we grant but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny I shall have liberty to enter my dissent in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description First You say it is a company that we grant Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church Secondly You say it is a particular Company and that there never was nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ any other than a particular company I must confess to my dear Brethren that I cannot fathom their notion of particular we use to say particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis An universal theme in Logick is that as our Brethren know which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many I think Church is such a Theme Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant that their Congregations at London Norwich Yarmouth may each of them be called a Church Now the Question is whether all these Churches may not be considered together and called a Church Or if you will Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth may not by an universal notion be called a Church or is not called a Church in Scripture You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company but not an universal Church that is as I suppose you mean a body capable of Officers otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons who are visible Saints should be called a Church Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad p. 40. and seven hundred should not If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches Acts 8.3 Gal. 1.13 Acts 26.11 Acts 9.31 compared together Acts 12.1 Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 All these Texts will prove that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called But you will say This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it Brethren have you read what Mr. Hudson saith to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholick Do they not when they Baptize admit into the Catholick Church Pag. 232 why else are not your Members baptized again when they are translated from the particular Church into which according to this principle alone they were Baptized Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church Or will our Brethren say that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion Were the Apostles think our Brethren Officers only to a particular Church If to the Vniversal then there was an universal Church once existing capable of Officers Nor is that irrefragable Text 1 Cor. 12.28 as our Brethren say prest to the service of the Catholick Church No it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth You say Brethren that what it is written ver 18. of that chapter God hath set the Members every one in the body doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body as God hath set some in the Church proves a Catholick Vniversal Church I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body together with ver 12. and all the members of that one body being many are one body will prove that the body is Totum integrale So also saith the Apostle is Christ i. e. the Church of Christ If our Brethren will but grant us this That the Church is a Totum integrale you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum If you say there is no other Totum called a Church but only the particular Church I have proved the contrary that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church If you say this Church hath no Officers that Text 1 Cor. 12.28 confutes you neither will your consequence follow that because an universal body is not proved from ver 18. therefore an Vniversal Church is not proved from ver 28. viz. from the whole verse If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body but would serve any other particular bodies as he doth of Church Officers ver 28. I hope it would have proved an Vniversal body You tell us Brethren you renounce the name and thing of an Vniversal or Catholick Church you must then renounce the Holy Scripture witness the Texts before mentioned and renounce right reason and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren who generally acknowledge both the name and thing only deny it to be Organical But you think you have five Arguments will prove that a particular Church cannot be a part but a Totum 1. You say first every part is in power incompleat But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church And may act in all Church work not as a part but as a whole I must deny your Minor Brethren I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod and to consult at least a piece of Church work to which Gods word gives a power Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod We say the like for Ordination except in cases of absolute necessity and for excommunication where the Church is very small there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited 2. You tell us next that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is you know not This is Brethren such a fallacy as scarce deserveth an answer the body of a man is a whole all his members are parts now when you have found out where that body is which is really distinct from all the members and wherefore it is you will have answered your selves The Nation of England is a whole every Parish is a part finde us where that Nation is which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together We use to make this a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis unitis That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united 3. In the next place you tell us there can be no visible universal Church because
