thing Notatio saepe est inadaequata modo latior modo angustiâ—r saith the Logician But 2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally viz. All the titles and all the names we conceive their Argument very faulty for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City it doth not follow but that his title of Justice of the Peace hath the keeping of the Peace and the Statutes concerning Justices for the Correlate or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate 3. If our Brethren do say that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate we shall desire by the next to know whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers in the following Texts have the Church only for their Correlate 1 Tim. 2.7 2 Tim. 1.11 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14 Philip. 1.15 Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn to say that if the Question be asked To whom are they Officers the answer must be to the Church * 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked what is their office for what work is the office ordained The answer must be for the Preaching of the Gospel for the work of the Ministry The truth is The work is objectum quod the Church is objectum cui Both the Church and the imployment are the Correlates to this Relation the Church are the Correlated persons the work of the Ministry is the Correlated thing So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London for both the Church and the Employment are Correlates Nay under favour not the Church alone but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry as to Preaching The office of the Ministry was instituted as well for the gathering of the Saints as for the edifying of them as well for the perfecting of their number as for the perfecting of their graces Till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. Eph. 4.11 12 13. We can never believe that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother but as an officer of the Gospel Nay more God himself is the Correlate to this office and therefore they are called the Ministers of God the Ministers of Christ not Elders of the Church only or Ministers of the Church they are Gods Ministers in the Church and the Ministers of the Gospel in and for the Church and world too Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of the Church We can shew them many where they are called the Ministers of Christ of righteousness of the Gospel of Christ Now it is a rule Relata reciprocantur a Father is called the Father of such a Son and the Son is called the Son of such a Father But I say our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase when they call Ministers i. e. Preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church they are the Ministers of God and his Gospel in such a Church and they have some relation to the Church but not a more relation than they have to the work they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel is called their Gospel My Gospel saith Paul twice here is a plain reciprocation let them shew us the like if they can for their assertion otherwise we hope our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern And I earnestly beseech our Brethren that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies which have not as you see the least foundation either in Scripture reason or usage of any approved Authors In the mean time we will grant them that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office But if we would grant our Brethren that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate not to the work but to the Church I perceive this would not give them satisfaction unless we would also yield them that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church In opposition not only to the Church Catholick invisible viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad But to the Church Catholick visible in any notion The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion but we can by no meanes bow down unto it And therefore that 's the next thing we must bring to trial Only before we do it Give me leave to inform our Brethren in our notion of a Church though I shall better do it when I shall return to answer their Epistle The word which we translate Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetus evocatus voce praeconis of which our Brethren can make no advantage either from the Etymologie or from the usage of it in Scripture according to the first it signifies no more than a company called out it is both used by the Seventy interpreters to express the congregation of evil doers Psal 26.5 And by the Evangelist Luke to express a rout neither lawfully assembled nor yet united Acts 19.32 This word in it self as unhallowed as any other the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers company or Companies of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel Eph. 4.11 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvelous light Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into Invisible Visible The invisible Church is either Triumphant in heaven or Militant here upon the Earth The Visible Church is either Universal or Particular By the Church universal quatenus visible we mean The whole number of people over the face of the Earth called out of the Paganish world to the owning of the gospel of Christ which being an integral Body cons sting of homogeneous members or parts each part beareth the denomination of the whole hence that part of this body which is in a Nation Province parish c. is properly called the Church of God in such a Region Nation Province parish c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1.13 that is all that ownned the gospel whether in Jerusalem or in Damascus or the strange Cities Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11 all that called on Christs name whom
we grant but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny I shall have liberty to enter my dissent in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description First You say it is a company that we grant Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church Secondly You say it is a particular Company and that there never was nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ any other than a particular company I must confess to my dear Brethren that I cannot fathom their notion of particular we use to say particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis An universal theme in Logick is that as our Brethren know which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many I think Church is such a Theme Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant that their Congregations at London Norwich Yarmouth may each of them be called a Church Now the Question is whether all these Churches may not be considered together and called a Church Or if you will Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth may not by an universal notion be called a Church or is not called a Church in Scripture You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company but not an universal Church that is as I suppose you mean a body capable of Officers otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons who are visible Saints should be called a Church Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad p. 40. and seven hundred should not If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches Acts 8.3 Gal. 1.13 Acts 26.11 Acts 9.31 compared together Acts 12.1 Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 All these Texts will prove that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called But you will say This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it Brethren have you read what Mr. Hudson saith to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholick Do they not when they Baptize admit into the Catholick Church Pag. 232 why else are not your Members baptized again when they are translated from the particular Church into which according to this principle alone they were Baptized Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church Or will our Brethren say that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion Were the Apostles think our Brethren Officers only to a particular Church If to the Vniversal then there was an universal Church once existing capable of Officers Nor is that irrefragable Text 1 Cor. 12.28 as our Brethren say prest to the service of the Catholick Church No it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth You say Brethren that what it is written ver 18. of that chapter God hath set the Members every one in the body doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body as God hath set some in the Church proves a Catholick Vniversal Church I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body together with ver 12. and all the members of that one body being many are one body will prove that the body is Totum integrale So also saith the Apostle is Christ i. e. the Church of Christ If our Brethren will but grant us