzzah Saul Uzziah 8. None may performe any religious service to God but such as are appointed or otherwise warranted thereunto But all gifted men are not appointed
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
consist of persons baptized and baptize them none can but he that is a Minister Christ therefore chose Apostles before Churches and the Apostles ordained elders to gather Churches To this they answer 1. A Church must needs be before an officer because he that is an officer is made an officer onely to a Church and therefore the Church is presupposed Reply This is a meer begging of the question and we have already at large confuted it and shewen that a Minister is an officer and acts as an officer even to such as are no Church 2. The Apostles were extraordinary officers and therefore that instance proves not that ordinary officers must be before Churches Reply Our brethren must take heed of denying the exemplarinesse of the Apostles to ordinary Ministers in the administration of Church affaires They themselves do oft make use of it And it cannot be denyed by any rationall or ingenious man that the Apostles as in some things they did act as extraordinary officers and are no president for us as in single and absolute jurisdiction c. so in other things their acts were ordinary and there examples binding as to us as their preaching baptizing c. And that this case is of the same nature may appeare from hence because the same reason which made it necessary foâ— Apostles to be before Churches made it also necessary for other Ministers to be before them For the reason why the Apostles were to be before Churches was this because by them Churches were to be gathered and baptized And thus it was with the ordinary Ministers of those times they also were instituted then and are so now by that lasting institution Eph 4 11. c. not onely for the building up of Churches already constituted but also for the bringing in of those who are not yet gathered and therefore it was and is necessary still that Ministers be before Churches 3. They say Acts 14. 23. When they had chosen them elders in every Church the Churches therefore were before the chusing of elders Reply 1. That instance doth not at all enervate our assertion for although some Churches may be before some elders which we never denyed yet in the generall a Minister must needs be before a Church And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of those arguments which the Assembly used to shew that the essence of the call doth not lie in election It now remaines that I undertake the defence of those arguments which they used to shew that the essence of the Ministeriall call doth consist in ordination Wherein I must still crave the continuance of the liberty I have used i. e. not put my self or the reader to unnecessary trouble in animadverting upon every passage but onely to observe such things as are argumentative and have not yet falne within our cognizance CHAP. XIIII THE Assembly urged 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. They answer 1. It is questionable whether laying on of hands be here meant of ordination for that ceremony was used in the collation of gifts also Reply But forasmuch as this laying on of hands was done by an ordinary Presbytery which had not such a power of conferring gifts by the laying on of hands that being the peculiar priviledge of extraordinary officers therefore it cannot here be rationally supposed to be so used in this place but onely for ordination And therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here said to be conveyed must needs be rather concluded to be an office which we often read to have been conferred by ordinary officers then a gift which we never read that an ordinary officer was intrusted to convey But that our brethren will not beare with For 2. They say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an office and here they repeat Mr. Hookers reasons so that in answering one I shall answer both and I must needs acknowledge that what is spoken upon this place is said very plausibly 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most commonly signifies gift not office 2. A man is not said to forget the office that is in him he is in his office rather then his office in him a man is said to stirre up his grace not his office 3. An extraordinary office such as this was could not be collated by ordinary officers Lastly they observe that this gift is said to be given not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the laying on of their hands as the cause but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with noting onely the concurrence and connexion To all which I reply 1. That both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in scripture for office as well as gift our brethren themselves will grant so that the word being indifferent we must see which way other considerations will determine it For the second where most difficulty lies I reply 1. A man may properly be said to neglect his office or to disregard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carelesse in his office or in the execution of his office I know no absurdity in it either in the English or in the Greeke Tongue If a Magistrate be slothfull carelesse c. we may properly say he neglects that Office that God hath put him in he neglects his place And as a man is said to neglect himselfe when