there is no universal visible meeting and that the Greek word translated Church in all Civil and Sacred usage signifies a meeting in fieri or facto esse But you began to think that the invisible Church are never like to have such a meeting and therefore to salve it you heal this wound in your Argument in my opinion very slightly when you say it doth meet invisibly in Spirit If you will but grant us that Brethren that the name of Church in Scripture is given to those that never locally meet but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit you have by an unhappy heel kicked down all that good milk which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it it speaks of the Church of the first-born There is an universal meeting of the Catholick visible Church at the throne of Grace before their great Pastor and in Spirit as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first you have quitted your plea for the visibility to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick visible from any hurt by this Argument 4. You go on Brethren and tell us There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church Ergo there is no such Church If you had expressed the Major Proposition I should have denied it the assertion of a Church Catholick visible though we add Organical doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches which as parts constitute that whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole I am not willing but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren that this is no fair play to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholick Church and to mention only the Antichristian and Prelatical Notion of it Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication p. 129 130 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head and Arch-Bishops Bishops c. for his derivatives But this we say that the whole Church all the particular Churches in the world make but one body of Christ and as it is one una so it is unita united in a Common Profession of the Gospel as there is this union and communion of members so there is a communion of some Officers particularly Ministers who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors by vertue of Office any where and may any where Baptize and Administer the Lords Supper upon occasion and we say our Brethren in practice grant this for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those to whom he is not in Office as his particular Church and this is a Common practice with our Brethren how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches they do but blinde the Common People with a dark notion that signifies nothing What mean they by a Communion of Churches if they do not mean this that by the word of God one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another If they have so there must be a Communion of Offices as well as Gifts for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office If that it be not the will of God in his Word that the Officer of one Church should do an act of Office in another Church or to a Member of another Church it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches If this be his will it is as much as we ask for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church and the members of it but also to any particular Churches in the world or to any of their Members We ask no more This is the Catholick Organical Church we plead for Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol and pretend to abhor it in the notion they do not in practice bow down to it and commit Sacrilege 5. You tell us in the last place Brethren That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine and hear offences Mat. 18.17 But that is a particular Church Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae and you have taken as good care as you could to strengthen it by saying it cannot be meant of both and to exclude the Congregational Church is unscriptural irrational absurd But I must crave leave to tell you 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question for it is not whether be greater the Church Catholik or the Church particular but whether there be any Church Catholick or no greater or less Object But you will say if there be any it must be greater Answ Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality If in respect of quantity number c. the Major is apparently false If in respect of quality as you seem to hint by the term having power then your Argument is this There is no Church hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches But the particular Church hath that power Mat. 18.17 Ergo. I will give you Brethren such another Argument judge you whether it be good or no and if it be not you must prove your own better There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences Ergo that is as great a Court as the Court of Common Pleas. You must therefore put in finally determine and all offences in any part of the Church or else your Major is false when you have mended that we will deny your Minor and tell you that admit that Text Mat. 18.17 should be meant of a particular Church yet it proves no such power either finally to determine or all offences as well those betwixt Church and Church as those betwixt party and party or party and Church Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text according to the nature of the offence nor do I think your saying that to exclude the Congregational Church viz. some Congregational Churches is unscriptural irrational absurd amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case I think it is far more rational and far
less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren
not have opposed it But affirming it is no relate to the work but only to the Church I must profess my self dissatisfied 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the Church Vniversal or only to the particular Church Our Brethren say Only to the particular Church If our Brethren would have been content with a division again that the Minister should be related to both we should have granted it or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholick Church as had constant standing Catholick Officers we know no such Church and should not have disputed de or pro non ente But as they state it I must profess my self also in this of another mind viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church And therefore to triall we must go In the opening of the term Ministry Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly domination Mat. 20.25 26 27. that those who do acts of ministration are Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words used in Scripture to express Ministers and Ministry are applied in Scripture to others beside Ministers in Office that their constant performing acts of ministration entituleth them to the denomination of Ministers and their work should be called Preaching as we usually call them Bruers or Bakers who brew or bake constantly and therefore Christians should so call them This is the sum of what they have p. 2. 