this That the Church is a Totum integrale you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum If you say there is no other Totum called a Church but only the particular Church I have proved the contrary that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church If you say this Church hath no Officers that Text 1 Cor. 12.28 confutes you neither will your consequence follow that because an universal body is not proved from ver 18. therefore an Vniversal Church is not proved from ver 28. viz. from the whole verse If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body but would serve any other particular bodies as he doth of Church Officers ver 28. I hope it would have proved an Vniversal body You tell us Brethren you renounce the name and thing of an Vniversal or Catholick Church you must then renounce the Holy Scripture witness the Texts before mentioned and renounce right reason and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren who generally acknowledge both the name and thing only deny it to be Organical But you think you have five Arguments will prove that a particular Church cannot be a part but a Totum 1. You say first every part is in power incompleat But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church And may act in all Church work not as a part but as a whole I must deny your Minor Brethren I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod and to consult at least a piece of Church work to which Gods word gives a power Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod We say the like for Ordination except in cases of absolute necessity and for excommunication where the Church is very small there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited 2. You tell us next that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is you know not This is Brethren such a fallacy as scarce deserveth an answer the body of a man is a whole all his members are parts now when you have found out where that body is which is really distinct from all the members and wherefore it is you will have answered your selves The Nation of England is a whole every Parish is a part finde us where that Nation is which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together We use to make this a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis unitis That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united 3. In the next place you tell us there can be no visible universal Church because
he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
there is no universal visible meeting and that the Greek word translated Church in all Civil and Sacred usage signifies a meeting in fieri or facto esse But you began to think that the invisible Church are never like to have such a meeting and therefore to salve it you heal this wound in your Argument in my opinion very slightly when you say it doth meet invisibly in Spirit If you will but grant us that Brethren that the name of Church in Scripture is given to those that never locally meet but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit you have by an unhappy heel kicked down all that good milk which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it it speaks of the Church of the first-born There is an universal meeting of the Catholick visible Church at the throne of Grace before their great Pastor and in Spirit as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first you have quitted your plea for the visibility to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick visible from any hurt by this Argument 4. You go on Brethren and tell us There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church Ergo there is no such Church If you had expressed the Major Proposition I should have denied it the assertion of a Church Catholick visible though we add Organical doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches which as parts constitute that whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole I am not willing but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren that this is no fair play to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholick Church and to mention only the Antichristian and Prelatical Notion of it Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication p. 129 130 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head and Arch-Bishops Bishops c. for his derivatives But this we say that the whole Church all the particular Churches in the world make but one body of Christ and as it is one una so it is unita united in a Common Profession of the Gospel as there is this union and communion of members so there is a communion of some Officers particularly Ministers who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors by vertue of Office any where and may any where Baptize and Administer the Lords Supper upon occasion and we say our Brethren in practice grant this for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those to whom he is not in Office as his particular Church and this is a Common practice with our Brethren how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches they do but blinde the Common People with a dark notion that signifies nothing What mean they by a Communion of Churches if they do not mean this that by the word of God one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another If they have so there must be a Communion of Offices as well as Gifts for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office If that it be not the will of God in his Word that the Officer of one Church should do an act of Office in another Church or to a Member of another Church it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches If this be his will it is as much as we ask for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church and the members of it but also to any particular Churches in the world or to any of their Members We ask no more This is the Catholick Organical Church we plead for Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol and pretend to abhor it in the notion they do not in practice bow down to it and commit Sacrilege 5. You tell us in the last place Brethren That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine and hear offences Mat. 18.17 But that is a particular Church Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae and you have taken as good care as you could to strengthen it by saying it cannot be meant of both and to exclude the Congregational Church is unscriptural irrational absurd But I must crave leave to tell you 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question for it is not whether be greater the Church Catholik or the Church particular but whether there be any Church Catholick or no greater or less Object But you will say if there be any it must be greater Answ Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality If in respect of quantity number c. the Major is apparently false If in respect of quality as you seem to hint by the term having power then your Argument is this There is no Church hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches But the particular Church hath that power Mat. 18.17 Ergo. I will give you Brethren such another Argument judge you whether it be good or no and if it be not you must prove your own better There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences Ergo that is as great a Court as the Court of Common Pleas. You must therefore put in finally determine and all offences in any part of the Church or else your Major is false when you have mended that we will deny your Minor and tell you that admit that Text Mat. 18.17 should be meant of a particular Church yet it proves no such power either finally to determine or all offences as well those betwixt Church and Church as those betwixt party and party or party and Church Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text according to the nature of the offence nor do I think your saying that to exclude the Congregational Church viz. some Congregational Churches is unscriptural irrational absurd amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case I think it is far more rational and far