he neglects those things and those actions which concerne himself so a man neglects his office that neglects the works of his office So for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strip it of the metaphor and it is no more but this put forth actuate exercise thine office Pauls bidding him stirre up his Ministry is no more then what elsewhere he bids him fulfill thy Ministry do the work of an Evangelist He that neglects the work of his Ministry invalidates his office disuseth neglects his office and he that fulfils the works of his Ministry stirres up his office For that other criticisme that a man is in his office not his office in him the office is adâ—oyned to him not inhaerent in him that is hardly worth taking notice of because the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used so variously sometimes for one preposition sometimes for another sometimes for that which is inherent in him sometime for that which is adjoyning to him as all know that are not wholly strangers to the Greek Tongue that it is a vanity to lay any stresse upon it Sometimes it is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and sometimes in for apud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for a man to be apud se for a man not to be besides himself so here the Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apudte with thee which is committed to thee And as men are said to be in sin though indeed it is sin that is in them and they are said to enter into their masters joy though to
they say little to the purpose and what they do say is for the most part either nothing else but a repetition of their disproved principles or so infirme that I may safely leave things to any ingenuous reader who shall compare our arguments and their Answers Neverthelesse I will not wholly omit this task also but where I can pick up any thing that requires an answer and hath not been already dispatched I shall here take notice of it They offer divers arguments to prove this proposition That in a Church which wants officers some beleevers may lawfully ordaine without officers 1. Else ordination were unattainable for there is neither precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in ordination out of the particular Church he is over In the places which speak of ordination to wit Acts 6. and 13. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6. the persons ordaining were all extraordinary and so no president for ordinary officers And for 1 Tim. 4. 14. we see nothing to convince us that it was an ordinary Presbytery Answer 1. There are divers practises lawfully used even in our brethrens judgment which yet we find no president for but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in I will instance but in one and that is excommunication which we never read practised but by the authority and concurrence of an extraordinary Officer Paul practiseth it I have delivered him to Satan And the Church of Corinth practiseth it but not without Pauls expresse command and positive warrant and concurrence 1 Cor. 5. 3 4. For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit having judged already c. when ye are gathered together and my spirit And yet our Brethren allow and inferre this as a president for the practise of excommunication by ordinary Churches and ordinary persons And therefore good reason they should allow us the same liberty 2. And the rather because this makes against our Brethren as well as us It is their own grant that Ordination is an Institution of Christ now in force and that it is to be managed by the Officers of the Church where there are such So that both they and we are thus farre agreed that ordinary Officers may ordaine Now if what they say be true then there is neither precept nor president for the Ordaining of Officers and so it followes from hence not onely that none but Officers may ordaine which we assert but also that Officers may not ordaine at all unlesse they will say Officers may do that for which they have neither precept nor president so that our brethrens argument either doth not praejudice us or else it enervates their own principles 3. The true way therefore to discern what acts of extraordinary Officers are presidentiall to ordinary and what not is this Those actions which were proper to those times those actions which were the results of extraordinary gifts those actions which were appendants to an extraordinary jurisdiction those are no presidents for us The Apostles healing the sick by anouncing with oyl their preaching without study their ordering of the Church affaires by their single jurisdiction these things are unimitable by us But now on the otherside Those actions of extraordinary Officers which are common to all the ages of the Church those which may be transacted by ordinary gifts and ordinary jurisdiction those are presidents for us The Apostles publick praying and preaching administring the Sacraments authoritative rebuking ruling censuring c. I say their acting of those things is and was ever by the Church taken to be a president for ordinary Officers acting the same things Now forasmuch as Ordination is allowed by our Brethren to be one of those New Testament practises yet to be continued by virtue of these instances c. It followes that the practice of the Apostles therein though they were extraordinary Officers is a president for us onely here is the difference wherein I am willing any indifferent man should be umpire whether it is a president for the peoples ordaining who though in things belonging to them they did act distinctly from and concurrently with the Apostles as in the businesse of Election yet never do we find them ordaining or joyning with the Apostles in the work of Ordination or whether it be not rather a president for Ministers Ordaining who are the undoubted successors of the Apostels and who did act with them in such works 4. And Lastly for that 1 Tim. 4. 