3. To all which I shall crave leave to answer For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distinction which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will bite him 1. That the terms Minister Ministry and Office are of various interpretations both in civil and sacred usage is unquestionable These terms therefore falling into the questions the explication and limitation of them to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary An accurate discourse of a question requires that no signification of the terms in it be omitted in the Explication In plenâ tractatione vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda say Logicians 2. For the first term therefore Minister that it is a Latine word none can doubt nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master so called either because he is to his Master a manibus an hand servant quasi manister as Perottus will have it or because he is less than his Master quia minor in statione which is Isiodore's notion and preferred by learned Martinius In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and prophane Authors Infimi homines ministros se praebent saith Tully l. 1. de Orat and again lib. de Amicitiâ Libidinis ministri so Ovid illo dicunt Mactata Ministro Corpora 3. The holy Penmen of Scripture either moved from the congruity of the native signification of the word or the notion of it accrewing by general usage have sometimes used it to signifie one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ in the great work of Preaching the Gospel at lest our translators interpreting what they wrote in another language have done so The original words which they have so interpreted are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are of as various signification and two of them at least as variously applied by those holy Penmen as the word Minister is by other Authours The first word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who roweth in a Boat or Ship under another and thence any one who is servant to another is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testament and I think but two of those Texts can be interpreted of Preachers they are Acts 26.16 1 Cor. 24.1 In the first Paul saith God raised him to be a Minister in the latter they are called Ministers of Christ for I cannot believe that the phrase Lu. 1.2 can be interpreted of Preaching Ministers for I think they had no Text before that time but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christs words and actions and so were Servants to the holy Penmen in communicating what they saw and heard to them There are indeed two other Texts which some may mistake into this sense Lu. 4.20 Acts 13.5 In the first it is said Christ clozed up the Book and gave it to the Minister in the latter John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas Those who write about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer belonging to the Temple something I think akin to our Parish Clerks who was wont to bring and carry away the Book of the Law to or from the Priest or Levite or other person that expounded In all other Texts of the New Testament where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Mat. 26.58 Mar. 14.54 it signifieth Civil Officers either domestick as Servants or Politick state Officers such as jailers pursevants or the like in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In its native force it signifies no more than a servant call'd so either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some would have it or which pleaseth Eustathius better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect It is in Scripture applied to Christ Ro. 15.8 and the Apostle using this word saith of him Is he the Minister of sin 2. To Magistrates Rom. 13.4 To ordinary Servants in a Family Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11 Mark 9.35.10.43 Jo. 2.5.9 To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ John 12.26 Phoebe is call'd thus Ro. 16.1 Deacons by Ossice in the Church have their name from this word and it is applied to express those Officers Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8.12 It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel To Paul and Apollo 1 Cor. 3.5 To Tychicus Eph. 6.21 Col. 4.7 To Timothy 1 Thes 3.2 These again are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3.6 Of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.15 Of Christ 2 Cor. 11.33 Of the Church 0.0.0.0 Our Brethren p. 2. tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often applied to Saints no Officers But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1 for that so they may consider that no Preaching Saint in Scripture who was no Officer was ever so called though if he had it had not signified much as to the present question for any one that served but his Masters Table was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our Brethren do only urge the common usage of the word then they do but play with an Equivocal term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies in Scripture The third word used is
