of Authority for if a man preach to Heathens where no Church is How can he usurp authority over the Church Reply True he cannot usurp authority over the Church but authority he useth towards them to whom he preacheth when Paul preached to Heathens it was an authoritative act no lesse than when he preached to the Church He preached as an Ambassadour to one as well as to the other And seeing that Paul or any other Minister preaching to Heathens or such as are yet unreconciled preacheth as in Christs stead it can be no other than an act of authority 2. They say There may be other waies to give authority to men to preach besides Ordination Reply Our Brethren should do well to remember that Golden saying of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in nothing without Scripture evidence Ordination we know and there are clear Scriptures warranting that and much more clear and undoubted for that than for Election as hath been often observed but for a Scripture warrant for another way of authorizing men to the work of the Ministry without Ordination we know none and if our Brethren know any they should do well to inform us 3. For Heb 7. They say Indeed he that blesseth by an original inherent power as Christ doth he is greater than he that is blessed and of such a blessing the Text speaketh but he that blesseth Ministerially and instrumentally is not alwaies greater than he that is blessed Reply This is very grosse and contrary to the Text which evidently speaks of Melchizedek who blessed only Ministerially and not by any original power and yet that kind of blessing the Apostle alledgeth as an evidence of his superiority over Abraham as the party blessed and if this were not spoken of Melchizedek it were wholly impertinent to the present cause which was to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham 4. They say There is a plain difference between teaching and usurping authority over the man so the Text runs But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence 1 Tim. 2. 12. Reply 1. This should not have been said by such as pretend to know any thing which belongs to the interpretation of Scripture wherein it is so familiar a thing to use a conjunction disjunctive or a word disjoyning one thing from another when indeed the one explains the other Shall any who reads Rev. 22. 15. For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers thence infer that these sorcerers c. are not the dogs there intended because they are distinguished from them This would be plainly childish And to give an instance in the very same kind of conjunction Gal. 1. 12. speaking of the Gospel he saith For I neither received it of man neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Iesus Christ where the latter is not distinct from but expositive of the former for how could he receive it from man any other way then by being taught it 2. For their phrase in this place the Apostle hath so hem'd it in on both sides with an exegesis that no rational man can doubt of it On the one side of it teaching is forbidden on the other side silence is enjoyned and nothing can be more evident then that he speaks of that usurpation of authority which consisted in teaching and is opposed to silence And for what they adde That the Apostle speaks of her usurping authority over the man i. e. her husband not over the Church Answer This is indeed to seek a knot in a bulrush For the man here is not to be understood singularly for her husband there is nothing in the Text which either commands or warrants such a sense but indefinitely for any man For the Apostle is comparing sex with sex in the general not husband and wife in particular And if this Text concerns such women also as have no husbands which I beleeve our Brethren will not deny then the Apostle speaks of usurping authority over the male kind in the Church not over an husband To which may be added that the authority here spoken of is not an Oeconomicall but a Politicall an Ecclesiasticall authority not an authority in the Family but in the Church not an authority assumed in some Family administration but in a Church affair If it be further said for I shall improve their Argument to the highest that the Apostles forbidding this usurping of authority to the women allows it to the men I Answer It no way follows no more then it follows that the French Laws when they prohibit women from usurping authority or wielding the Scepter do allow it to all men or then it would follow if a Law were made that no woman should usurp authority in a corporation that therefore every man ought to do it which is so far from being true that on the contrary such an act would not only forbid women also but all others untill they were called to it 3. To shut the door to all such cavils and unhandsome wrestings of the Text a parallel place will put an end to it 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence it is not permitted for them to speak but to be in subjection as saith the Law Whence the inference is plain and undeniable that to speak i. e. in the Church is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection And because all unofficed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women therefore by the same reason they are forbidden to preach for my part this is so clear that he that shall resist such evidence I shall despair of ever seeing him convinced by man I