is not any Constitution for the peoples conveying the office-Office-power to Ministers 2. If the word jurisdiction be taken strictly there is a difference made between Ordination and Jurisdiction but if by an act of Iurisdiction they mean nothing else but an act of Authority for that is the thing in question then we have before proved that it is an act of Authority and it were easie to make it good by Arguments We never find Ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament but by persons in authority towards their inferiours Moses Ordained Aaron Aaron his sons Christ his Apostles the Apostles other Ministers And if in all these it be granted to be an act of Authority surely to deny it to be so in other Ministers carrying on the same work is an assertion neither true nor probable Again Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in Office and therefore must be an act of authority But I must remember my work is not now to prove but to answer and therefore I forbear and shall give my self and the Reader a writ of ease Only that the Reader may see the fruit of our Brethrens opinion as indeed posito uno absurdo sequuntur mille I shall present him with a list of some novel and strange assertions which they have been hurried into by the force of their principles Novel and strange passages 1. They implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Iews as a teacher by Office for thus they say p. 13. A man is not a teacher by Office to all that he may preach to If he preach to Heathens such as will not receive iustruction yet they are said to be taught though they stumble at the Word Mat. 13. 54. He i. e. Jesus taught them and yet v. 57. they were offended at him But a man is not a teacher by Office unto such heathens And the Apostles according to them were no Officers to Heathens for they thus argue pag. 18. That such are no Officers to people as cannot exercise Church-government over them But say I the Apostles cannot exercise Church-government over heathens What have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo. 2. One that is really gifted for preaching for ought we know may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others p. o. 3. It is the work of God and Christ onely to send Preachers let it be proved wherever a Presbytery was impowred to send pag. 126. And the Church is in no better case with them for they say The person sending is Christ neither a Church nor a presbytery pag. 125. And afterwards Sending is nothing else but Christ commanding to go and preach not by a Presbytery but by the word And how a Presbytery can send but by exhorting to follow the command of Christ we know not And in such a doctrinall way for ought we see a private Christian may exhort to go and teach pag. 130. So that now both Presbytery and Church are thrust out of Office and every one that is apt to teach is commanded to preach though neither Presbytery nor Church send him And every private Christian hath as great a power to send Ministers as either Church or Presbytery which who can read without wonder 4. If the Major part of a Congregation be wicked we suppose then it is no true Church and if once it were a true Church yet now it ceaseth to be so or is unchurched pag. 237. 5. They talk of Pastors administring the Sacraments not as Pastors for thus they say If Pastors preach and give the Sacraments to their own flock they act as Pastors but if they perform these acts to any not of their own Congregation they do it not as Pastors pag. 280. Then they do it as gifted-men for that is the other branch of the distinction He that preacheth to strangers not as a Pastor preacheth as a gifted-brother that they grant And therefore he that administreth the Sacraments to any not as a Pastor doth it as a gifted-brother 6. We see no inconvenience in asserting that heathens converted to Christianity may be a Church before they be baptized pag. 288. 7. A minister as oft as hee changeth his place and people needeth a new ordination pag. 290. 8. They say It is our mistake when we assert that Baptisme doth admit or make a man stand in relation to a Church whereas baptizing is not into a Church but into the name of Christ pag. 292. 9. They say If a people turn hereticall or starve a Minister or combine to vote him out the sin of the people doth nullify the office of the Minister pag. 296. And that I may tread in our brethrens steps who were so ready to catch at the appearance of a contradiction in the Provinciall Assembly I shall put them in mind of two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeming repugnancies at least if not grosse contradictions Self contradicting passages They say pag. 20. that one that is really gifted for preaching may for ought we know lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others pag. 20. And they urge 1 Pet. 4. 11. to prove it the duty of gifted persons to preach and surely if it be a duty then it obligeth whensoever a man may do it lawfully And yet pag. 149. they say We grant that to a mans exercise of his gifts in this or that place there is praerequired a call from the people or Magistrate And how can any man preach but he must preach in this or that place Quod nusquam fit non fit 2. They say When an ordained Minister removes from one charge to another They chuse him not as one that is to be made a Minister but as one already made and now to be made their Minister pag. 300. And yet pag. 302. They say when he removes he is to have a new Ordination and a new Election The Gospel knoweth no difference between making a man a Minister and making him their Minister pag. 302. 3. They say Men to be sent to the heathens to convert them should be Ordained because the conversion of soules is a proper work of the Ministry pag. 300. And yet pag. 302. they say When men are sent to heathens if they be Officers yet they preach not as Officers The conversion of souls is the work of the Ministry not the proper work FINIS Suarez Metap Predestinati nondum congregati Aug. right foot Hammond Selden Analogum per se positum sumâ—â—ur pro famosiore analogata
