thing Notatio saepe est inadaequata modo latior modo angustiâ—r saith the Logician But 2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally viz. All the titles and all the names we conceive their Argument very faulty for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City it doth not follow but that his title of Justice of the Peace hath the keeping of the Peace and the Statutes concerning Justices for the Correlate or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate 3. If our Brethren do say that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate we shall desire by the next to know whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers in the following Texts have the Church only for their Correlate 1 Tim. 2.7 2 Tim. 1.11 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14 Philip. 1.15 Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn to say that if the Question be asked To whom are they Officers the answer must be to the Church * 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked what is their office for what work is the office ordained The answer must be for the Preaching of the Gospel for the work of the Ministry The truth is The work is objectum quod the Church is objectum cui Both the Church and the imployment are the Correlates to this Relation the Church are the Correlated persons the work of the Ministry is the Correlated thing So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London for both the Church and the Employment are Correlates Nay under favour not the Church alone but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry as to Preaching The office of the Ministry was instituted as well for the gathering of the Saints as for the edifying of them as well for the perfecting of their number as for the perfecting of their graces Till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. Eph. 4.11 12 13. We can never believe that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother but as an officer of the Gospel Nay more God himself is the Correlate to this office and therefore they are called the Ministers of God the Ministers of Christ not Elders of the Church only or Ministers of the Church they are Gods Ministers in the Church and the Ministers of the Gospel in and for the Church and world too Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of the Church We can shew them many where they are called the Ministers of Christ of righteousness of the Gospel of Christ Now it is a rule Relata reciprocantur a Father is called the Father of such a Son and the Son is called the Son of such a Father But I say our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase when they call Ministers i. e. Preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church they are the Ministers of God and his Gospel in such a Church and they have some relation to the Church but not a more relation than they have to the work they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel and the Gospel is called their Gospel My Gospel saith Paul twice here is a plain reciprocation let them shew us the like if they can for their assertion otherwise we hope our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern And I earnestly beseech our Brethren that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies which have not as you see the least foundation either in Scripture reason or usage of any approved Authors In the mean time we will grant them that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office But if we would grant our Brethren that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate not to the work but to the Church I perceive this would not give them satisfaction unless we would also yield them that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church In opposition not only to the Church Catholick invisible viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad But to the Church Catholick visible in any notion The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion but we can by no meanes bow down unto it And therefore that 's the next thing we must bring to trial Only before we do it Give me leave to inform our Brethren in our notion of a Church though I shall better do it when I shall return to answer their Epistle The word which we translate Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetus evocatus voce praeconis of which our Brethren can make no advantage either from the Etymologie or from the usage of it in Scripture according to the first it signifies no more than a company called out it is both used by the Seventy interpreters to express the congregation of evil doers Psal 26.5 And by the Evangelist Luke to express a rout neither lawfully assembled nor yet united Acts 19.32 This word in it self as unhallowed as any other the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers company or Companies of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel Eph. 4.11 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvelous light Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into Invisible Visible The invisible Church is either Triumphant in heaven or Militant here upon the Earth The Visible Church is either Universal or Particular By the Church universal quatenus visible we mean The whole number of people over the face of the Earth called out of the Paganish world to the owning of the gospel of Christ which being an integral Body cons sting of homogeneous members or parts each part beareth the denomination of the whole hence that part of this body which is in a Nation Province parish c. is properly called the Church of God in such a Region Nation Province parish c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1.13 that is all that ownned the gospel whether in Jerusalem or in Damascus or the strange Cities Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11 all that called on Christs name whom
he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
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
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
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
understanding I will therefore tell them we know our Brethren are not to learn that Relations are of two sorts The first Logicians call Relata secundum esse real relations Such whose whole being as relations lye in their relation such are the Relations of Father and Son Husband and Wife Master and Servant The Father as a Father hath no other being but in his relation to a Son and so of the rest this is called Relatio praedicamentalis of these Relations their rule rightly understood is true 2. But secondly there are other Relations too called in Logick Relata secundum dici nominal relations yet such as have a reality of Relation but not such a one that all the being of the Relations as such is wrapt up in their relation this relation they call Relatio transcendentalis As now Scibile Scientia A thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing are relations and instanced in as such by most Logicians Yet neither the one nor the other of these relations have all their being in their relations Of these Relations we say and all say the Rule is false and reason will enforce it For example This 20th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclypse but the Eclypse which is the thing to be known is not existent The knowledge of the nature of thunder is existent But it doth not thunder So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a supposition that we say the office and the work are Relata secundum esse Relations of the first sort but we are not of that mind for we think the whole essence of office lyeth not in its Relation But in that authority wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it 2. In eodem entitalis gradu vel ut Ens in actu vel ut Ens in potestate Zabarel Secondly saith Zabarel the Rule is true that Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an Officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it The Mayor of Norwich is my Lord Protectors Officer for the Government of the City and none in their sober mind but will say he is Mayor and the government of the City are related each to other Suppose the Mayor now sick or in prison is he not an officer because at present he cannot execute his Office According to the first answer we deny the major and by vertue of the second we deny the minor And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion Hence Christian Reader thou mayest see our Brethren deal not kindly with thee when they tell thee As well may you affirm a man to be a Father who hath no Son nor child or a man to be an husband who hath no wife as you may affirm a man to be a Minister who hath no employment For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work A Father as he is a Father is a thing hath no being without a child and so cannot be but an officer if at present he hath no work yet hath as an officer an authority and power to do such a work when he hath opportunity I would fain