14. how faintly and impertinently do they speak What if you meet with nothing that convinceth you that this was an ordinary Presbytery sure I am you meet with nothing that convinceth you they were extraordinary And it is a great deal more rationall for us to think they were ordinary persons of whom we read nothing which was extraordinary then to fancy them to be extraordinary of which we have no evidence at all the proof lies upon their side I need no positive proof to perswade me to take a man for an ordinary person he is justly presumed so to be till some indicia or discoveries of an extraordinary state break forth But now if one will assert that another is an extraordinary person he must have positive proof for it which if our brethren can bring to prove this Presbytery to be extraordinary we shall submit to them but till then they must not take it ill if we believe them to be ordinary Thus much for their first and principall Argument 2. They argue thus Those that may act in making Decrees in a Synod they may Ordaine But Believers who are not Officers may act in a Synod c. Acts 15. 2 22 23. I answer to both Propositions 1. The Major may be questioned because all those things are to be regulated by Scripture now if we have Scripture precept or example for the one i. e. for acting in a Synod which they say here is and not for the other which we have proved there is not then believers may do the one and not the other 2. For the Minor I deny that the brethren may act in making Decrees in a Synod I deny they did so in this place we read not a word of it All that we read is that the whole Church consented to the decrees and resolved upon the execution of them which they might do though they neither acted nor were present at the making of the Decrees Even as thousands consent to Acts of Parliament that have no hand in the making of them And if our brethren think to prove this they must bring better Arguments then any they have yet brought Another Argument they urge is this That Ordination consisteth in such Acts is may be done by the people The people may fast and pray and which may seem to be most doubtful they may impose hands if that be a rite still to continue as appeares from Numb 8 10. where the children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levities To this Instance the
Assembly gives such satisfying Answers that I wonder how our Brethren could resist the evidence of them and indeed their Replies are so inconsiderable that I count it but lost time to make a rejoynder and all that I shall desire of the Reader is this That he would but use his reason and lay aside his passion and prejudice and compare what is said on both hands together and I doubt not he will see that all their assaults against them are but like the dashings of the waves against a rock whereby they break themselves to pieces But if all that satisfie not I shall adde two Answers more 1. Extraordinary instances are no presidents for ordinary cases This was apparently an extraordinary case The Levites and Church-Officers were not yet instituted and to argue thus that because the people did lay on hands before those Church-Officers were created who were afterwards to do it therefore they might do it when such Officers were created and appointed for that work It were as if a man should argue Gifted men may preach where there are no Apostles nor Ministers to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers Or thus David might eat the shew-bread when he could get no other therefore any man may eat it when his table was spread with other bread 2. Forasmuch as it is ridiculous to think that all Israel did lay their hands upon the heads of the Levites therefore this was onely some of them and those some no doubt were the first-born Now it must be remembred that as the Levites were taken instead of the first-born Num. 8. 16 17. so the first-born till then were in stead of the Levites and till God instituted the Ecclesiasticall Offices and Officers in Israel the first-born were Officers and so it concerns not the people at all nor proves any right in them to do the same thing In the next place they come to answer some Arguments which are urged by the Assembly to prove that Ordination did not belong to the people Their Answers to the two first are nothing else but repetitions of what hath been already discussed and therefore I here wave them For the third the Assembly observed That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the party ordained is mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers not in those Epistles which are written to the Churches They answer 1. Charges may be directed to Officers and yet the people required to concurre as Rev. 2. and 3. If Timothy and Titus were to act these alone as Evangelists then they are no presidents for us if with others why not with the people as well as the Officers Reply They