is to preach with all Authority Strangers are as well obliged to obey him as his own people 2. Even Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them and that not only ex vi materiae because of the matter they treat of but virtute muneris by vertue of their Office He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Luke 10. 16. And therefore as the Jews and Heathens were bound to hear Christ not only in regard of his message which he brings but also in respect of his Office as he was the Mediator and the great Prophet in the Church Deut. 18 15 19. So also it is with Ministers who act as in Christs stead they are to be heard even by Heathens for their Office sake as well as for their Doctrine And those Jews or Heathens which disobeyed the Doctrine of the Apostles are not only charged with the guilt of rejecting the truth but also of contemning the Persons and Offices of the Apostles which could not have been if the Apostles had not preached as Officers to such And surely it must needs be reputed strange doctrine to say that a Minister yea an Apostle preaching to Heathens doth preach no more authoritatively than any woman or child that is occasionally discoursing to such of the things of God The Apostles might challenge Maintenance of those Heathens to whom they preached Mat. 10. 10. 1 Cor 9. which such women and children could not pretend to which clearly demonstrates that the Apostles preached not as gifted persons but as Officers to them The Apostles preaching to such had a power authoritatively to pronounce pardon or to denounce wrath to them upon their believing or disobeying which are the two acts of the Keys and which to do requires an Office-relation to them If it be objected that this may be true of the Apostles that they were Ambassadors and preached as Ambassadors to Heathens and yet not true of ordinary Pastours I answer either ordinary ministers are Ambassadors or else Christ hath not had any Ambassadors in the world since the daies of the Apostles But Christ hath had and hath Ambassadors still in the world therefore Ministers are ordinary Ambassadors the Major is plain for if only extraordinary Officers be Ambassadors then where there are no such extraordinary Officers there are no Ambassadors The Minor also is no lesse clear that the Office of Gospel Ambassadors was a continuing Ordinance and it is most ridiculous to think that while the design and work of the Ambassador lasts his Office should not continue and besides Christ hath perpetuated the Office Mat. 28. 19 20. If it be said they are Ambassadors indeed but it is to their own people not to Heathens I answer yes rather they are Ambassadors to Heathens for as the great work of other Ambassadors is to make peace so also Gospel-Ambassadors their great businesse is to beseech men to be reconciled to God and therefore their principal object is not the Church who are already supposed to be reconciled but Heathens and Strangers who are yet unreconciled and seeing ordinary Ministers preaching to Heathens have a power upon their repentance to remit sin i. e. To declare their sins remitted officially it must needs follow that they are Ambassadors to such And the Apostle in this place ascribes both the name and work of Ambassadors unto ordinary Ministers speaking in the plural number We then as Ambassadors c. And he attributes the name to himself upon a ground common with him to ordinary Ministers i. e. because he besought them as in Christs stead to be reconciled to God and as we rightly infer the assurance of salvation of ordinary believers from the Apostles assurance because he fixeth his assurance not upon any peculiar revelation but upon grounds common to all Christians so may we that are ordinary Ministers justly take to our selves the Name and Office of Ambassadors because the Apostles assum'd it upon such grounds as are common to all Ministers and not upon such as are peculiar to the Apostolical Dignity And this may suffice for the enforcement of this second argument but there is one block that must be removed It is plausibly objected by Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepheard in there answer to the nine Questions That Ministers though Officers to their own Flock yet may do the acts of their Office towards others as a Steward of an house acteth as an Officer in the entertainment of strangers c. And thus Ministers may preach as Officers to others and yet be only Officers to their own Congregations To this I answer 1. This concerns not our Brethren here who do possitively determine that Ministers preaching to others do preach only as gifted men not as Officers p. 18. So that I might without disparagement wave this Objection 2. This is a meer fallacy the resemblance it self is misunderstood or mis-applied for a Steward of an house it is true he acts as a Steward in the entertainment of strangers but how he acts as the Steward of that house not as a Steward to them whom he entertains But a Minister preacheth as an Officer with authority not only in relation to his own Church but any others that occasionally hear him as hath been proved And yet 3. If the similitude were well laid there is a further dissimilitude in the case in hand for a Steward of an house is a Steward only to that particular Family but Ministers are Stewards to the whole Church all which is called one family and one houshold 1 Tim. 3. 15. How thou shouldst behave thy self in the house of God Gal. 6. 10. Do good to all especially the houshold of faith Eph. 2. 19. You are fellow Citizens of the Saints and of the houshold of God And the reason why the Steward of an house is no Officer to strangers is because the Lord that makes him a Steward hath no authority to make him a Steward over strangers nor further then his house or jurisdiction reacheth But Christ who makes Ministers Stewards hath authority to make them such over the whole Church yea over Heathens and indeed so he hath done as the former Arguments have proved and he requires of the world to own his Ministers as Ambassadors and will severely punish their rejection and contempt of them The third and last argument shall be this If the conversion of Heathens c. be the principal ground and end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted and the principal work of the Ministry then the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens But the conversion of Heathens c. is the principal end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted and the principal work of the Ministry so instituted Therefore the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens For the major it is evident from the very terms every Minister is unquestionably related to those among whom his work lies And as it is plain in Christ Jesus our great
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
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