Ordinances and ministerium is but a collective term as we call the company of Magistates the Magistracy of a Nation So we call the company of Ministers the Ministry So Aretius Bucanus Vrsin c. So Martinius ministerium est ipse quoque minister So Ravanella Munus vel functio vocatur ministerium for which he quotes many Texts of Scripture and so interpreteth many of those I before cited the 2 Cor. 6.3 and that in 1 Tim. 12. seem very inclinable to this interpretation And here again our Brethren seem to play with an equivocall term when they tell us that the speaking of gifted Brethren may be called Ministry for there is ministration in their service so there is too in their Servants waiting upon them at their Tables yet I hope they will allow common people not to call the work of their Servants waiting at their Trenchers the Work of the Ministry which yet follows by the same argument If our Brethren say that the gifted persons minister unto the Church so doth he that sweeps the Church yet his work is not the work of the Ministry as we have learned to speak If they say they minister unto Christ Sub judice lis est That question is yet to dispute upon the Apostles maxim His Servants you are whom you obey and it is still to be argued betwixt them and us whether in their ministration they obey the commands of Jesus Christ yea or no. Third Term. The third and last term is that of Office A term as ambiguous as any other it comes from the Latine word Officium Hee that will look that word in Martinius his Lexicon Philologicum will find at least eight significations of it Our Brethren of London in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici p. 3. have given us a description of it so far as to limit it from homonymie and to give the sense of it in the present question which description our other dissenting Brethren have faithfully transcribed thus The Office of the Ministry is a spirtual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a person qualified founded upon a speciall and regular call Our Brethren p. 3. apprehend this to be faulty and they declare their dissent and the grounds of it because as they rightly apprehend much of the controversie hangs upon this hinge They grant that Office is a relation with respect to an employment as its end But that it is a relation to the employment of the Ministry as its Correlate they deny the Church they say is the Correlate and they say the London Ministers confess this p. 151. where they say the Minister hath a relation to the Catholick as well as to the particu-particu-Church so that they seem to contradict themselves This is the substance of what they say p. 4. Whence they propound to speak to two questions 1. Whether Office be a relation to the work of the Ministry or to the Church 2. Whether Office hath relation to the Church universal or to the particular Church They are both of them very important questions To the first of them our Brethren speak Chap. 1. where they undertake to prove That the Office of the Ministry is not a Correlate to the work of the Ministry But to the Church and this they endeavour by four Arguments That the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the persons towards whom it is to be executed is most freely on our parts confessed But that it should be no correlate to the work is I confess such an absurdity in my ears as will offer too much injury I think to common sense Officium est relatio personae ad certi operis necessariam effectionem Martinii Lex Philol. ad verbum Officium Learned Martinius if this be an errour is in the same mistake with our Brethren in London he sayes in terminis that an Office is the relation of a person to the doing of a certain work If I remember my Logick right those things are Relations which either have their whole being in their respect to another or any other way referred to it this I learned out of Aristotle Burgefdecius c. now Cui convenit definitio ei convenit definitum if the definition of Relations will agree to the Office of the Ministry and the work they must be Relations or else we understand not our Brethrens meaning I then thus argue for our Brethren of London to maintain their skill in Logick Arg. 1 If the Office of the Ministry either hath its whole being in relation to the work or be any other way referred to the work Then the Office and employment according to Logick are relations But the Office and work of the Ministry have at least one of these references each to another Ergo. If our Brethren deny the Major they deny the Logical description of Relations and so can build no arguments from the Canons of Logicians about them If they say the Office neither hath its whole being in the work nor is any other way related to it I think they deny common sense Arg. 2 Again The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the Office of the Ministry is terminated in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate If our Brethren deny the Major they again deny all Logick If they deny the minor it is that which every one apprehends and it is all one as to deny the Sun shineth at noon day But our Brethren having brought us four Arguments it is fit we should examine them For the first they say the work cannot be a Correlate to the Office Because Relations cannot be separated they are simul naturâ take away one and you must take away the other but the work of the Ministry by the sickness death imprisonment or rejection of the Minister may cease and yet according to our principles the office doth not cease a man is a Minister in office though he cannot do the work Hence they observe that whereas our Brethren of London thought that by fixing the relation between the work and the office because a Minister may be separated from his Church they had secured the permanency of the office These Brethren think that they have deeply fallen into the same pit because the work may cease This is the substance of p. 5. which in form is thus Relations and Correlations exist and perish together But according to your principle so do not the office and work of the Ministry Therefore they are no relations The major they say is the Certain rule of Relations in Logick The minor they prove because we will not say the office of the Ministry in a man ceaseth when he is kept from doing his work by sickness imprisonment banishment rejection c. I answer 1. They call the major the Certain rule of Relations But neither tell us of what Relations nor in what sense Logicians understand that rule and reason will enforce for the
