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
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
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
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