be able to judge of a Ministers fitnesse and by consequence it follows that the people are not intrusted with giving the essence of the Ministeriall Call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the thing to be shewn And thus much might serve for that point Onely whereas there were divers Arguments urged by the Assembly to shew that the Essence of the Call did not lie in Election which our Brethren here praetend to answer I am under some necessity of attending their motion But because some of them do manifestly refer to such things as have been fully discussed before I shall not need to follow them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely take notice of such things as have hitherto been omitted or are now more strongly fortified 1. It was argued from Acts 6. Where the Apostles are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to constitute appoint Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. They answer If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken for the constituting act in some places so is the word chusing taken for the constituting act in other places Luke 6. 13. And of them he chose twelve whom he named Apostles and the people here are said to chuse and that expresseth the putting of a man into office Reply It is true when chusing is put by it self it may signifie an appointing if it be ascribed to one that hath a power to appoint as it is Luke 6. But it is far otherwise where chusing and appointing are distinguished from and opposed to one another and the act of chusing ascribed to the inferiours the people and the act of appointing asscribed to the superiours the Apostles in such a case to say chusing is appointing or to say that the constituting act was that which was done by the inferiours is but one remove from impossible that I say not ridiculous 2. It was argued from Tit. 1. 5. I left thee in Creet to ordaine c. what was he left there to give an adjunct of their call It must be considered in what state the Church then was and how usefull the paines of Titus might have been in other places which necessarily called for his help so that we may rationally conclude if the people could have given the Essence of the Call without him and if Ordination had been but an unnecessary Adjunct it is no way credible that the Apostle would have diverted Titus from so great essentiall and excellent a service for the doing of a businesse which was but circumstantiall The onely answer they give that signifies any thing is this That Titus was left in Creet not onely to ordaine Elders but also to set in order the things that are wanting But that relieves them not for the setting of things in order it which concerns onely the well being of the Church was not to be put in competition with those other glorious services which Titus might have done in the mean time and which concern the very Essence of the Church â—2 It was argued from the nature of Election of a people which is not the making of a man a Minister but their Minister The people Deut. 1. 13. did look out men but it was Moses that made them Rulers If the people have not office power neither formally nor eminently they cannot make an Officer for nihil dat quod non habet They answer many things 1. That Election makes a man a Minister Reply That is a meer begging of the question 2. The act of Moses is not parallel either with Ordination or Election but rather with Christs act in making Church-Officers because onely Christ is the King of the Church as onely Moses was the supreme Magistrate Reply 1. To speak strictly not Moses but God was the supreme Magistrate of the Iewes and that policy was not a Monarchy but a Theocrasy as Iosephus well calls it and Moses indeed had no regall nor arbitrary power at all but was onely Gods Secretary to write his mind and Gods instrument to publish and execute Gods lawes And look what Moses was to the Iewes that are Ministers unto the Church Moses was the publick interpreter of Gods Law and Gods Vice-gerent who in Gods Name and according to Gods Word was to governe the people and they were to be ruled by him and albeit in some cases the people might have the power of Election yet indeed it was Moses his act which was the constituting act in the creation of Officers Just thus it is in our case Ministers are the publick interpreters of Christs lawes and Christs Vicegerents who in Christs name and according to Christs word are to governe the people and they are to be ruled by them And albeit the people have a power of Election yet indeed it is the act of the Ministers which is the constituting act of an Officer So that here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers in both it is depending and limited onely the one is Civil the other Ecclesiasticall 3. That rule they say is not universally true nihil dat quod non habet for freeholders by chusing may make Burgesses and Parliament men The freemen of a Corporation give the essentialls of their call to a Bailiffe and why may it not be thus with the Church Answ. There is dispar ratio Because all things are to be regulated by law and institution Civill things by a civill institution and Ecclesiasticall things by a divine institution Now what such freemen c. do they have a charter and a warrant for whereby they are quantum ad hoc authorized for the work If our brethren can shew a parallel divine institution for the peoples being authorized to give the Essentials of the call to a Minister then they do their businesse But that they have not been able to do In these cases the people have such office-power eminently in them though not formally And though each of the people considered distributively are inferiour to such a Magistrate after he is chosen yet all the people taken collectively are as to that act superiour to him who is to be chosen Another Argument was this That if the essence of the call lie in Election then it will follow that a Minister is onely a Minister to his particular charge and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place which is a strange and false assertion And this the Assembly prove by diverse considerations and Arguments to which our brethren answer But because all that is here said doth more properly belong to that former question i. e. whether a Minister be a Minister onely to his own particular Church c. I thought it more meet to bring it in there and thither I refer the reader for a reply to all that here they say which hath any sinews or substance in it Againe the Provinc urged this That thence it will follow that there must be Churches before Ministers which cannot be for every Church must
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