that a Church must be an united company if you had told us in what sense you understand united we could better have told you our minds at least I could have better told you mine concerning it People may be united by cohabitation by common profession by mutual consent this you seem to understand this again may be either explicitly by Covenant or implicitly by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell this being premised Brethren I conceive 1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company either as to an union of judgement or practice the rout Acts 19. called by this name were not 2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ called by this name in Scripture were united but neither by cohabitation nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this 3. There is no need that every particular Church if not organized and under the exercise of Discipline should be united by consent as to practice in the same numerical Administrations every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent you often read of the Church in a particular house Col. 4.15 Rom. 16.5 Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved 4. Indeed it seems reasonable that a particular Church organized and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administred should be a company united by consent for my own part I can allow you this though I know some of my Brethren will not 5. That this Vnion must needs be by an explicite Covenant or consent is neither to be proved by one Text nor yet by one sound reason and to impose this as necessary is a meer humane invention and not to be indured because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it But lastly we heartily wish that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such as seeing no command of God for it shall not think fit to submit to it Thus far I can yield our Brethren that a particular Church is an united Company And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches not as some would ridiculously fasten upon us because they live within such local limits but because they are societies of baptized persons who by a tacit and implicit consent have united themselves waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship And this Vnion holding we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches although as the Church of Corinth corrupted in some of their members and therefore not to be separated from nor disowned as no Churches but to be purged and the old leaven put out that they may be a new lump 5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ and this for the glory of God c. I freely grant nay it may be I will grant more viz. that they must be a people who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren if I tell them I have almost made my head ake with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle save one and do what I can I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse or is brought in upon any easier terms then they say The Fellow brought in Hercules viz. by head and shoulders for undoubtedly if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason it would never have come there The passage is this But we shall say no more of this Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this The Scripture doth hold forth that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government May be they would have said must be had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it I must profess my self dear Brethren to be so ignorant that I can neither understand the sense of this passage either copulatively or disjunctively will you give me leave to sift it a little possibly though it all looks like chaff some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it But we shall say no more of this you say Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth Of this of what You had before been speaking of the Papists making their Decrees and humane inventions equal with the ten Commandments and told us you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased and that Christ hath ceased from his work c. Now you tell us you shall say no more of this your Brethren viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion not being baptized into the belief of the same truth asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven what 's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with Gods word Do any of us make them so Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books Doth the same truth relate only to what follows that we are not all of a minde as to the Divine Right of Church-Government what needed our Brethren have added this in this place or what is the meaning of those words But we shall say no more of this and then adding the other as a reason But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven They are fouly to blame then for I should think Popery as to Government better than Presbyterie if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven But it is yet more wonderfull Brethren which you tell us that the Assembly did not so believe yea expressed as much for they only say Many particular Congregations may be united and you note they would have said must be if they had so judged Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be but they have also in the same place proved that it was so both in the Church of Jerusalem and also in the
combinations of vicinities or Parishes for actual constant enjoyment of Ordinances as particular Corporations in a Kingdom are yet still those Ordinances administrations admissions ejections have influence upon and into the whole body as it is a polity and the members of any part indefinitely may of right communicate one with another yea any company of Christians may though every person so meeting and that but occasionally may be of a several particular Church and the Minister dispensing a particular Pastor to none of them all yea though none of them all be fixed members to any particular Congregation nor the Minister dispensing fixed in any particular congregation And this by vertue of their general membership and of the habitual indefiniteness of the Ministers office And the common donation of the ordinances to Christs whole visible Kingdom Ibid. Now the truâ—h is there is no Civil Society or Kingdom that in every thing correspondeth with this but there use in the Kingdoms of the world to be some general officers and offices And some officers inferiour and subordinate receiving from them power and authority by derivation and subordination And the inferiour are of less extent as to place and power than the superior As the Lord Chief Justice of England is above other inferiour Justices And this is it as Mr. Hudson hath noted which hath made so many stumble at the notion of a Church Catholick Organical and upon this stone our Brethren have stumbled in their Epistle First making a man of Clouts and then writing over his head This is the Presbyterians Catholick Church and then crucifying him with Arguments which we are not concerned in But as Mr. Hudson proceedeth as in other things Christs Kingdom is not of this world nor like unto worldly polities so neither in this But every Minister of the Church in his particular place serveth the Church Catholick admitting of members into a general freedom in it ejecting from general communion with it he prayeth publickly for the whole body and manageth his particular charge in reference to so as may stand with the good of the whole body of which his Congregation is but a member The Ordinances there administred are the Ordinances given to the whole not as a genus which is but a notion and can have no Ordinances given to it but as unto a spiritual kind of an habitual body and Organical polity As to a sort of men so and so qualified bound up in an union and unity of the same head laws seals worship communion Thus had we discovered our minds before our Brethren published this Boook and it had been fair for them to have disputed against this not to deceive their Readers with fallacies Ex ignoratione Elenchi as Logicians speak disputing against what their adversaries do not say In this sense we say the office of the Ministry correlateth to the Vniversal Church And what ever our Brethren say in practice they will own this for 1. I would fain know of our Brethren whether one Church may according to Gospel rules receive into her bosome one whiom another Church hath cast out if not the officers that cast out do not only eject from the communion of that particular Church but of all particular Churches and so consequently from the universal Church which is but a whole made up of those parts 2. While our Bretheren baptize into their particular Church I wonder whether they do not also Baptize into any other particular Church if not when any person so baptized is translated into another Church why is he not again Baptized his relation to the former Church ceasing 3. I would fain know with what consistency of principles our Brethren say a minister or pastor is in office only to a particular Church and yet say he that is in office to this Church may administer the Sacrament of the Supper to the members of another Church Oh but they do this they tell us by a communion of Churches by a communion of membership only or of offices and officers only the first alone may give the member a right to take but not the officer a right to give except there be also a mutual communication or communion of offices and officers and Acts of office 4. Although these 2 or 3 Brethren some-where indeed say that when the pastors of our Brethrens churches preach out of their particular Church they preach but as gifted men yet I am sure others of our Brethren and those to speak modestly no way inferior to our Brethren will own no such thing for who should be then obliged to hear them or who could go to hear them as to an ordinance a publike ordinance of Christ I am yet to learn So