thing Notatio saepe est inadaequata modo latior modo angustiâ—r saith the Logician But 2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally viz. All the titles and all the names we conceive their Argument very faulty for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City it doth not follow but that his title of Justice of the Peace hath the keeping of the Peace and the Statutes concerning Justices for the Correlate or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate 3. If our Brethren do say that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate we shall desire by the next to know whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers in the following Texts have the Church only for their Correlate 1 Tim. 2.7 2 Tim. 1.11 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14 Philip. 1.15 Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn to say that if the Question be asked To whom are they Officers the answer must be to the Church * 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked what is their office for what work is the office ordained The answer must be for the Preaching of the Gospel for the work of the Ministry The truth is The work is objectum quod the Church is objectum cui Both the Church and the imployment are the Correlates to this Relation the Church are the Correlated persons the work of the Ministry is the Correlated thing So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London for both the Church and the Employment are Correlates Nay under favour not the Church alone but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry as to Preaching The office of the Ministry was instituted as well for the gathering of the Saints as for the edifying of them as well for the perfecting of their number as for the perfecting of their graces Till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. Eph. 4.11 12 13. We can never believe that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother but as an officer of the Gospel Nay more God himself is the Correlate to this office and therefore they are called the Ministers of God the Ministers of Christ not Elders of the Church only or Ministers of the Church they are Gods Ministers in the Church and the Ministers of the Gospel in and for the Church and world too Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of the Church We can shew them many where they are called the Ministers of Christ of righteousness of the Gospel of Christ Now it is a rule Relata reciprocantur a Father is called the Father of such a Son and the Son is called the Son of such a Father But I say our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase when they call Ministers i. e. Preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church they are the Ministers of God and his Gospel in such a Church and they have some relation to the Church but not a more relation than they have to the work they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel is called their Gospel My Gospel saith Paul twice here is a plain reciprocation let them shew us the like if they can for their assertion otherwise we hope our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern And I earnestly beseech our Brethren that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies which have not as you see the least foundation either in Scripture reason or usage of any approved Authors In the mean time we will grant them that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office But if we would grant our Brethren that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate not to the work but to the Church I perceive this would not give them satisfaction unless we would also yield them that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church In opposition not only to the Church Catholick invisible viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad But to the Church Catholick visible in any notion The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion but we can by no meanes bow down unto it And therefore that 's the next thing we must bring to trial Only before we do it Give me leave to inform our Brethren in our notion of a Church though I shall better do it when I shall return to answer their Epistle The word which we translate Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetus evocatus voce praeconis of which our Brethren can make no advantage either from the Etymologie or from the usage of it in Scripture according to the first it signifies no more than a company called out it is both used by the Seventy interpreters to express the congregation of evil doers Psal 26.5 And by the Evangelist Luke to express a rout neither lawfully assembled nor yet united Acts 19.32 This word in it self as unhallowed as any other the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers company or Companies of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel Eph. 4.11 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvelous light Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into Invisible Visible The invisible Church is either Triumphant in heaven or Militant here upon the Earth The Visible Church is either Universal or Particular By the Church universal quatenus visible we mean The whole number of people over the face of the Earth called out of the Paganish world to the owning of the gospel of Christ which being an integral Body cons sting of homogeneous members or parts each part beareth the denomination of the whole hence that part of this body which is in a Nation Province parish c. is properly called the Church of God in such a Region Nation Province parish c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1.13 that is all that ownned the gospel whether in Jerusalem or in Damascus or the strange Cities Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11 all that called on Christs name whom
he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