or Rulers not as if there was any defect in his authority but only because there is a manifest inconveniency and disorder in such a promiscuous and unlicensed exercise which therfore is unlawful because it is repugnant to Order and obstructive to Edification and this is the case of ordinary Pastors II. I shall premise another Consideration which being well digested is sufficient to enervate all that is said by our Brethren as to this point it is this A generall respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church Suppose one having a vast number of sheep needeth and chuseth twenty Shepheards to look to his sheep and these shepheards because each of them cannot possibly look to all do therefore distribute the sheep into twenty parcels and each undertakes to look to his share yet so as that in things of common concernment to all the sheep they all meet and consult together c. but in matters of private concernment every man looks to his own parcel In this case every shepheard hath a double relation the one general to the whole the other particular to his own parcel which he doth more especially take care for and feed and keep and watch over c. And in case any of those sheep which properly belong not to his charge go astray if he see them and can keep them in he is obliged by vertue of his office to do it and if through his neglect they miscarry he doth not only sin against Charity but against his Office This is the case of the Church and so it was out of doubt with the Apostles unto whom Christ committed the care of his sheep indefinitely And because each of them could not look to all therefore the sheep were divided into parcels and every Apostle takes upon himself a special relation unto some one parcel and had his proper line 2 Cor. 10. And because the sheep multiplied so fast that to look to them all was a work too heavy for the Apostles shoulders therefore the Flock was divided into more parcels and they ordained more shepheards who although peculiarly entrusted with their proper Charge yet were not freed from their Care of the whole but in things of common concernment did meet together with the Apostles in their daies Act. 15. And afterwards among themselves Or as it is in Germany where every Elector and Prince of the Empire sustains a double relation He is related more especially to his owne peculiar Territory to which he is an Officer acting ordinarily and constantly c. But over and besides his he hath a general relation to the whole Empire and is an Officer to the whole not singly and by himself but together with others being intrusted with a joint-power of governing the whole as in case of chusing of an Emperor or other weighty affairs of the Empire as the necessities and occasions of the Empire require Just so it is in the Church which is one entire body as the Empire is governed by one Systeme of laws and molded under one Government every Minister hath a double relation the one special and peculiar to his owne Flock which he is to feed constantly the other general to the whole Church which he is to feed occasionally as far as his ability will reach and as the Churches exigencies command and which he together with others hath a power to govern This will be put out of doubt by considering more fully that which even now was intimated of the Apostles themselves who also had this double relation one to the whole whereby they were Pastors of the whole Church and yet because they could not possibly each of them look to all the Churches therefore the work was divided among them and they undertook a special relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles Iames to Ierusalem c. Which division did not proceed from any defect of authority in the Apostles to feed the whole but from the impossibility of the thing in regard of the vastnesse of the work and because they were to carry on all Church-work as most suited with edification In like manner we that are ordinary Pastors sequimur patres non passibus aequis and though every Minister is a Minister of the whole Church and hath an Authority extending to it suo modo yet because it is impossible for every one to look to every Church and all things are to be managed with special respect to the Churches edification therefore Ministers are forced to divide the work both as to Teaching and Ruling yet so as that there still remains a relation to the whole whereby he is obliged to teach and with others to rule other Churches so far forth as his ability reacheth and the Churches necessities require And by the way I cannot but take notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which is the great Rule in all Church-administrations for a Minister may jointly with others rule a far greater proportion than he can teach David as a King could rule all Israel but David as a Prophet could not vivâ voce teach all Israel at least not ordinarily and constantly And the Apostles though it was impossible for every one of them actually to teach every Church they neither could do it nor did it yet it was possible for each Apostle joyntly with the rest to govern every Church and they did actually rule all the Churches at least all the Churches there mentioned in that famous Synod Acts 15. in which whether they acted as Apostles or as ordinary Elders all is one to the present Question And this may serve for Answer to that specious Argument so much insisted on by the Reverend and Learned dissenters taken from the conjunction of Teaching and Ruling These things premised I shall now come to the Arguments And here I shall have a double work 1. To lay down an Argument or two to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to more than their own particular Churches 2. To Answer their Arguments and to justifie those inconveniences objected by the Provincial Assembly to the contrary Opinion For the former I shall not here dilate only I shall propound three Arguments The first Argument is this If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens then they are not Officers only to their particular Congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens The Minor is the only Proposition that can be denied and that I shall now endeavour to prove 1. The case is plain in the Apostles That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel-Church was erected is undeniable and appears plainly from Mat. 28. The Apostles at that time were Officers for they had actually received their Commission they being relata must have a correlatum A correlate