were to act alone in Ordination as Evangelists and yet are a president for us For here are two things to be considered 1. The work viz. of Ordination which was common and ordinary and this is imitable 2. The manner of doing it which was extraordinary i. e. by their single power and this is inimitable You will say If the manner of this Ordination was extraordinary then Timothy's practice in Ordination is no more a president for ordinary Officers Ordaining then for the people Ordaining I answer Yes There is a different reason because Timothy was one of the Officers or Persons ruling and an extraordinary one who alone might stand in the room of all other Officers it may be there were no Officers present when Timothy did ordaine however his acting in this as an Officer though extraordinary may well be president for his successors such as are Officers for the doing of the work which is ordinary though not for the doing of it by his single jurisdiction which was extraordinary But now on the other side for the people or the persons rulled Timothy was not one of them but sustained a distinct person from them and there were people at that time unquestionably present when ever Timothy and Titus Ordained and the people even in the dayes of those extraordinary Officers did retain their distinct liberties and exercise those things which did belong to them as people as is plain in the case of Election which they injoyned and practised And had Ordination belonged to the people as well as Election certainly notwithstanding the agency and presence of the Apostles therein yet we should have heard somewhat at least concerning the peoples concurrence which because we hear not a syllable of we therefore justly conclude that Election did and doth belong to the people but Ordination doth not I adde onely this That look what reasons our Brethren have to look on the Apostles c. Baptizing c. to be a president for Ministers Baptizing and not for the peoples baptizing the very same reasons have we to conclude that their Ordaining is a president for Officers Ordaining not for the Ordination of the people 2. They say All may be written to Timothy and Titus because they were to direct others how to act in them And therefore the Apostle writes to them about other things which yet were not to be acted by them alone but by the people as the making of prayers for Kings clothing of women in modest aparrel c. Reply By this Rule all things should have been written onely in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus for they were to direct the people in all other things But it is not simply the putting of a thing in this Epistle which makes that act peculiar to Officers But this is it which is justly insisted on and which our Brethren should do well againe to consider that Paul who was so carefull to order the affaires in every Church yet in all his Epistles to those Churches speakes not a word about the businesse of Ordination Surely the Scriptures silence is argumentative as well as its speech and it is oft urged in Scripture Melchisedek is said to be without Father c because the Scriture is silent as to his geniallogie so Heb. 6. our Lord sprang of Iuda of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Preisthood And surely it is not to no purpose that the Scripture is so silent as to the point of direction about the mission of Ministers in all those Epistles to people but insinuates thus much to impartiall Readers that the Holy Ghost looked upon the people as persons not intrusted with that work The last thing urged by the Assembly was this That Ordination is an authoritative mission an act of jurisdiction an act which gives the essentialls of the Call Private persons can no more conveigh power to another to administer Sacraments then they can do it themselves They answer That Ordination is no act of jurisdiction nor would it be so though it did convey the Office-power Freemen do convey Office-power to their Bailiffs c. yet do no act of jurisdiction Reply 1. This hath been answered before to wit Freemen have that power by a Constitution but there
notice of one thing whereas I am informed some persons through carelesnesse or oscitancy or wilfulnesse or ignorance have taken up this conceit that an Approbation from the Commissioners appointed for the tryall of Publick Preachers is a kind of Ordination and may serve in stead of it I would have them here to take notice that this is not only false in it self but against the very words of that Act whereby they are constituted wherein an expresse protestation is made as elsewhere hath been observed That they themselves do not intend that this shall be taken as an Ecclesiasticall call but only a Civil dispensation of the Magistrates right to particular places And whereas it was urged that The work of the Ministry being a work of greater consequence and difficulty than the work of the Magistrate or the Deacon it requires greater care They Answer Men may perform some works of greater consequence who yet may not perform works of lesse consequence To beleeve is an act of higher consequence than to do the work of a Deacon yet every Christian may beleeve Reply This is a meer fallacy for though beleeving is a work of greater difficulty and consequence in relation to a mans self yet not in relation to the Church and other men and that is it we are treating of so that the work of beleeving is altogether impertinent in this place for we are speaking of such works as relate to others and wherein there is a care required in relation to others but beleeving is a work confined to a mans self Our fourth Argument was this None may administer the Sacraments who is uncalled Therefore none may preach who is uncalled for these two are joyned together in that Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. and preaching is the greater work 1 Cor. 1. 