combinations of vicinities or Parishes for actual constant enjoyment of Ordinances as particular Corporations in a Kingdom are yet still those Ordinances administrations admissions ejections have influence upon and into the whole body as it is a polity and the members of any part indefinitely may of right communicate one with another yea any company of Christians may though every person so meeting and that but occasionally may be of a several particular Church and the Minister dispensing a particular Pastor to none of them all yea though none of them all be fixed members to any particular Congregation nor the Minister dispensing fixed in any particular congregation And this by vertue of their general membership and of the habitual indefiniteness of the Ministers office And the common donation of the ordinances to Christs whole visible Kingdom Ibid. Now the truâ—h is there is no Civil Society or Kingdom that in every thing correspondeth with this but there use in the Kingdoms of the world to be some general officers and offices And some officers inferiour and subordinate receiving from them power and authority by derivation and subordination And the inferiour are of less extent as to place and power than the superior As the Lord Chief Justice of England is above other inferiour Justices And this is it as Mr. Hudson hath noted which hath made so many stumble at the notion of a Church Catholick Organical and upon this stone our Brethren have stumbled in their Epistle First making a man of Clouts and then writing over his head This is the Presbyterians Catholick Church and then crucifying him with Arguments which we are not concerned in But as Mr. Hudson proceedeth as in other things Christs Kingdom is not of this world nor like unto worldly polities so neither in this But every Minister of the Church in his particular place serveth the Church Catholick admitting of members into a general freedom in it ejecting from general communion with it he prayeth publickly for the whole body and manageth his particular charge in reference to so as may stand with the good of the whole body of which his Congregation is but a member The Ordinances there administred are the Ordinances given to the whole not as a genus which is but a notion and can have no Ordinances given to it but as unto a spiritual kind of an habitual body and Organical polity As to a sort of men so and so qualified bound up in an union and unity of the same head laws seals worship communion Thus had we discovered our minds before our Brethren published this Boook and it had been fair for them to have disputed against this not to deceive their Readers with fallacies Ex ignoratione Elenchi as Logicians speak disputing against what their adversaries do not say In this sense we say the office of the Ministry correlateth to the Vniversal Church And what ever our Brethren say in practice they will own this for 1. I would fain know of our Brethren whether one Church may according to Gospel rules receive into her bosome one whiom another Church hath cast out if not the officers that cast out do not only eject from the communion of that particular Church but of all particular Churches and so consequently from the universal Church which is but a whole made up of those parts 2. While our Bretheren baptize into their particular Church I wonder whether they do not also Baptize into any other particular Church if not when any person so baptized is translated into another Church why is he not again Baptized his relation to the former Church ceasing 3. I would fain know with what consistency of principles our Brethren say a minister or pastor is in office only to a particular Church and yet say he that is in office to this Church may administer the Sacrament of the Supper to the members of another Church Oh but they do this they tell us by a communion of Churches by a communion of membership only or of offices and officers only the first alone may give the member a right to take but not the officer a right to give except there be also a mutual communication or communion of offices and officers and Acts of office 4. Although these 2 or 3 Brethren some-where indeed say that when the pastors of our Brethrens churches preach out of their particular Church they preach but as gifted men yet I am sure others of our Brethren and those to speak modestly no way inferior to our Brethren will own no such thing for who should be then obliged to hear them or who could go to hear them as to an ordinance a publike ordinance of Christ I am yet to learn So that in practice our brethren do every day own what in words they deny But to come close to the question stated by our Brethren thus p. 8. What Church office hath relation to Preacher sent eap 2. p. 8. whether officers stand in relation to a particular Church only or whether they be officers of an universal Church I observe our Brethren in the same page altering their phrase instead of saying We deny office to be a correlate to the Vniversal Church they say We deny Pastors and Teachers to be officers of an Vniversal Church We hope our brethren have no design to play at so small a game with us as that must be which is only won by the homonomy of a term however we will indeavour to prevent it For those new terms Pastors and Teachers in ecclesiastical use they have obtained a double signification 1. In Scripture the terms are taken more largely for any such as have authority to feed people with spiritual food whether it be occasionally or constantly so pastors is to be understood Eph. 4.11 the only place where it is used in all the New Testament so also Jer. 3.15 so Paul is called a Teacher of the Gentiles and 1 Tim. 2.7 so Teachers is used Isa 30.20 and Acts 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 29. yea that term is used sometimes to express the Private duties of private persons Heb. 5.12 2. By a modern usage these terms are used to express persons chosen or accepted by particular churches for the work of the ministry amongst them and restrained to that sense by what warrant I cannot tell If our Brethren state the question in the latter sense concerning Pastors and Teachers qua tales as such they have no adversaries for he that is pastor or teacher of a particular Church as he is such a pastor or teacher undoutedly hath not the Church universal for his correlate But our Brethren of the Province of London say truely that a Regular Pastor or Teacher of a particular Church hath besides a particular relation to them as their pastor and teacher which their election or submission to him or both have made them a relation also to the Church Universal as he is the minister of Jesus Christ set apart and ordained for the
for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. That they may do acts of office and authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him