not of Ministers A minore ad majus non valet argumentum affirmativè To this they Answer That we use that kind of arguing when we argue thus We use Ordination in the choice of Deacons Ergo of Ministers much more so Christ argues from the lesse to the greater God takes care of Lillies Ravens c. Ergo he will much more take care of you Mat. 6. Reply Our Brethrens answer runs upon a grosse mistake for they inconsideratly confound two Canons which vastly differ though both of them belong to the same Topick 1. Their Argument is fetcht from this Canon Cui competit minus competit majus If a power of choosing Deacons which is the lesse belongs to the people then a power of choosing Ministers which is the greater belongs to them To this the Assembly well answered A minori ad majus non valet affirmativè It is very false to argue thus The power of choosing a Captaine belongs to the Colonel Ergo the power of chusing a Generall belongs to him Or thus The members of such a Company have a power to chuse their own Officers which is the lesse and therefore they have a power to chuse the City Officers which is the greater It is a true Rule A majori ad minus valet affirmativè i. e. Cui competit majus competit minus But it is false to argue A minori ad majus affirmativè or thus Cui competit minus competit majus 2. But there is another Canon much differing from the former and that is this Quod competit minori competit etiam majori If Ordination was required to the meaner and lesse considerable Office which is that of the Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office And this was the Argument used by the Assembly And to this belongs the Argument Mat. 6. 26. If the care of Gods Providence reacheth to lillies which are the lesse much more will it reach to you which are the greater The third Text alledged for the peoples election was Act. 14. 23. When they had created them elders by suffrages for so they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally used in every City And this they say may have reference to the disciples as well as to Paul and Barnabas for they were spoken of before Reply One would think nothing more can be said or desired by any sober man for the elucidation and vindication of this Text then the making out of these two things 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used for a simple chusing or appointing though without suffrages 2. That it cannot be taken here for chusing by suffrages From these two it followes most evidently and irrefragably that this place which is alledged as a pillar to prove the peoples election c. doth no wayes inforce it but rather overthrow it For the first that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not alwayes used for a chusing by suffrages but oft times for a simple chusing or appointing c. is most plaine from Acts 10. 41. and may be made good by a multitude of instances for which the Provinciall Assembly referred you to other Authors and especially Selden de Synedriis it being needlesse to transcribe 3. How oft the use of words varies from the etymologie no man can be ignorant that is not wholly a stranger to the Greek tongue But our Brethren say it is strange that Luke should use the word in such a sense as was different from the custome of all that writ before him I answer 1. It is so used by others as was now said 2. It is no new thing to find a word used in Scripture in a different sense from that which it hath in other Authors And if our Brethren acknowledge that Luke useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 10. 41. in a sense never used in any Author before him Why may we not expect the same favour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Although this if nothing else could be said were sufficient to answer their Argument which is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it be incumbent upon them to shew that the word must needs be so understood in this place yet ex abundanti we assert That this word cannot be taken in their sense And in this case by their own allowance we may recede from the native signification of the word because it is repugnant to the context And for proof of this I shall but desire any candid Reader diligently to read the whole context especially in the Greek tongue And I perswade my self he will judge it but a few removes from an impossibility to understand it in our Brethrens sense 1. They are said to ordaine to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it should have been if the people had done it And although it be true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet that is but seldome and then also it is for the most part aspirated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the common use of the word by which our Brethren will have us guided in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore we expect the like from them in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say the common use of the word is otherwise and especially this is considerable if you take notice of other circumstances which oblige us to this sense as namely 2. The same persons are said to ordaine in severall Cities and Churches Therefore it must needs be meant of them that had an authority over severall Churches 3. They ordained c. who going away commended the people to the Lord and surely that was the Apostles it is a lamentable shift to say That the disciples are spoken of in the foregoing verse and therefore it may be understood of them True they are spoken of and so are the Apostles spoken of and seeing both are spoken of we must inquire to whom this must be referred and for that the very first rudiments of Grammer will determine that the reference must be towords of the same case Now then in the 22. verse the disciples are spoken of in the Accusative case and as passive under the Apostles confirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by no meanes agrees as being active and of the Nominative case But now if you understand it of the Apostles all things run handsomly The same persons are brought in as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. c. all of them of the Nominative case and the active signification And whoever take out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all the rest wherewith it is hedged in on both sides as