shall pass over this only taking notice of two things which concern our present controversie 1. That it is not only constant preaching but even occasionall preaching which is here forbidden them And so by a parity of reason gifted men unless in case of necessity and with order to trial for Ordination which also is necessary as hath been argued may not so much as preach once and their preaching though sparingly is as clearly though not so grossly contrary to this prohibition as to preach constantly 2. That it is the work and not the manner of working which is here forbidden The very work of publick preaching is here forbidden them This I say to prevent a common evasion of our Brethren that gifted men may not and cannot preach in the same manner as ordained persons i. e. they cannot do it authoritatively yet the work they may do And why may not I have the same liberty and apply it to the case of women and say that they may do the work although they cannot do it in the same manner i. e. with authority If I should say so it would be easie to silence me by saying that the very act of preaching is spoken of as an act of authority and that may justly silence them too The sixth Argument was
or Rulers not as if there was any defect in his authority but only because there is a manifest inconveniency and disorder in such a promiscuous and unlicensed exercise which therfore is unlawful because it is repugnant to Order and obstructive to Edification and this is the case of ordinary Pastors II. I shall premise another Consideration which being well digested is sufficient to enervate all that is said by our Brethren as to this point it is this A generall respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church Suppose one having a vast number of sheep needeth and chuseth twenty Shepheards to look to his sheep and these shepheards because each of them cannot possibly look to all do therefore distribute the sheep into twenty parcels and each undertakes to look to his share yet so as that in things of common concernment to all the sheep they all meet and consult together c. but in matters of private concernment every man looks to his own parcel In this case every shepheard hath a double relation the one general to the whole the other particular to his own parcel which he doth more especially take care for and feed and keep and watch over c. And in case any of those sheep which properly belong not to his charge go astray if he see them and can keep them in he is obliged by vertue of his office to do it and if through his neglect they miscarry he doth not only sin against Charity but against his Office This is the case of the Church and so it was out of doubt with the Apostles unto whom Christ committed the care of his sheep indefinitely And because each of them could not look to all therefore the sheep were divided into parcels and every Apostle takes upon himself a special relation unto some one parcel and had his proper line 2 Cor. 10. And because the sheep multiplied so fast that to look to them all was a work too heavy for the Apostles shoulders therefore the Flock was divided into more parcels and they ordained more shepheards who although peculiarly entrusted with their proper Charge yet were not freed from their Care of the whole but in things of common concernment did meet together with the Apostles in their daies Act. 15. And afterwards among themselves Or as it is in Germany where every Elector and Prince of the Empire sustains a double relation He is related more especially to his owne peculiar Territory to which he is an Officer acting ordinarily and constantly c. But over and besides his he hath a general relation to the whole Empire and is an Officer to the whole not singly and by himself but together with others being intrusted with a joint-power of governing the whole as in case of chusing of an Emperor or other weighty affairs of the Empire as the necessities and occasions of the Empire require Just so it is in the Church which is one entire body as the Empire is governed by one Systeme of laws and molded under one Government every Minister hath a double relation the one special and peculiar to his owne Flock which he is to feed constantly the other general to the whole Church which he is to feed occasionally as far as his ability will reach and as the Churches exigencies command and which he together with others hath a power to govern This will be put out of doubt by considering more fully that which even now was intimated of the Apostles themselves who also had this double relation one to the whole whereby they were Pastors of the whole Church and yet because they could not possibly each of them look to all the Churches therefore the work was divided among them and they undertook a special relation to some particular parts as Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles Iames to Ierusalem c. Which division did not proceed from any defect of authority in the Apostles to feed the whole but from the impossibility of the thing in regard of the vastnesse of the work and because they were to carry on all Church-work as most suited with edification In like manner we that are ordinary Pastors sequimur patres non passibus aequis and though every Minister is a Minister of the whole Church and hath an Authority extending to it suo modo yet because it is impossible for every one to look to every Church