say God sends men tâ— relieve the poor But be it so at present We say the written word commands none to Preach but such as are ordained Our Brethren only say gifted men are allowed and they may do it occasionally no more therefore say they they are not to be maintained 2. Besides sending makes them Officers who ever I send is my Officer the Kings Ambassador is his Officer and so by this Rule they are all Gods Officers no man can send another but he is in office as to that whereabout he is sent nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary If a man be an Officer before another Mission makes him still an Officer those sent Luke 10.1 were Officers by their Mission though Mission may be repealed and yet the Office not lost yet Mission makes an Officer My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer as to that business and if I send him a second time my second sending makes him my Officer too I see no contradiction in that when the work is enlarged as in those instances Matth. 10.5 6 7. Matth. 28.19 Nor will it follow that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers because it is said How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard or how can they hear without a Preacher c. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases else a man may believe without hearing suppose a man be deaf and hear without a Preacher too c. 3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Providential sending and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach if God doth not by his providence direct or permit them to Preach if God doth not give them legs to stand and a tongue to speak Hence it follows That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is denied as if a man should say How can a man see if his eyes be out And this our Brethren own pag. 137. for they say all the other interrogations deny a natural possibility Christian Reader doest not thou think this had been a great Gospel-Mysterie worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans none could preach if they had no tongue to speak or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where But to evince this to be a vanity 1. If this notion of sending be true then none can run before they are sent for all motions are under the providence of God But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent 2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned 1 Tim. 3.6 were sent for they could never creep into houses but by divine providence Object But say our Brethren Gods command in his word must concur with his providence Answ What command is that 1 Pet. 4.10 say our Brethren As every one hath received the gift let him minister But say these men we have received the gift therefore we are sent who shall judge now Not the Presbyterie say our Brethren nor is it necessary the Church should say they Ergo t is enough they say they have and you ought to believe them and look upon them as sent till the great day comes which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order can any one think which Jesus Christ hath taken for his Church But I need not multiply words here our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending unless the Person â—o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word and they can shew no command conclusive in the case but for such as are otherwise sent then meerly gifted and providentially disposed Only I must examine their reasons why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended though we only contend it to be the ordinary Mission and that alone which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased as our Brethren easily will grant they be They say 1. They no where finde Ordination called Mission But this falls as heavily on our Brethren for they cannot finde us any Text where the Command of God in his written word is called sending 2. We find Acts 13.3 Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas They fasted and prayed and laid their hands on thâ—m and sent them away if the last words be not exegetical of the former our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth in sending them that is called by that name 2. Because our Brethren finde Deacons were ordained but they do not finde they were sent It doth not follow that because the Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending on the Churches part therefore no Ordination is or may where the persons are ordained Officers to more then those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them 3. Because Mission may be repealed but not Ordination According to our Brethrens principles Ordination also may But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned Matth. 10.5 6 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission we do not say Ordination is so There was a new work to do but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do which shall need require a new ordination 4. Our Brethren say None can send to themselves But a Church which hath a Presbyterie may Ordain its own Officers Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers no more will I if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Churches have excepting onely Cases of necessity but although a Church cannot send to its self yet it may send one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member a Citizen of Norwich may properly enough send a Message to the Corporation though himself be a Member of that Corporation and the person thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholick Church to all which he is sent And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15 My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a topick From the contrary practise and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches and all Reformed Churches Our Brethren make light of this But in cases where the Scripture speaks at best but so darkly on our Brethrens side and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty we think it very much if we can say with the Apostle If any list to be contentious we have no such custom neither we nor the Churches of Christ And in cases which are dark we follow the guidance of Christ while we walk by the footsteps of the flock and feed our kidds by the shepherds tents Cant. 1.8 CHAP. VI. Containing a review of some passages in our Brethrens Book and in my answer where is examined whether the Baptism of Christ and John are according to our Brethrens sense to be distinguished Our Brethrens three Texts for Election by a particular Church arâ—