consist of persons baptized and baptize them none can but he that is a Minister Christ therefore chose Apostles before Churches and the Apostles ordained elders to gather Churches To this they answer 1. A Church must needs be before an officer because he that is an officer is made an officer onely to a Church and therefore the Church is presupposed Reply This is a meer begging of the question and we have already at large confuted it and shewen that a Minister is an officer and acts as an officer even to such as are no Church 2. The Apostles were extraordinary officers and therefore that instance proves not that ordinary officers must be before Churches Reply Our brethren must take heed of denying the exemplarinesse of the Apostles to ordinary Ministers in the administration of Church affaires They themselves do oft make use of it And it cannot be denyed by any rationall or ingenious man that the Apostles as in some things they did act as extraordinary officers and are no president for us as in single and absolute jurisdiction c. so in other things their acts were ordinary and there examples binding as to us as their preaching baptizing c. And that this case is of the same nature may appeare from hence because the same reason which made it necessary foâ— Apostles to be before Churches made it also necessary for other Ministers to be before them For the reason why the Apostles were to be before Churches was this because by them Churches were to be gathered and baptized And thus it was with the ordinary Ministers of those times they also were instituted then and are so now by that lasting institution Eph 4 11. c. not onely for the building up of Churches already constituted but also for the bringing in of those who are not yet gathered and therefore it was and is necessary still that Ministers be before Churches 3. They say Acts 14. 23. When they had chosen them elders in every Church the Churches therefore were before the chusing of elders Reply 1. That instance doth not at all enervate our assertion for although some Churches may be before some elders which we never denyed yet in the generall a Minister must needs be before a Church And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of those arguments which the Assembly used to shew that the essence of the call doth not lie in election It now remaines that I undertake the defence of those arguments which they used to shew that the essence of the Ministeriall call doth consist in ordination Wherein I must still crave the continuance of the liberty I have used i. e. not put my self or the reader to unnecessary trouble in animadverting upon every passage but onely to observe such things as are argumentative and have not yet falne within our cognizance CHAP. XIIII THE Assembly urged 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. They answer 1. It is questionable whether laying on of hands be here meant of ordination for that ceremony was used in the collation of gifts also Reply But forasmuch as this laying on of hands was done by an ordinary Presbytery which had not such a power of conferring gifts by the laying on of hands that being the peculiar priviledge of extraordinary officers therefore it cannot here be rationally supposed to be so used in this place but onely for ordination And therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here said to be conveyed must needs be rather concluded to be an office which we often read to have been conferred by ordinary officers then a gift which we never read that an ordinary officer was intrusted to convey But that our brethren will not beare with For 2. They say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an office and here they repeat Mr. Hookers reasons so that in answering one I shall answer both and I must needs acknowledge that what is spoken upon this place is said very plausibly 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most commonly signifies gift not office 2. A man is not said to forget the office that is in him he is in his office rather then his office in him a man is said to stirre up his grace not his office 3. An extraordinary office such as this was could not be collated by ordinary officers Lastly they observe that this gift is said to be given not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the laying on of their hands as the cause but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with noting onely the concurrence and connexion To all which I reply 1. That both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in scripture for office as well as gift our brethren themselves will grant so that the word being indifferent we must see which way other considerations will determine it For the second where most difficulty lies I reply 1. A man may properly be said to neglect his office or to disregard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carelesse in his office or in the execution of his office I know no absurdity in it either in the English or in the Greeke Tongue If a Magistrate be slothfull carelesse c. we may properly say he neglects that Office that God hath put him in he neglects his place And as a man is said to neglect himselfe when he neglects those things and those actions which concerne himself so a man neglects his office that neglects the works of his office So for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strip it of the metaphor and it is no more but this put forth actuate exercise thine office Pauls bidding him stirre up his Ministry is no more then what elsewhere he bids him fulfill thy Ministry do the work of an Evangelist He that neglects the work of his Ministry invalidates his office disuseth neglects his office and he that fulfils the works of his Ministry stirres up his office For that other criticisme that a man is in his office not his office in him the office is adâ—oyned to him not inhaerent in him that is hardly worth taking notice of because the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used so variously sometimes for one preposition sometimes for another sometimes for that which is inherent in him sometime for that which is adjoyning to him as all know that are not wholly strangers to the Greek Tongue that it is a vanity to lay any stresse upon it Sometimes it is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and sometimes in for apud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for a man to be apud se for a man not to be besides himself so here the Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apudte with thee which is committed to thee And as men are said to be in sin though indeed it is sin that is in them and they are said to enter into their masters joy though to