and all things are to be managed with special respect to the Churches edification therefore Ministers are forced to divide the work both as to Teaching and Ruling yet so as that there still remains a relation to the whole whereby he is obliged to teach and with others to rule other Churches so far forth as his ability reacheth and the Churches necessities require And by the way I cannot but take notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling in point of the possibility of the thing and the edification of the Church which is the great Rule in all Church-administrations for a Minister may jointly with others rule a far greater proportion than he can teach David as a King could rule all Israel but David as a Prophet could not vivâ voce teach all Israel at least not ordinarily and constantly And the Apostles though it was impossible for every one of them actually to teach every Church they neither could do it nor did it yet it was possible for each Apostle joyntly with the rest to govern every Church and they did actually rule all the Churches at least all the Churches there mentioned in that famous Synod Acts 15. in which whether they acted as Apostles or as ordinary Elders all is one to the present Question And this may serve for Answer to that specious Argument so much insisted on by the Reverend and Learned dissenters taken from the conjunction of Teaching and Ruling These things premised I shall now come to the Arguments And here I shall have a double work 1. To lay down an Argument or two to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to more than their own particular Churches 2. To Answer their Arguments and to justifie those inconveniences objected by the Provincial Assembly to the contrary Opinion For the former I shall not here dilate only I shall propound three Arguments The first Argument is this If Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens then they are not Officers only to their particular Congregations But Ministers are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens The Minor is the only Proposition that can be denied and that I shall now endeavour to prove 1. The case is plain in the Apostles That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel-Church was erected is undeniable and appears plainly from Mat. 28. The Apostles at that time were Officers for they had actually received their Commission they being relata must have a correlatum A correlate
converted as we have proved If they deny it I prove it thus that it must needs follow from their principles For 1. The Church being according to them the adequate correlatum of the Apostles the Church ceasing they must needs cease also 2. Ejusdem est instituere destituere and seeing they allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people 3. I thus disprove that monstrous paradox That which renders it in the power of mens lusts or humours to nullifie the promises of Christ the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadors is most absurd That which makes it in the power of men whether there shall be any Officially to preach peace to remit sins c. is highly dangerous But such is this doctrine I prove the minor by these steps 1. There are now none but ordinary Ministers in the Church 2. The essence of a Minister say our Brethren consists in relation to a particular Church which is his correlatum and sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum so that when that relation ceaseth his Ministry ceaseth 3. It is in the power of the people to dissolve that relation to eject a Minister so say our Brethren and it is generally asserted by Congregational men 4. That which one Congregation may do another may do and so every one may do Suppose then that there are twenty and but twenty Congregations in the world if each of these resolve severally to eject their Ministers through covetousnesse heresie c. I say then it is in the power of these men to falsifie Christs word and destroy the authority end and use of Christs Ambassadors But you will say it is in the power of men to kill these Ministers one as well as another and so thereby as well as by our way it is in the power of men to disanull the promise of Christ. And therefore as it would be answered in that case that the bones of Christ were breakable yet by divine providence were kept from being broken so though it is remotè in the power of men to kill all those Ministers yet God will restrain them from the act of killing them that he may keep his promise in like manner though it is in the power of such Churches to depose them yet God will hinder the act c. I Answer the case is wholly different the one is an act of horrid violence the other a juridical act and here is the great inconvenience for a man to assert that Jesus Christ hath given to every Congregation a juridical power to depose their Ministers when ever they please for the power of judging is left by our Brethren in their hands and to disanul an Ordinance of Christ and to punish an Officer and Ambassador of Christ without his fault and without all hope of remedy In what a sad condition were Gospel Ministers if it were in the power of their people upon every Capricio when ever the humour takes them to rob a godly Minister it may be for the faithful discharge of his duty among them of that which he accounts better than a world and that without any possibility of