know of our Brethren whether a man may not be in the office of a Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the government of them It is his Commission makes him an Officer and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment and execute his authority as soon as he hath opportunity Neither do we say a man can be no officer who hath no employment but we say a man may be an officer who at present may want opportunity to do what is his employment and he is by his office authorized unto And now I suppose every Reader will understand the weakness of our Brethrens first Argument which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Their second Argument is in sum this Relations and Correlations exist together but the office Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work because it is a means in order to the end Therefore the office of the Ministry and the work cannot be Correlates The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argument is the same Canon in Logick which was the foundation of the other Argument We grant that the office is a means in order to the work as its end and we say that the office must be before the work But we say these are no such relations as must necessarily be Simul Naturâ and exist together except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu and so sunt simul they are together though they do not exist together consider them as Entia in potestate they are Simul Natura and so it is not necessary that the means should be before the End In short the very same answer serveth as before Arg. 3 Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office that is the Correlate But the Gospel owns the Church not the work as Correlate to the office Ergo. The major we confess but say there wants a word in it That which alone the Gospel owns is the only Correlate The minor we deny we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry Acts 20.27 But we say it owns the work too Eph. 4.11 12. he gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers For the work of the Ministry and I hope Eph. 4. is as much Gospel as Acts 20.17 Our Brethren say here again That Officers are not related to the Employment of the Ministry Christian Reader it must surely offend thy Eares surely we would not much desire such Officers The truth is they do Dividere componenda which is a fallacy in Logick Officers are related to Church and work too and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logicians they would have acknowledged it with half this stir Arg. 4 Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form lyes thus If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture be such as proclume them relates to the Church not to the work then they are so related But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church are relates not officer and imployment Ergo. To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pastors Teachers c. 1. To all which we answer 1. That it is a feeble argumentation which is drawn from names and titles definitio nominis doth onely terminate the question quid nominis not the question quid rei the definition of a name is not alwayes adequate to the definition of a
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
for all the particular Churches in the world make up the universal Church Though the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in this or that particular person is limited by his Commission to such a County is only a Correlate to the people of such a County Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County must needs relate to the whole It is true this is not all which we assert for we say that in Gods Commonwealth Ministers though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding care and oversight of that part yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also to the whole or to act in any part not that they must act in all cases but that they may act at lest in some cases But there was enough said before to the Argument this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us I find nothing more in their 10 11 12 and 13. pages to prove their minor save only one Text Acts 20.28 Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to take heed unto themselves Nor is it granted that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church See the Assemblies Propos and Reasons c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers This Text indeed proves what none denies viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul over whom God hath given him a special charge but I cannot see how this Text proves that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation If God should say to a Minister as in effect he doth in his word Take heed to every soul in this Parish which is thy flock would it follow that he need not take heed to any other The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed but that it was their duto feed all them as being more specially committed to them If the words indeed had been thus The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight they had been something to our Brethrens purpose This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case Let me now try in a few words if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church but to the Catholick Church viz. That they may do acts of office and authority beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But God hath given Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.12 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture the major I prove If the Vniversal Church be the body of Christ and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ are related to the Vniversal Church But the Vniversal Church is the body of Christ and those who are of God given for it are related to it Ergo. The Consequence is unquestionable The Assumption consists of two assertions one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata will deny viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it If any deny That the Vniversal Church is the Body of Christ there meant I prove it Either the Vniversal Church or the particular Church is there meant But not the particular Church Ergo. I prove the assumption If Christ hath but one mystical body then particular Churches which are many cannot be there meant But Christ hath but one mystical body I prove the minor If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ and sayes Christ is not divided then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one or that he is divided But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ and saith Christ is not divided Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body Besides it is plain from this argument that the Apostle speaks in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church From this argument That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for he also gave pastors and teachers for Eph. 4.12 But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church Ergo. I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church for then according to our Brethrens principles their work must have been terminated there Arg. 2 A second argument is this Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations are not related only to a particular Church but to the Catholike Church yea to the whole world But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations Ergo. The major is Evident for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church The minor only can be denied In proof of which we bring that known text Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations c. I am with you to the End of the world If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles they shake hands with Socinus Smalcius and Theophilus Nicolaides who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia and could have no successors and desert all protestant writers and are confuted by the promise annexed for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment What else our Brtheren say to this text shall in due place be considered A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Minister out of his particular Church makes it impossible for any people not of that Ministers Church to go in faith to hear any such Sermon and makes it sinfull for any Christian to receive the Sacrament otherwhere than in his own Church or of his own pastor and dischargeth all people save members of particular formed Churches from hearing the word publikely preached and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution and denies publike ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches that opinion is absurd schismatical and false But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this Ergo I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major I will prove the Minor Ergo. The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles 1. That the authority of him
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