it was given to them as their concernment it says not It saith Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly the crowd of names present was an hundred and twenty the word signifies a company of persons a multitude Mat. 4.25 Matth. 5.1.7.28 By Disciples ver 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant who are very often in Scripture distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multitude as Matth. 13.34 Matth. 9.36 37. and in many other Texts Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles and said to them in the hearing of the multitude I know the term disciple is sometimes taken in a larger notion but it seems to be here distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure I am our Brethren can give no sufficient reason to shew that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles not exclusively to others but emphatically and more eminently than others called Disciples as in many other Texts and if this sense be allowed they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two verse 25. according to our Brethrens own Argument 3. But lastly It is a plain case God here chose for two stood forth or were set forth when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle till God made the choice Hence it is plain that from this Text nothing can be concluded 1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor 2. It doth not say any chose them But they stood 3. If any did choose probably they were only the Apostles called Disciples by way of emphatical distinction 4. The truth is it was God who made choice If therefore our Brethren could prove that the Brethren set these two before the Apostles and as they say in doing that did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer yet this was just nothing for nothing was needfull from them in that Case Their second Scripture is that Act. 6. v. 1 2 3 4 5 6. where it is expresly said that the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples and said Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report c. In the former Argument our Brethren argued thus If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer then they ought to choose the less Here now they argue quite contrary If they ought to choose the less then they ought to choose the greater Surely both these Arguments cannot hold being both made affirmatively But as to the present Argument stated thus If the Church mentioned Act. 6. v. 3 4. c. ought to choose Deacons then a particular Church now ought to choose her Pastors But the Church Acts 6. chose her Deacons Ergo. 1. We deny the consequence 2. We deny the Assumption I will offer Reasons for both 1. For the denial of the Consequence 1. It is plain that Church Acts 6. was the universal Church as well as a particular Church as Adam though a particular man yet was at that time all mankinde nor is this nonsense for by universal Church I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth in which were Catholick Officers it was furnished with twelve Apostles 2. It is plain that the persons choosing were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen and they had discerning Spirits Act. 2. Act. 4.31 No particular Church now can pretend to any such thing 3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative from the lesser to the greater particularly it will not hold in this Case That in most cases it will not hold is evident none can argue thus if a man can carry a thousand weight much more an hundred thousand If my Friend will give me a nights lodging he will much more give me his house and land or a lodging in his house as long as I live On the other side it is true in some cases it will hold But not to run into a Logical dispute The present Question is How far it is lawfull to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another Our Brethren will grant that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers is moral not natural viz. such a power as they have from the will of God Now as to this I say 1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely and may make it lawfull to choose the greater and yet unlawfull to choose the less as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choose Parliament men and yet not Lawfull for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace and so again to choose the less and not the greater as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choose a Constable of a Parish and yet not lawfull for them to choose a Colonel of an Army or a Justice of the Peace so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law but the Law of God must justifie the Consequence so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is 2. It is probable that the Lord who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage Our Brethren must say no more than it is probable And then we answer 1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scripture is not a certain Rule for us to walk by 2. We say it is not probable because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon than of a Pastor 2. Because this Church was more able to judge â—f both than any Church is now Our Brethren see what they are come to 1. They â—rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church to other Churches the least members of the universal Church not in the least measure so gifted from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight 2. When all is done they argue it but probable â—nd this probable hath a great improbability attending â—t too 3. From a choice limited as to the persons to be chosen Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose yet the Argument is a lamentable Non sequitur But to their Minor Are our Brethren sure that either the whole or the major part of the Church here made the choice Our Brethren have to prove it ver 2. The twelve called the multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude in the Original all the multitude