17. Our Brethren make many exceptions against this Argument 1. They say it makes against us For you say they separate between preaching and baptizing you allow men to preach probation-wise not to administer the Sacraments probation-wise Reply The reason of the difference is apparent Preaching probation-wise is simply necessary in order to their Approbation and Ordination for the trial of their gifts and so this preaching is in a case of necessity and therefore allowable but there is no necessity at all of trying their gifts by administring the Sacraments seeing there are none of their gifts exercised there but such as are fully discovered by their trial in preaching c. 2. They say Matth. 28. is no Commission authorizing them either to preach or baptize that Commission they had afore Mark 10. Joh. 4. and therefore could not now be constituted afresh Reply 1. Give me leave however to propound it as my private opinion though I shall not be positive in it and I know there are some difficulties in the way that the Apostles were indeed Officers before but not Officers of the same kind and therefore might well require another commission If a man be a Captain in an Army he is an Officer but if he be made a Collonel he must have a new Commission If a man be a Deacon in a Church he is an Officer but if he be made a Minister he needs a new Commission If a man had been made a Pastour and Teacher in the Apostles daies this man had been an Officer but if he had afterwards been made an Apostle he had needed a new Commission And this I take to be well-nigh a parallel to our case For the Apostles it is true were Officers before this but I humbly conceive they were not Apostles before this which I think will be probable by these three Considerations 1. That an Apostle strictly so called was a new Testament Officer and therefore such an Office was not in being before the new Testament began But the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ as all intelligent Divines grant for that was it which rent the vail and abolished the Jewish pedagogy 2. They were not Apostles properly and formally untill they had Apostollicall gifts But these gifts they had not before the death of Christ. 3. They wanted universality of jurisdiction which was the constant character of an Apostle nay indeed so far were they from having a jurisdiction over all Nations before that time that they had not jurisdiction over all the Jews nor to speak strictly over any of the Jews for as much as they were till Christ death subject to the jurisdiction of the Jewish Priests that being not taken away but by the death of Christ And surely it is something strange to fancy them to be Apostles without any jurisdictions I conclude therefore they were rather Prophets or extraordinary Teachers than Apostles and so Mr Firmin affirms of Paul before Act. 13. Mat. 10. and had not their Commission as Apostles till Matth. 28. 19 20. 2. Put case that Mat. 28. is not a formal Commission yet it must needs be granted that it is a renewing and confirming and enlarging of their former Commission and therein their work is afresh proposed to them and enjoyned upon them and that is sufficient for our purpose for this work is double preaching and administring the Sacraments which being equally imposed upon them must by like reason be equally restrained to them unlesse better grounds can be shewn to the contrary than have yet been given 3. They say It is denied by some that preaching is a greater work than baptizing The sealing of a Deed is a greater work than the writing of it every Clerk may write it but only the Conveyancer can seal it Ans. The Question is not whether preaching or baptizing be greater in regard of the dignity of the work but in regard of the difficulty of it As in the instance proposed The sealing of the Deed is a work of greater dignity but the writing of the Deed is a work of more difficulty and therefore belongs to him who is appointed for such works and who hath more skill in the management of such works So in this case preaching which answers to the writing of the Deed being a work of far greater difficulty than the applying of the seal it was requisite that greater or at least equal care should be taken in it and that it should be managed by none but such as are both fitted for and appointed to the work The fifth Argument was this To usurp authority is a sin But Preaching is an act of Authority and therefore for persons not in Office to preach is to usurp Authority and so to sin 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 7. The losse is blessed of the greater Women must not preach because they must not usurp Authority 1 Tim. 2. In Preaching the key of the kingdom of Heaven is used which is an authoritative act Against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions some whereof are impertinent and some frivolous All that hath any appearance of probability I shall take notice of 1. They say Preaching is no act