redresse forasmuch as he hath none to make his appeal to How secure might a people be in their wickednesse if when a Minister reproves them sharply for their sins they might take away from their Minister the power of reclaiming their sins or officially denouncing wrath against them But they have a second Answer to relieve them If such a rejection of their Officers do not nullifie his Office the reason is because he is de jure and of right still over that Church as their Officer though hindred from the exercise of his Office And this indeed is much more tolerable than the other but our Brethren have lost the benefit of this refuge forasmuch as they positively acknowledge that the people have a power to annull his Office And besides it helps them not at all for if the people and they only they beyond appeal have a full juridical power of deposing and rejecting their Ministers as our Brethren hold then they only have a power to judge whether the cause of the deposition be just or unjust and be it just or unjust the Minister hath no way but to acquiesce in their sentence for if once this gap were opened either in Church or State that a person judged and censured might thwart the judgment of the supream Court by his private opinion it would introduce intolerable confusion It is true in such a case he may appeal to God and find comfort in this that in fero Dei his cause is good but as for the forum humanum he is gone irrecoverably And however neighbouring Churches or Ministers may endeavour to convince and rectifie such a Church and to perswade them to own him as their Minister yet if they will persist they must all be contented and he must not be owned for a Minister And thus much may serve for the Vindication of those Arguments which were urged by the Assembly I shall now take notice of two or three of their Arguments Their chief Argument is this A Minister is a Pastour only to his own Flock But it is only a particular Church which is his Flock Ergo He is a Pastour only to his particular Church The minor is proved thus All that is a mans Flock he is commanded actually to feed and to take heed to and he sins if he do not Acts 20. 28. But no Bishop is commanded actually to feed the whole Church Ergo the whole Church is not his Flock p. 8. Ans. 1. The major of the first Syllogisme is untrue A Minister is a Pastour to his own Flock especially but not only 2. The major of the second Syllogism is denied A Minister is not obliged actually to feed all his Flock and I suppose I shall give an unanswerable reason for the deniall of it Every Apostle was a Catholick Pastour and so had the whole Church for his Flock Mat. 28. 19 20. Here our Brethren are consenters But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church and all Nations they neither did it nor was it possible for them to do it and therefore their work was divided among them the Circumcision being more especially committed to Peter and the uncircumcision to Paul And yet although by this distribution Paul had a special relation to the Gentiles and was obliged to feed them more especially yet he had upon him the care of all the Churches and it was his duty as far as his ability and occasions reached to feed the whole Church and no farther And so it is with ordinary Ministers though they are especially obliged to feed their own Flocks and indeed can do no more constantly yet according to their ability and opportunity they are bound to feed the whole Church by teaching and consulting c. And this is the only Argument urged formally in this place against our Assertion But
have nor is it necessarily required that they should have these Ergo they are not capable of giving the Essence of the Ministeriall Call I shall prove both propositions 1. For the Major there are two ingredients c. of both I shall speak in order 1. I say to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call is an act of authority I think this is unquestionable in all other cases wheresoever the power of calling to any office lies there is an authority in relation thereunto For instance in a Corporation If it belongs to the Court of Aldermen to give the Essence of such an Office it is an act of authority in them So if it belong to the Court of Common councel to do it it is an act of authority in them Et sic in caeteris It is true a man may give an Office to another which he himself hath not But if he have it not formally he must have it virtually In democraticall governments where the officers are chosen by the body of the people there I say the authority resides and upon that very ground the people taken collectively are superiour in authority unto the Officers to whom they give the Call And as the Apostle saith The lesse is blessed of the greater so may I say the lesse is called of the greater And as it is in civil respects in some Parishes where the People are Patrons of the place and give the Essence of the civil call to a Minister to be the Minister of the place as to all legall rights c. there I say the People are eo nomine invested with authority for that worke and their collation of this place upon that Minister is an act of authority So in like manner if it belong to the people to give the essence of the Ecclesiasticall call unto a Minister then the people hereby are impowred with an authority and their act is an act of authority And this is the first branch Authority is necessary