Assembly gives such satisfying Answers that I wonder how our Brethren could resist the evidence of them and indeed their Replies are so inconsiderable that I count it but lost time to make a rejoynder and all that I shall desire of the Reader is this That he would but use his reason and lay aside his passion and prejudice and compare what is said on both hands together and I doubt not he will see that all their assaults against them are but like the dashings of the waves against a rock whereby they break themselves to pieces But if all that satisfie not I shall adde two Answers more 1. Extraordinary instances are no presidents for ordinary cases This was apparently an extraordinary case The Levites and Church-Officers were not yet instituted and to argue thus that because the people did lay on hands before those Church-Officers were created who were afterwards to do it therefore they might do it when such Officers were created and appointed for that work It were as if a man should argue Gifted men may preach where there are no Apostles nor Ministers to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers Or thus David might eat the shew-bread when he could get no other therefore any man may eat it when his table was spread with other bread 2. Forasmuch as it is ridiculous to think that all Israel did lay their hands upon the heads of the Levites therefore this was onely some of them and those some no doubt were the first-born Now it must be remembred that as the Levites were taken instead of the first-born Num. 8. 16 17. so the first-born till then were in stead of the Levites and till God instituted the Ecclesiasticall Offices and Officers in Israel the first-born were Officers and so it concerns not the people at all nor proves any right in them to do the same thing In the next place they come to answer some Arguments which are urged by the Assembly to prove that Ordination did not belong to the people Their Answers to the two first are nothing else but repetitions of what hath been already discussed and therefore I here wave them For the third the Assembly observed That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the party ordained is mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers not in those Epistles which are written to the Churches They answer 1. Charges may be directed to Officers and yet the people required to concurre as Rev. 2. and 3. If Timothy and Titus were to act these alone as Evangelists then they are no presidents for us if with others why not with the people as well as the Officers Reply They were to act alone in Ordination as Evangelists and yet are a president for us For here are two things to be considered 1. The work viz. of Ordination which was common and ordinary and this is imitable 2. The manner of doing it which was extraordinary i. e. by their single power and this is inimitable You will say If the manner of this Ordination was extraordinary then Timothy's practice in Ordination is no more a president for ordinary Officers Ordaining then for the people Ordaining I answer Yes There is a different reason because Timothy was one of the Officers or Persons ruling and an extraordinary one who alone might stand in the room of all other Officers it may be there were no Officers present when Timothy did ordaine however his acting in this as an Officer though extraordinary may well be president for his successors such as are Officers for the doing of the work which is ordinary though not for the doing of it by his single jurisdiction which was extraordinary But now on the other side for the people or the persons rulled Timothy was not one of them but sustained a distinct person from them and there were people at that time unquestionably present when ever Timothy and Titus Ordained and the people even in the dayes of those extraordinary Officers did retain their distinct liberties and exercise those things which did belong to them as people as is plain in the case of Election which they injoyned and practised And had Ordination belonged to the people as well as Election certainly notwithstanding the agency and presence of the Apostles therein yet we should have heard somewhat at least concerning the peoples concurrence which because we hear not a syllable of we therefore justly conclude that Election did and doth belong to the people but Ordination doth not I adde onely this That look what reasons our Brethren have to look on the Apostles c. Baptizing c. to be a president for Ministers Baptizing and not for the peoples baptizing the very same reasons have we to conclude that their Ordaining is a president for Officers Ordaining not for the Ordination of the people 2. They say All may be written to Timothy and Titus because they were to direct others how to act in them And therefore the Apostle writes to them about other things which yet were not to be acted by them alone but by the people as the making of prayers for Kings clothing of women in modest aparrel c. Reply By this Rule all things should have been written onely in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus for they were to direct the people in all other things But it is not simply the putting of a thing in this Epistle which makes that act peculiar to Officers But this is it which is justly insisted on and which our Brethren should do well againe to consider that Paul who was so carefull to order the affaires in every Church yet in all his Epistles to those Churches speakes not a word about the businesse of Ordination Surely the Scriptures silence is argumentative as well as its speech and it is oft urged in Scripture Melchisedek is said to be without Father c because the Scriture is silent as to his geniallogie so Heb. 6. our Lord sprang of Iuda of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Preisthood And surely it is not to no purpose that the Scripture is so silent as to the point of direction about the mission of Ministers in all those Epistles to people but insinuates thus much to impartiall Readers that the Holy Ghost looked upon the people as persons not intrusted with that work The last thing urged by the Assembly was this That Ordination is an authoritative mission an act of jurisdiction an act which gives the essentialls of the Call Private persons can no more conveigh power to another to administer Sacraments then they can do it themselves They answer That Ordination is no act of jurisdiction nor would it be so though it did convey the Office-power Freemen do convey Office-power to their Bailiffs c. yet do no act of jurisdiction Reply 1. This hath been answered before to wit Freemen have that power by a Constitution but there
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