that in practice our brethren do every day own what in words they deny But to come close to the question stated by our Brethren thus p. 8. What Church office hath relation to Preacher sent eap 2. p. 8. whether officers stand in relation to a particular Church only or whether they be officers of an universal Church I observe our Brethren in the same page altering their phrase instead of saying We deny office to be a correlate to the Vniversal Church they say We deny Pastors and Teachers to be officers of an Vniversal Church We hope our brethren have no design to play at so small a game with us as that must be which is only won by the homonomy of a term however we will indeavour to prevent it For those new terms Pastors and Teachers in ecclesiastical use they have obtained a double signification 1. In Scripture the terms are taken more largely for any such as have authority to feed people with spiritual food whether it be occasionally or constantly so pastors is to be understood Eph. 4.11 the only place where it is used in all the New Testament so also Jer. 3.15 so Paul is called a Teacher of the Gentiles and 1 Tim. 2.7 so Teachers is used Isa 30.20 and Acts 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 29. yea that term is used sometimes to express the Private duties of private persons Heb. 5.12 2. By a modern usage these terms are used to express persons chosen or accepted by particular churches for the work of the ministry amongst them and restrained to that sense by what warrant I cannot tell If our Brethren state the question in the latter sense concerning Pastors and Teachers qua tales as such they have no adversaries for he that is pastor or teacher of a particular Church as he is such a pastor or teacher undoutedly hath not the Church universal for his correlate But our Brethren of the Province of London say truely that a Regular Pastor or Teacher of a particular Church hath besides a particular relation to them as their pastor and teacher which their election or submission to him or both have made them a relation also to the Church Universal as he is the minister of Jesus Christ set apart and ordained for the
preaching of the gospel c. which he may do as an officer of Christ in any place of the world We do not say he is bound to do it in all places that is impossible nor to travel up and down as the Apostles were for that work is ceased at least as to those places where people have received the gospel But we say he may do it as opportunity is offered And we believe that in case it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England The Church might by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands set apart some particular persons to the office of the ministry without a particular designation of them to this or that place but only designing them as the officers of Christ to preach the Gospel amongst the Indians and to baptize such as should receive the Gospel and though not by their single Act as the Apostles yet by the advice of the Church and with their assistance these might ordain Elders in their Cities and form them up into complete Gospel order yet the office of such would differ from that of the Apostles both in regard of their mission being more ordinary and also in regatd of their power being more limitted These things being premised let us consider our Brethrens Arguments their first reduced into form is this What the Gospel knoweth not no Gospel officers can be correlates unto Of Preaching without ordination cap. 2 p. 8. But the Gospel knows no Universal visible Political Church Ergo 1. At the first dash our Brethren here take away the subject or at least the suppositum of the question The suppositum of the question is That there is a Church Particular and Vniversal The question is to which of these the office of the Ministry is related They say to the Church Particular we say to the Church Vniversal to prove their assertion they tell us there is no Church Vniversal This is foul disputing 2. But secondly The whole may be granted and yet nothing proved by it for whether the Gospel knowes a Church universal under a political form or no is not the question it is enough if it knowes a Church Vniversal under any notion 3. Thirdly the minor is false as Mr. Hudson abundantly proves the Church universal is in scripture set out under the notions of a political body it is called a Kingdom a City Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens it is called an Army terrible with Banners Cant. 6.10 see Mr. Hudson more p. 133 134 135 c. for it nothing concerns me as to the present question as I said before Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto these officers viz. Pastors teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Overseers Acts. 20.28 1 Tim 3.2 Titus 1.7 Themselves form their argument thus or at least should have formed it thus Arg. 2 That Church alone which is committed to ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But the universal Church is not that Church which is committed to a Minister to feed teach and oversee Ergo I am sure that the Argument must run thus if it concludes the question which at present is not whether a particular minister but whether the office of the ministry residing in all ministers be a correlate to the particular or to the Universal Church And therefore our Brethren may see a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the question stated by themselves Now to the argument thus formed I answer By denying both the propositions I deny that That Church alone which is committed to a ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate For I suppose that our Brethren mean which is more especially committed to his charge as pastor thereof in a restrained sense if they do so I say that Church alone is not correlate to his office or to the office of the ministry because another Church viz. the catholike Church is also in some sense committed to his charge viz. so far as pro re natâ as occasion serveth he may and ought to feed others besides that Church yea such as are of no Church but may for ought he knowes be members of the invisible Church of Gods elect and so his office doth relate to them But secondly the Minor is apparently false viz. That the particular Church is that alone which is committed to a ministers eharge to feed teach and oversee Go preach the gospel to every creature is a commission which hath put all the reasonable world under the charge of the ministeral office And although as our Brethren of London say right that no minister is an Actual Minister to the Vniversal Church viz. in these two senses 1 None can be here and there and every where thus the Spirit of God is only an Universal actual teacher Nor secondly is any Minister set in a particular Church bound as the Apostles to an itinerant Execution of his office yet our Brethren of London do not say but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens the Church may by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands confer the office of the Ministry uppon some persons with a special designation of them as Christs officers to carry the Gospel to people all over the Nation or over the world Neither do our Brethren of London say but that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church wherever he preacheth preacheth as an officer of Christ in the worke of the Gospel whom people are bound to hear nor do they say that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church may not by vertue of his ministerial office so far as his opportunity strength and finite nature gives him leave feed and teach by the word and as a minister oversee any others that are not members of his particular Church Though indeed that be in a more special manner committed to his trust care and oversight But I observe that our Brethrens argument though put into the best form I could and cured of one fault yet is sick of another and indeed the Argument should have run thus That Church or those Churches alone which are committed to all ministers respectively to feed teach and oversee respectively are the Churches to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But those Churches are only particular Churches Ergo. As they put it thereâ—s a great fallacy in it for suppose this or that particular Minister had no work appointed him by Jesus Christ to do but onely in his particular Church and so the office of the Ministry as it resided in that single man were only a Correlate to his particular Church Yet it would not follow That the office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister in the world had no other Correlate