c. The use of this we shall see when we come to the Minor In the mean time we must prove the other branch of the Major or rather that is proved already that ability to Judge of a Ministers fitnesse is necessary to put a man into a regular capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry And therefore I now come to the proof of the Minor where I must shew 1. That people have no authority c. 2. That they neither have nor by divine appointment are required to have ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry 1. That people have no authority nor can do any act of authority in the Church is plain from hence because they are by Gods appointment placed in a state of subjection at lest it is a cleare case concerning women who are forbidden to do an act of authority i. e. to preach publickly because they are in a state of subjection And this is the more considerable because in that instance which our brethren so much insist upon Acts 1. in that election of an Apostle not only the men but women also did concurre which they could not have done if election were an act of authority or if it were that act which gives the essence to an Officer 2. As they want authority so they want ability And here there are two branches 1. They have not 2. they are not required to have ability to judge c. 1. The people have not ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry This we have proved before and thither I refer the reader and indeed if our brethrens principles did not oblige them to the contrary it would be out of doubt that for the body of almost all the congregations in the world they are exceeding unable to judge of divers of those abilities which are required to the Ministry It is little lesse then a contradiction to say that unlearned men should be fit judges of another mans learning and that learning is of necessary use to a Minister neither will our brethren deny nor can any one doubt but he that is wholly a stranger to it and it is no lesse absurd to think that those persons who are unacquainted with the stratagems and subtilties of gainsayers and hereticks should be competent judges of a mans ability to convince gainsayers If it be said it is true the people are not able to judge of these things themselves but they should and may call in the help of neighbouring Pastors I answer They may do it and they may forbear it According to our Brethrens mind this is not necessary to the being but to the well being of it It is the people that have the whole and sole power of giving the Essence of the Ministeriall Call So that if they will perversly or proudly refuse the help of Pastors as some of our brethrens mind have experienced the giddinesse and unrulinesse of Congregations even when they have had Ministers to guide them and much more when they have been left to themselves they may do it Or what if a Congregation be in an Island or where there are no Pastors to help them in that case they want ability to judge 2. Who ever they are that are intrusted with a power to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call they are to see with their own eyes And surely they that blamed the Bishops because they delegated the Pastorall work to others which they ought to have performed personally cannot excuse the people if they were indeed intrusted herewith that they manage it by others care and wisdom Or else 3. This great inconvenience will follow that Christ hath intrusted this great power in such hands as are unable of themselves to manage it And thus I have dispatched the first branch and shewed that the people are not able to judge The second branch is this The people are not necessarily required to be able to judge of a Ministers abilities as they ought to be if it did belong to them to give the essence of the Ministeriall Call I say if it doth belong to every Church-member as such as his priviledge to have a joint power to give the essence of the Ministeriall call then it belongs to every Church-member as his duty and he ought by divine appointment to be fit to judge of a Ministers abilities and this would be a necessary qualification in every Church-member not onely that he be pious but also judicious and prudent c. and in all respects able to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry so that if a man were never so godly and desirous of Church-membership c. if he were apparently unfit to judge of a Ministers abilities as many hundreds of godly people unquestionably are he ought not to be admitted a Church-member because he wanted one necessary qualification for that relation Which because it is a grosse and manifest absurdity therefore it is not necessarily required that Church-members should