to preach for then they sinne if they neglect it c. 9. None may do the work of a Magistrate or a Deacon who is not called to it and therefore none may without a call do the work of a Minister which is a work of far greater difficulty and more importance 10. None may administer the Sacraments because he is gifted unlesse withall he be solemnly set apart for the work Ergo none but such an one may preach for as much as God hath joyned both these together 11. Preaching is an act of authority and therefore must not be done by such as are under authority by such as are not officers 12. Scripture reproves uncalled men for Preaching 13. Christs Ministers have been alwayes carefull to prove their Calling as well as their Doctrine 14. Gifted men uncalled cannot Preach in Faith neither are they commanded to Preach nor People to hear them c. 15. All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance But all Gifted men though Preaching cannot challenge maintenance Therefore they are not Scripture-Preachers The Tenth Chapter concerns Doctor Collings and is by him answered CHAP. XI THus we have dispatched our main work now it onely remains that somewhat be spoken as to the businesse of Election and Ordination and here a threefold question should be ventilated 1. Whether Election by divine right belong to the people 2. Whether the essence of the Ministerial call consists in Election or Ordination 3. Whether Ordination may be done by the people For the First Whether Election by divine right belong to the people there is no need to say any thing about it because it hath been so fully ventilated by others only for those three places alledged in favour of this Election and answered by the Provincial Assembly which they have here undertaken to vindicate it will be convenient to say something as also of the absurdities objected by the Assembly to the Affirmative The first place is Acts 1. 23. It was answered 1. These words they appointed two do in all probability relate to the Apostles v. 5 17 21 22. To this our Brethren reply The exhortation about chusing was given to the 120 brethren and therefore they did chuse Reply It was not an exhortation to chuse nor a direction in chusing here is not a word of the knowledge piety prudence c. of the person to be chosen which useth to be the subject of the Apostles discourse when he exhorts to or directs in chusing but onely a declaration that one must be chosen which was very congruous and convenient whether the Apostles or people did appoint and however the Apostles might and did appoint yet it was fit the People should consent and be satisfied I forbear other things as to this place because they will recur in the next place whither I refer them only this I leave to the consideration of ingenuous men that it is at least doubtful who it was that are here said to appoint two the Grammatical construction and Logical connexion possibly will bear either I am sure it will beat the Apostles and therefore great stresse cannot be laid upon this place The next alledged Text is that Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons To which it was said That the people were guided and limited in their choice by the Apostles so that if they had swerved from the Apostles directions the Apostles would not have ordained them To this they Answer That Lawes and Rules directing in the choice hinders not the entireness of the choice A Corporation have entire power of chusing and yet are limited by Lawes Reply It is true Regulation by dead Lawes and Rules is no prejudice to the peoples sole power in election but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it to wit the regulation being such as here it is wherein the Apostles or their vicegerents the Ministers have not only a bare vote in the election but a negative voice whereby it is in their power either to chuse or refuse So it was here and therefore surely the Apostles had a share yea the great share in the choice and therefore the people had not the whole and sole power in the choosing of Deacons which was to be proved This case is not unlike our Colledges when the Fellowes have a power to chuse c. yet under the direction and regulation of the Master who hath a power to chuse or refuse the person chosen by the Fellowes Can any sober man in this case say that the sole power of choosing is in the Fellowes Is it not in the Master also And so it was in the Apostles 3. Our Brethren forget the maine thing that was driven at which by their own acknowledgement was this that The essence of the call consists not in Election and that plainly appeares from this place For if the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds I desire our Brethren to Answer whether they think they would have been Deacons notwithstanding whether the Apostles would or not If they say yea that is so injurious to the Apostles and their jurisdiction that they will have few followers if they say no then the essence of the call to the office of the Deacon and so of the Minister by their own Argument consists not in Election unlesse they will say that a man can be a Deacon and yet want the essence of a Deacon Excep If this Election had been frustraneous it had not been for want of Ordination but for the neglect of observation of Gospel-Rules in chusing Ans. Nay on the contrary it had been the want of Ordination For suppose the people had proceeded according to Goâ—pel-Rules in the Election and choosing a person visibly fit and the Apostles by the spirit of discerning seeing something in him which renders him unfit had denied Ordination In this case the Election had been null though according to Rule Ergo The want of Ordination makes it null efficiently or rather deficiently though the want of fit qualification makes it null meritoriously And againe let us suppose that both the people and the Apostles had not exactly kept to the Rule in choosing for the Apostles might erre in matters of fact though not in matters of doctrine and the people had chosen and the Apostles ordained a man not fit for the office according to rule in that case to say that this call had been null would be a venturous assertion It is harsh to say of every man chosen to the office of a Deacon who is not full of the holy Ghost and wisdome for those are the required qualifications that his choice is null I am confident our brethren have too much modesty to affirme it and if they do not affirme it then that which in this case had made the election null had not been the not observing of Gospel-Rules but the want of Ordination 2. It was said that though the people might have the sole power of chusing Deacons yet