who preacheth is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty This is so rational that none can deny it for sin is the transgression of a law and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural divine positive or humane now this is certain that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse or reads a chapter he must be specially authorized to preach or I shall not be specially obliged to hear 2. The second principle is this That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer I think that none in their right wits will deny this hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow from this principle 1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed let who will preach none are bound to come to hear but they may all stay at home and read a good book if they please for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach and so none under an obligation to hear 2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait upon any publike Ordinance which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls than reading a chapter at home doth The reason is because no particular Churches are formed and there can be none in office It is not the place or company but the person administring who makes the ordinance publike 3. Where there is a particular Church formed it is true the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer but for all others if they do stay at home and read a chapter or a good book they sin not for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them than they have to preach at home one to another 4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach if he be not a member of his particular Church he cannot come in faith believing upon the account of any precept or promise that the word heard shall profit him any more than if he had staid at home and heard his servant read a chapter for he that preacheth stands in no office is clothed with no more authority toward him No he is only in office to the members of his own Church 5. If any pastor of any particular Church at any time uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person who is not an actual member of his Church he sinneth against God doing an act of office to a person to whom he is in no office and hath no authority And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to consider to what Atheiâ—m and confusion this one principle improved would in a short time bring us And I am verily perswaded that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion are of another mind from these three in this point for so wise and learned men can never surely think that when at any time they preach in any place or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches they preach but as gifted brethren so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom is under as much appointment of Gods for the salvation of souls as theirs is yet this is a true conclusion from this principle up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be performed by an officer which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world As for their third chapter I might spare my pains in answering of it for it is but a conclusion from their premises in the first and second chapter and it is too much to deny the premises and conclusion too In this third chapter they give us the description of office then indeavour to prove it and lastly draw two conclusions from it their description is this Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified Preaching without Ordination p. 14. founded upon a special and regular call 1 This definition offends two logick rules say we which are these Aristot l. 6. top cap. 5. That all definitions should be adequate That is nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel as I proved before yet that is put into the definition secondly Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified or in the notion of a regular call which I suppose our brethren will not grant Arist top l. 6. a p 1. 2. A second rule is this That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species The ministerial office is a Genus here defined but there are diverss ministers say we that have no such particular Church for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo without a title to a place was no divine order but prudential to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministery and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense doth relate to a particular Church but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense and as it is used in Scripture both in Jeremy 3.15 Eph. 4.13 Our Brethren expound their description For the Genus we allow what they say Office is a Relation Their terms of relation we deny we say the particular Church is not the only correlate but the Vniversal Church is also a correlate to the office yea and the work yea God himself and all Nations of which before Here 's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered besides that term Angel of the Church used Rev. 2.1.8 c. To which I answer that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est it is very disputable whether a single person or the Presbytery be meant by that term 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church But not the flock as our Brethren say The Apostles ordained the Deacons not the flock It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy Acts. 6. and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete As to the formal cause
we cannot agree with our brethren that a special regular call is it in the sense they understand all we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External and the Apostle proveth it How shall they preach except they be sent that is they cannot Rom 10.10 Now Forma dat esse Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5 where they argue thus If the Church should chuse a Deacon much more their pastor Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis from the lesser to the greater and they argue affirmatively See more as to these texts in â—â—y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer then they ought to chuse the greater But this is false Logick our brethren will easily see it in other things will these things follow If a man can carry an hundred pound weight then much more a thousand If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant then much more a Colonel Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching Besides did the peoples choice there make them officers surely the text sayes no such thing the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves ver 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained not chose as our Brethren do The word signifies to stretch out the hand and by that sign to chuse 2 Cor. 8.19 but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here Not alwayes witness Acts 10.41 Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining and so it signifies saith Stephen when it governs an accusative case But allow it to signify chuse they were Paul and Barnabas that chose not the Church in our brethrens sense Let any one one compare v. 20 21 22 23 and ell me of whom that word is predicated So that both â—ur Brethrens texts fail with all that is built upon them in their book As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general That the work of the Ministry is the End and so far allow their proof Eph. 4.11 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant I am sure the text sayes no such thing nor any thing like it except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries or inferences First That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church The second is this That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono by office and by gift is founded on Scripture 2 Conc. As to the first I have already proved the contrary for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the worke but to the Church Nor to the Vniversal Church but to the particular Church which foundations I think I have shaken so that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure As to the second we allow it in two cases first for Trial sake for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons 1 Tim 3.10 and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I mean ordinary officers for Apostles c. were not the same species of officers 2. In cases of Necessity In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had which was the case Acts 9. Necessity we say hath no law In such a case as I said before the Levites killed the sacrifice at Hezekiahs passeover which else they ought not to have done We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono by vertue of gifts only Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say by way of Limitation or Explication of the question is summed up their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed and stated IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject and the Predicate For the Subject they tell us it is not every Christian but every one that hath gifts 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts but who really hath and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no according to Acts 6.3 but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach especially in some cases without such approbation As to the Predicate By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to be it in publike or in private to a Christian or to an idolatrous assembly thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify Lu. 16.16 1 Cor. 9.16 Acts 13.32 Rom. 20.15 Acts. 5.42 Acts. 8.35 Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching Jus divinum p. 77. much they say to them who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively they say authority is taken for a right and lawfull power Lu. 20.2 Secondly for majesty and gravity Mar. 1.22 Tit. 2 15. Thirdly for office-power In the last sense they grant it in the two first they say gifted men may preach authoritatively this is the substance of what they say in many words To all which I answer 1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question if I mistake not it amounts to no more than this Every private Christian may not preach but every one that can or will may for what should hinder him who shall be judges of his aptness to teach shall the Church but by what rule Secondly suppose he will not submit shall the gifted man sin no say our Brethren It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents but for ought we know it is lawfull So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak Our Brethren tell us the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was