is not any Constitution for the peoples conveying the Office-power to Ministers 2. If the word jurisdiction be taken strictly there is a difference made between Ordination and Jurisdiction but if by an act of Iurisdiction they mean nothing else but an act of Authority for that is the thing in question then we have before proved that it is an act of Authority and it were easie to make it good by Arguments We never find Ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament but by persons in authority towards their inferiours Moses Ordained Aaron Aaron his sons Christ his Apostles the Apostles other Ministers And if in all these it be granted to be an act of Authority surely to deny it to be so in other Ministers carrying on the same work is an assertion neither true nor probable Again Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in Office and therefore must be an act of authority But I must remember my work is not now to prove but to answer and therefore I forbear and shall give my self and the Reader a writ of ease Only that the Reader may see the fruit of our Brethrens opinion as indeed posito uno absurdo sequuntur mille I shall present him with a list of some novel and strange assertions which they have been hurried into by the force of their principles Novel and strange passages 1. They implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the Iews as a teacher by Office for thus they say p. 13. A man is not a teacher by Office to all that he may preach to If he preach to Heathens such as will not receive iustruction yet they are said to be taught though they stumble at the Word Mat. 13. 54. He i. e. Jesus taught them and yet v. 57. they were offended at him But a man is not a teacher by Office unto such heathens And the Apostles according to them were no Officers to Heathens for they thus argue pag. 18. That such are no Officers to people as cannot exercise Church-government over them But say I the Apostles cannot exercise Church-government over heathens What have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo. 2. One that is really gifted for preaching for ought we know may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others p. o. 3. It is the work of God and Christ onely to send Preachers let it be proved wherever a Presbytery was impowred to send pag. 126. And the Church is in no better case with them for they say The person sending is Christ neither a Church nor a presbytery pag. 125. And afterwards Sending is nothing else but Christ commanding to go and preach not by a Presbytery but by the word And how a Presbytery can send but by exhorting to follow the command of Christ we know not And in such a doctrinall way for ought we see a private Christian may exhort to go and teach pag. 130. So that now both Presbytery and Church are thrust out of Office and every one that is apt to teach is commanded to preach though neither Presbytery nor Church send him And every private Christian hath as great a power to send Ministers as either Church or Presbytery which who can read without wonder 4. If the Major part of a Congregation be wicked we suppose then it is no true Church and if once it were a true Church yet now it ceaseth to be so or is unchurched pag. 237. 5. They talk of Pastors administring the Sacraments not as Pastors for thus they say If Pastors preach and give the Sacraments to their own flock they act as Pastors but if they perform these acts to any not of their own Congregation they do it not as Pastors pag. 280. Then they do it as gifted-men for that is the other branch of the distinction He that preacheth to strangers not as a Pastor preacheth as a gifted-brother that they grant And therefore he that administreth the Sacraments to any not as a Pastor doth it as a gifted-brother 6. We see no inconvenience in asserting that heathens converted to Christianity may be a Church before they be baptized pag. 288. 7. A minister as oft as hee changeth his place and people needeth a new ordination pag. 290. 8. They say It is our mistake when we assert that Baptisme doth admit or make a man stand in relation to a Church whereas baptizing is not into a Church but into the name of Christ pag. 292. 9. They say If a people turn hereticall or starve a Minister or combine to vote him out the sin of the people doth nullify the office of the Minister pag. 296. And that I may tread in our brethrens steps who were so ready to catch at the appearance of a contradiction in the Provinciall Assembly I shall put them in mind of two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeming repugnancies at least if not grosse contradictions Self contradicting passages They say pag. 20. that one that is really gifted for preaching may for ought we know lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others pag. 20. And they urge 1 Pet. 4. 11. to prove it the duty of gifted persons to preach and surely if it be a duty then it obligeth whensoever a man may do it lawfully And yet pag. 149. they say We grant that to a mans exercise of his gifts in this or that place there is praerequired a call from the people or Magistrate And how can any man preach but he must preach in this or that place Quod nusquam fit non fit 2. They say When an ordained Minister removes from one charge to another They chuse him not as one that is to be made a Minister but as one already made and now to be made their Minister pag. 300. And yet pag. 302. They say when he removes he is to have a new Ordination and a new Election The Gospel knoweth no difference between making a man a Minister and making him their Minister pag. 302. 3. They say Men to be sent to the heathens to convert them should be Ordained because the conversion of soules is a proper work of the Ministry pag. 300. And yet pag. 302. they say When men are sent to heathens if they be Officers yet they preach not as Officers The conversion of souls is the work of the Ministry not the proper work FINIS Suarez Metap Predestinati nondum congregati Aug. right foot Hammond Selden Analogum per se positum sumâ—â—ur pro famosiore analogata