a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 â—te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone◠〈◊〉 â—is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the
Because as a Church member he may admonish and exhort severally and then why not when they are met together 2. Because a publike Gift cannot be fully improved in a private way A man in such a case hideth his talent 3. Publike actings are not peculiar to Office they say 4. Charity binds men sâ—metimes to go out of their callings to help others Therefore our Brethren may sometimes step out of their Calling to Preach 5. A man may lawfully choose it for his calling to preach And then he goeth not out of his Calling 6. They have a Divine allowance Heb. 10.25 therefore they go not out of their Callings This is the summ of what they say to the first à p. 46. ad p. 56. To all which I answer 1. We will not contend with our Brethren that it is unlawfull for a private gifted person to speak in the publike Assemblies of the Church provided it be not on the Lords day which ought to be spent in peoples attendance upon publike Ordinances of which nature their Preaching cannot be but we deny that any are bound to hear them or that any can come to hear them as unto that Ordinance of Preaching which lyes under the great appointment of God to save peoples souls And we say the Church of God hath had no such custom As to the Second We do not understand our Brethrens notion of a publick Gift it may be taken in a double sense 1. For a Gift which God hath given to men willing them to use it publikely 2. For a Gift which if used publikely might be of publike service If our Brethren understand it in the first sense we deny any not ordained have any such publike Gift if as they must they understand it in the latter sense we say it may be so far improved as to free men from sin in not improving it without publike exercise How many hundred men in England have gifts for the Magistracy that might be of publike use were they so employed yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text to prove that they ought to administer Judgement publikely Why Because God hath required another Order and a special regular Call for the exercise of those publike Gifts and we say the like for the Ministry To the Third We grant that all publike aâ—â—ings are not peculiar to Office but we say the administration of publike Ordinances is peculiar to publike Officers and t is scarce sense to say a private person may administer â— publike Ordinance To the Fourth we say That we grant that Charity may binde men to go out of their Callings to help another and so Charity may binde a gifted man to Preach in case of necessity but this is not Ordinary preaching of which the question is stated To the Fifth We grant a private person may choose preaching for his Calling but his choosing of it doth not make that his Calling the Church say our Brethren must choose him too he must be ordained say we To the Sixth Our Brethren say they have a divine allowance Heb. 10.25 But to do what Is it said to Preach publikely and ordinarily But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to meer Gifted men they indeed must not forsake assembling together but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort however our brethren make that Text a warrant for private meetings and then it is nothing to the question But to the Second whereas we have told our Brethren that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probably is meant Office as in Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 2 Tim. 1. They think it cannot be so taken here for these Reasons 1. Because the Context cannot be so restrained the Apostle exhorteth to sobriety watchfulness unto prayer ver 7. to charity ver 8. to hospitality ver 9. These exhortations concern private Christians and the persons spoken to verse 10. are the same 2. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely a gift now indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals they say 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not restrain it unto Office because it is oft used otherwise nor doth the term Stewards limit it nor the terms exhorting and ministring 4. The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter ver 2 3. To all which I again answer 1. We do not peremptorily determine that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Office there it is enough for us to say it may be so for our Brethren must prove it cannot or else they can prove no precept to their purpose from hence 2. That by the term Office cannot be understood here is not proved by any thing our Brethren have said The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations think Office is meant ver 11. Why may not the Apostle after he had dispatched his exhortations to some common duties subjoyn this to Officers he doth so Rom. 12. and 2 Tim. 5. and what if he gives exhortations to Elders in the next chapter Can it therefore be concluded that none of the exhortations in this chapter belong to them How do our Brethren prove that the persons spoken to ver 9. and spoken to ver 11. â—elthe same individuals and why may not the gift then be the same too and so neither office nor gifts of this nature meant 3. Our brethren must not tell us that indefinite propositions are most usually equipollent to universals because it is no Logick Their Logical Rule is this Indefinitae proposititiones interdum aequipollent universalibus interdum particularibus Keckerman Syst Log. c. 5. illis quide in materiâ necessariâ his vero in contingenti nay with that restriction saith Keckerman it will not always hold true A living creature is not a man turn this into an universal negative No living creature is a man and it is false Because therefore the Apostle speaks indefinitely as every one hath received a gift so let him minister it doth not follow he must understand every gift for what will our Brethren say to gifts of wisdom for Government of Nations Armies c. or to abilities to Baptize and administer the Lords Supper But to come to an issue I am very inclinable to understand the Text in the latitude and to think this the sense As any man hath received any communicable gift so let him minister it unto others in that due way and order and upon that regular Call which God in his word hath required for those to exercise gifts that have them If it be a gift of Government when God hath called him to Magistracy let him use his gift if it be a gift for opening and applying Scripture for administring Baptism or the Lords Supper let him first be duly ordained and set apart for the work of the Ministry and so let him use his Gift When our Brethren have said their utmost this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utterance may forthwith Preach than it
prophâ—â—s are mentioned with a note of singularity denying it to be a gift common to all 1 Cor. 12. 29 30. Are all prophets 3. That prophets in all the Old Testament and new too signified extraordinary officers who acted from immediate revelation 4. That prophecie is reckoned up as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had 1 Cor. 13.2 1 Cor. 14.16 preferred before Tongues 1 Cor. 14.1 2. Paul compared himself with them 1 Cor. 14.37 5. That it is distinguished from the word of wisdom and knowledge 6. That it is said prophecyes shall fail 1 Cor. 13.8 7. That prophecying is said not to serve for those that believe not 1 Cor. 14.22 To the first our Brethren answer that we left out the word doctrine 1 Cor. 14.26 The charge falls not on me but now it is put in let us see what our brethren get by it The sense of the text must be Either that every individual member of the Church of Corinth had all these and then they all had extraordinary gifts for surely the gift of composing Psalms and the gift of Revelation c. must be no ordinary gifts If this be the sense the prophecying in the Church of Corinth was by persons extraordinarily gifted infallibly inspired and so the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails because they argue à pari where is no parity in the species of Gifts Or else the sense must be one of you hath a doctrine another a Psalm another a Revelation c. If this be the sense how do our Brethren prove that the Doctrine belonged to the prophets Other Scriptures quoted by our Brethren 1 Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.9 make labouring in Doctrine the work of Pastors and Teachers if the Doctrine were the Pastors Teachers part either the Psalm or the Revelation must be the Prophets work for the interpretation clearly belonged â—o tongues or at least related to it 1 Cor. 14.13 1 Cron. â—hren take which they will the Gift was extraordinary Our Brethren say that Revelation is distinguished from Prophecy ver 6. but they did not consider that in the same words it is distinguished from Doctrine too What shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or by prophecying or by doctrine From whence we easily conclude that the prophecying meant 1 Cor. 14. was not speaking to people by doctrine and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren Object But say our brethren It may be meant of ordinary revelation Eph. 1.16 17 18. Answ Let what revelation will be meant It is not doctrine these Prophets spake not by Doctrine that was another thing ver 6. Now I think preaching is a speaking by Doctrine And that is it to justifie which we say no proof can be produced from this Text. Secondly We grant an ordinary revelation sano sensu that is That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people in the use of due means such a knowledge of his written word as is necessary for their salvation yea as may be for their consolation that they may as to their own souls know the hope of his Calling as in that text Eph. 1.16 17 18. quoted by our brethren and know their own grace and right unto glory 1 Cor. 2.9 10 11 12. Phil. 3.15 That they may be resolved in their doubts and come up to perfection in knowledge and holiness But all this as to their own private use Let our Brethren bring us any shadow of Scripture to prove that God hath promised ordinarily to reveal unto his people such a knowledge of the Scriptures as they may publikely and ordinarily communicate it in Church Assemblies Whereas we told them Prophets are mentioned with a note of singularity 1 Cor. 12.29 30. they tell us so was the gift of Teaching yet it is an ordinary office Every Reader will consider that it was enough for us to prove either that these Prophets were Officers or that they had an extraordinary gift It is true the note of singularity affixed or indeed the term of restriction affixed rather will not prove the gift was extraordinary but it will prove that either the Prophets were Officers or the gift was extraordinary for no others are there enumerated but extraordinary or ordinary officers or such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost To our third Allegation That the title Prophets and the term prophecying in all the Old Testament is peculiar to persons that were extraordinary Officers and extraordinarily gifted and generally so in the New Testament Our Brethren answer 1. That they have given many Arguments to prove that in 1 Cor. 14. neither Officers nor persons extraordinarily gifted are meant and that chapter speaking chiefly of Prophecie as the subject is most fit to interpret it But their several Reasons being answered no more need be added 2. It is questionable they say whether in some of the places mentioned the word prophecying be taken either for an act of Office or for an exercise of an extraordinary gift and to this purpose they mention Acts 13.1 Rev. 10.11 Mat. 7.22 Mat. 13.57 Luke 4.24 Mat. 10.41 Acts 15.32 To which I answer Indeed our Brethren of London p. 94. and my self from others p. 50. did say that we conceive where ever Prophets or Prophecie are mentioned in Scripture some extraordinary Gift or Office is understood It had been enough for us to have said that generally it is so But being the word is out let it go and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary 1. For that Text Matth. 7.22 Many shall say to me in that day Lord Lord we have prophesied in thy name and in thy name have we cast out devils and done many miracles We grant that it cannot be from hence demonstratively proved that the prophecying here mentioned was an extraordinary Gift because the other two things mentioned were but we appeal to all the world whether this be not a strong presumption on our side and such as our Brethren can never disprove For that text Acts 13.1 There were certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch These were such Prophets as were joyned with Teachers 2. Preferred before them according to the order also used 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. 3. Such as the Spirit called to ordain Paul and Barnabas Let any reasonably judge whether these can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church for Rev. 10.11 John in a vision took a little Book from the Angel and did eat it And then the Angel said to him Thou mayest prophesie again c. Was this by vertue of ordinary gift think we Their next is Matth. 13.57 A prophet is not without honour but in his own Country this Rule they say is true of all faithfull Teachers Saint Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 commands Timothy to watch in all things to endure afflictions to do the work
the Ministerial office and that Text 1 Cor. 1.17 doth evidently prove it So doth that Rom. 12.7 8. Take from those two Texts these two Arguments Arg. 1. That piece of the Ministerial work for the discharge of which God especially designs his Ministers when he sends them that is their chief work But Preaching is such 1 Cor. 1.17 Ergo. Arg. 2. That piece of the Ministerial working upon which the Minister is most especially to wait and rather to neglect other parts than that that is their chief work But Preaching is that piece of the Ministerial work upon which Ministers of the Gospel are especially to wait Rom. 12.7 8. to which they are especially ordained 1 Tim. 2.7 1 Tim. 1.11 to which they are in special manner to give attendance both to be prepared for it and to do it 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. and to do it well 2 Tim. 2.15 2 Tim. 4.2 they are rather to neglect others than that as Paul did Baptizing 1 Cor. 1.14 15 16 17. And the Apostles judged it not meet they should leave the word of God to serve Tables Acts 6.2 Ergo. Therefore I think our Brethren have but done themselves right in judging Preaching the chief and main work of the Ministerial Office p. 203. But say they Pag. 203. Yet we do not finde any Scripture Rule to evidence that Preaching in it self is either an act of Office or peculiar to the distinctive act of Office to make it so there is required a being over them in the Lord who are preached to 1 Thes 5.12 and this they conceive doth make Preaehing an act of Office c. What this serveth for more than to blinde the Reader that he may not see the strength of our Argument I cannot tell Our Argument was this That which is the main Act of the Ministerial Office for the performance of which God especially designed it that is not lawfully to be performed by such as are in no Office for it is the peculiar act of Office But Preaching is the main and chief act for the performance of which God hath set up an Office of the Ministry and designed it c. Ergo. The Minor our Brethren have granted so that they must deny the Major or nothing we prove it God doth nothing in vain But in case he had set up an Office in his Church chiefly for the performance of an act which many out of Office might do he had as to that act set it up in vain Ergo It is false that any other may do it The Minor is evident to common sense or reason were it not a vain thing for a Prince to establish an Order of Officers suppose Justices of the Peace Colonels and Captains of Armies Constables in Parishes if by the Law every man though in no such office might do the main work that belonged to such an Office Hence we say that the Lords establishing a standing office of Pastors and Teachers and declaring in his Word that the main end of his establishing them is for the Preaching of the Gospel doth clearly reveal his will that this should not be the work of any but such Officers Now what say our Brethren The Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office This is the sum of what they say If it be sense I am sure it is nothing to the question which is plainly begged in the answer For what is the Question but this Whether any but such as are in Office may ordinarily Preach We say no because Preaching is an act peculiar to Office this we prove because it is the main and chief act and end for which God set up the Office Our Brethren grant it to be the main and chief act for the exercise of which God set up the Office and yet tell us by and by that Preaching is not so But the Preaching of one in Office is so Reader if thou canst pick out the sense of this I cannot Our Brethten should have done well to have given us the difference between simple Preaching as it is an Ordinance of Christ and Office-Preaching as they call it If they mean by Preaching An act of a person clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ by which in obedience to his Command the Agent openeth and applyeth Scriptures in order to the conversion and edification of souls and that in the publick Assemblies and to which people ought to attend We say this must be an act of Office and all such Preaching is Office-Preaching his authority puts him in Office If they mean by Preaching Any persons discoursing of the Scripture either privately or publickly in such a way as that none is by Gods command obliged to hear him nor can hear him looking upon what he does as the publick appointment of Christ for the salvation of his soul we allow gifted men may Preach in this sense But we say that strictly this is no Preaching it is no more than a private persons reading a good Book to whom people are not bound to resort to hear nor ought they so to do upon the Lords days which should be spent in the duties of publick worship Our Brethren p. 203. justly think that in the hearts of some serious Christians there may be some such workings as these If this Doctrine be true that all gifted men may by the command of Christ Preach ordinarily as well as Pastors and Teachers and all the Brethren have as much to do in ruling tne Church as ruling Elders surely both Preaching and Ruling Elders are useless for to what purpose are they set a part for a work which they might do without such a setting apart or any others do as well as they when made Officers And therefore surely these principles have too much absurdity in them and bear too much contradiction to the revealed will of God to be true But say our Brethren If all acts which Officers might put forth Pag. 204. might be performed by members not in Office yet there would be enough to speak Officers necessary and of great use 1. Though they put forth the same Acts yet it is not under the same relation A man provideth for his children as a Father for the poor under another notion A Christian friend occasionally gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance so doth the Parent of these children yet the manner is different the one is under a standing Obligation the other not The Bayliffs are needfull in Corporations where the major part carry it without the Bayliffs sometimes pag. 205. Church-Officers have a special oversight over the flock pag. 206. they are under a special designation If a Church hath Officers they by their place are to go before the Church in directing and executing determinations But the Church may censure without Officers p. 207. 2. They say that we allow such an Office as hath no act peculiar to it viz. Ruling Elders 3. They do not say all may
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all To which I answer 1. Our Brethren know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in Scripture always signifie either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of nor yet the Major part How many times in Scripture is Christ said to have died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all yet Christ neither Died for every individual man nor for the Major part of men Mat. 3.5 6. It is said That all the Region round about Jordan went to hear John and were Baptized of him confessing their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region nor yet the major part did either go to hear or were baptized or confessed their sins Christ tells the Pharisees they tythed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—very herb yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees or any other Jews Gardens so that this word will not conclude especially considering what reason we have to believe the contrary viz. that neither the whole nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls 120. were in it Acts 1.15 3000. more were added Acts 2.41 5000. more added Acts 4.4 here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls Now let any one in reason judge 1. What one place in Ierusalem could well contain them except the Temple and whether it be probable that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither enough to have made a good Army the major part of these must be above four thousand 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too for Acts 6.1 there was a murmuring about the poor between the Grecians and the Heâ—rews we therefore think it more probable that the Apostles spake to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them and if our Brethren talk till Dooms-day they can prove no more from this Text. And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in reference to this Text and enough to shew it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake viz. That the whole Church or Major part of it must of divine right choose its own Officers I come to their third Text. Acts 14.23 I will transcribe ver 21.22 Ver. 21. And when they that is Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel in that City and had taught many they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch Ver. 22. Confirming the souls of the Disciples and exhorting them to continue in the Faith and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God Ver. 23. And having ordained or chosen it is no matter which as to our Brethrens purpose them Elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed 1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said something to it before but I would fain know of any one that understands sense whether those that ordained or chose were not those that confirmed and exhorted v. 22. those that preached and returned again to Lystra c. ver 20. If they were it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men 2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what other Syntax of the words according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured Object But the Disciples are twice mentioned v. 22. Answ T is very true but not as the persons confirming and exhorting but as the persons confirmed and exhorted so they are mentioned here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the dative case the other the nominative Our Brethren say that Dr. Ames saith it may include the Disciples too or they might go before the Disciples I answer what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove that the people ought to choose not that it may be they may choose But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing or ordaining here was such as could not be performed onely by Paul and Barnabas 1. They say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in Scripture for laying on of hands This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here I hope our Brethren know there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case where it signifies the people choice The word is indeed used but twice more in the New Testament once for choosing by suffrages once otherwise for Gods destination and appointment Acts 10.41 Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes c. should so use it But if they mean that in Civil Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for the constituting of a person in Office without the peoples suffrage if they look Stephen or Hesychius or Budeus they will better inform them Hesychius saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is nothing to the present purpose we say if it signifies choosing here yet Paul and Barnabas chose 2. Our Brethren say this could not be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choose by suffrages now Paul and Barnabas could not make suffrages All this is a riddle to me for if I understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— signifies the hand not the tongue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to stretch out not to speak the word no otherwise signifies a choosing by suffrage than the lifting up of the hand did testifie the suffrage But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages Surely they made two and that is the plural number sure The truth is the primary signification of the word was to choose by lifting up of the hand in token of their consent to a person named for an office now in regard this made vulgar Officers the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office whether there were an hand lifted up or no thus it is used in Scripture too Acts 10.41 chosen or appointed before of God yet I hope our Brethren will not say that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage and if two persons according to our Brethrens Grammar cannot make suffrages surely one indivisible God could not 3. But say our Brethren the thing intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren