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
we grant but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny I shall have liberty to enter my dissent in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description First You say it is a company that we grant Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church Secondly You say it is a particular Company and that there never was nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ any other than a particular company I must confess to my dear Brethren that I cannot fathom their notion of particular we use to say particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis An universal theme in Logick is that as our Brethren know which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many I think Church is such a Theme Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant that their Congregations at London Norwich Yarmouth may each of them be called a Church Now the Question is whether all these Churches may not be considered together and called a Church Or if you will Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth may not by an universal notion be called a Church or is not called a Church in Scripture You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company but not an universal Church that is as I suppose you mean a body capable of Officers otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons who are visible Saints should be called a Church Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad p. 40. and seven hundred should not If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches Acts 8.3 Gal. 1.13 Acts 26.11 Acts 9.31 compared together Acts 12.1 Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 All these Texts will prove that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called But you will say This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it Brethren have you read what Mr. Hudson saith to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholick Do they not when they Baptize admit into the Catholick Church Pag. 232 why else are not your Members baptized again when they are translated from the particular Church into which according to this principle alone they were Baptized Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church Or will our Brethren say that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion Were the Apostles think our Brethren Officers only to a particular Church If to the Vniversal then there was an universal Church once existing capable of Officers Nor is that irrefragable Text 1 Cor. 12.28 as our Brethren say prest to the service of the Catholick Church No it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth You say Brethren that what it is written ver 18. of that chapter God hath set the Members every one in the body doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body as God hath set some in the Church proves a Catholick Vniversal Church I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body together with ver 12. and all the members of that one body being many are one body will prove that the body is Totum integrale So also saith the Apostle is Christ i. e. the Church of Christ If our Brethren will but grant us this That the Church is a Totum integrale you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum If you say there is no other Totum called a Church but only the particular Church I have proved the contrary that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church If you say this Church hath no Officers that Text 1 Cor. 12.28 confutes you neither will your consequence follow that because an universal body is not proved from ver 18. therefore an Vniversal Church is not proved from ver 28. viz. from the whole verse If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body but would serve any other particular bodies as he doth of Church Officers ver 28. I hope it would have proved an Vniversal body You tell us Brethren you renounce the name and thing of an Vniversal or Catholick Church you must then renounce the Holy Scripture witness the Texts before mentioned and renounce right reason and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren who generally acknowledge both the name and thing only deny it to be Organical But you think you have five Arguments will prove that a particular Church cannot be a part but a Totum 1. You say first every part is in power incompleat But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church And may act in all Church work not as a part but as a whole I must deny your Minor Brethren I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod and to consult at least a piece of Church work to which Gods word gives a power Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod We say the like for Ordination except in cases of absolute necessity and for excommunication where the Church is very small there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited 2. You tell us next that every whole is really distinct from every part and from all its parts collectively considered they are constituting that is constituted but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches or wherefore it is you know not This is Brethren such a fallacy as scarce deserveth an answer the body of a man is a whole all his members are parts now when you have found out where that body is which is really distinct from all the members and wherefore it is you will have answered your selves The Nation of England is a whole every Parish is a part finde us where that Nation is which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together We use to make this a Maxime in Logick Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis unitis That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united 3. In the next place you tell us there can be no visible universal Church because
he could come near Acts 9.14 Now besides these more general distributions of a Church the Church as Visible is capable of several states from whence arise 3 other notions of it 1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church which is nothing else but any particular number any part of that company before mentioned who are found in any Nation Province City Parish so called out of the paganish world agreeing in the profession of the Gospel In this sense I allwaies thought that we and our brethren of the congregational perswasion had been agreed that there are National Provincial and Parochial Churches 2. There is a second notion of the Church resulting from the consideration of this body as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel and to Baptize c. To open this notion a little We consider that it seemed good to the wisdome of God to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high gave gifts unto men Eph. 4.11 12. He gave some Apostles these were to lay the foundation and then Prophets these were to be Instrumental in the building And by the Apostles he constituted Evangelists who were as to power little less than Provincial Apostles and by these Pastors and teachers Hence the Apostles created Evangelists Philip Timothy Titus and both the Apostles and these Evangelists ordained Pastors and Teachers Acts 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 by fasting prayer and imposition of hands and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus containing the standing rules for the settling of Churchs in their permanent state Apostles Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world now when in any place God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell we say there is in such a Nation Province City Parish a Ministerial Church which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former and differing from it we I say for distinction sake call it a Ministerial Church That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ among whom also are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ for the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments According to that commission Go Preach and Baptize Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faithfull in order to which there must be an act of Judgment pass upon the Receiver which is jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a â—ingle person it seems that in such a Church according to perfect rules it cannot be administred except there be more than one officer nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment yet Number making a Church in case Ruling Elders cannot be had I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church who allso are ruling or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance Nay farther in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed rather than people should want that Ordinance as in Hezekiah's passeover the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover which else had been against Gods order 2 Chron. 30.17 Exod. 12.3 4 5 6. 3. But lastly the most perfect notion of a particular Church is when it is perfectly Organized A particular â—hurch considered in relation to the Universal is any â—â—râ— of it whether that in a Nation Province Parish or â—he like each of these is but a particular because no more than a part of the wh le But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion For that part of this universal company which can or may or doth ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen or submitted to the same officers as those whom God hath set over their souls and this is a Church perfectly Organized and the most perfect notion of a particular Church This Church either without officers or with is the onely Church our Brethren can see wee hope the fault is in their eyes Now the question is whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church or indeed rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world have any farther relation or be in any office to any but that particular company over which they are respectively more especially set because they cannot watch over all c. We affirm they have and in this sense we assert not onely a Church Catholike Visible but a Church Catholike Visible Organical too By which we mean not what our brethren dream of viz. An Vniversal visible society of Christians actually subjected to one or more Vniversal Pastors or guides from whom subordinates must derive their office and power and with whom they must sometimes meet and communicate in some general sacred things which may make them as the Jewes one Church and which same general acts or sacred services can only be performed by that Vniversal head or those Vniversal officers No Nor that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing Our Brethren indeed dress up some in this dress to the world and shew them for Presbyterians But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense and say that it is but an odious representation nothing corresponding to our principles Our Brethren do or may know we are equally with themselves engaged against Popes Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than An habitual Politico-Ecclesiastical society body flock in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church in uniform subjection to the same Lord the same lawes united in the same Faith and under the same Baptism performing the same worship and service Mr. Hudsons vindication c. p. 127. c. in kind concerning which body we say that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide and divided into several parts places societies and secondary
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
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
he was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 and he is the only Preacher named 3. That those were members of the Church of Jerusalem some of the 8000. who were filled with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost and might speak the word with boldness Acts 4.31 If our brethren have any indued with gifts of that species God forbid we should deny them liberty but we conceive them ceased and with them the strength of this Argument too Now what say our brethren to take off these Answers I shall not meddle with what they say to the first it being an answer not to be rested upon and supernumerary As to the second they tell us p. 81. The consequence is feeble because one was an Officer Ergo all were It is an easie thing our brethren know to break a mans legs and then say he is lame This Argument was not brought as demonstrative Pag. 81. but as a good topick but the strength lay here Every one of them whom the Scripture names was an Officer and therefore it is not probable any preached but Officers and what ever Office Philip was ordained to Acts 6. certain it is he was an Officer and so our brethren grant As to the last Answer which alone is sufficient they have said nothing So then upon this enquiry our brethrens Argument lyes thus If Apollo who was soon after to be made an Officer of the Church at Corinth preached in order to Ordination and some scattered Members of the Church of Jerusalem who had received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost preached amongst whom we think there were some no Officers then private persons who have but very ordinary gifts and intend no such Ordination may preach too To which we must crave leave to answer Non sequitur But our Brethrens Argument is sick of more Non sequiturs than one To proceed therefore Secondly In case there were no parity in their acts then our Brethrens Argument is naught for I hope our brethren have no design to serve us with such a fallacy as this If the scattered Christians wherever they became in private houses commended the Gospel to people then gifted men may in the publick Assemblies of the Church or any people perform that Ordinance of Christ called preaching That were just such an Argument as this If John a Nokes may turn a servant out of communion with his Family then he may excommunicate him out of the Church Our Brethren in that Text Acts 8. have found the word preach but nothing to evidence it was in publick Assemblies nor will Gods blessing their labours prove it God may and oft doth bless private means when publick cannot be had The case was otherwise indeed concerning Apollo it is said he preached in the Synagogues but so might any one according to the corrupt state of the Jewish Church at that time and besides as I said before he was to be proved in order to office which our Brethren grant he afterward had But thirdly There must be a parity in the State of the Church too or else their Argument will not hold but this there is not 1. It was an infant state and is is a true observation of Didoclavius that many things may be lawfull in the infancy of a Church which are not to be imitated nor induced in a setled Church 2. It was a persecuted State This is indeed the best answer and therefore our Brethren spend most pains in trying to answer it pag. 85 86 87 88. Let us consider what they say 1. They grant that necessity may legitimate an action otherwise not lawfull 2. They say though they were necessitated to traevel yet they were not necessitated to preach What do our brethren think we mean by necessity or how comes necessity into the question which is whether it be not lawfull for private persons to do something in a persecuted State of the Church which is not lawfull in a setled state of it But to take our Brethren at their own rebound Necesse est quod nec esse aliter potest there is a natural necessity and there is a moral necessity We never thought this necessity was natural and yet against that our brethren argue There is an absolute necessity and an hypothetical necessity In short we say they might be under a manifold necessity 1. A necessity of the precept they were filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost and those extraordinary gifts might be attended with an extraordinary praeceptive impression Acts 4.31 2. There was necessit as medii there was no other ordinary means of salvation for those people where they came than that extraordinary course of theirs the Apostles being yet left at Jerusalem 3. Upon this supposition that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people it was necessary for there were no others in office to do it Thirdly Our Brethren question whether necessity can legitimate an action in it self unlawfull but grant it may legitimate an action unlawfull at this or that time Not to dispute the first which yet we might by our Saviours instance of the Shew-bread taken by David c. The later part granted is enough for us if our Brethren mean ingenuously We do not say it is against the light of nature to preach without Ordination But it is unlawfull at such a time when the Church hath plenty of Ministers and there is no need of their extraordinary actings being calm and setled Now that which is unlawfull at such and such a time our Brethren grant necessity may make lawfull we ask no more at their hands at this time 3. Our Brethren enquire when is there such a case of necessity and conclude when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way And they can finde no lawfull Ordination without a preceding election to a particular Church And therefore all Gifted men lye under such a necessity Let us put this loose discourse into form It must be thus If Gifted men may Preach in a case of necessity and it be a case of necessity when they cannot have Ordination in Gods way and this cannot be till they be chosen Officers to a particular Church then till that time their Preaching is justified by necessity But c. Ergo. But our brethren know that although they say they cannot yet we can see regular Ordination without a Call to a particular Church we are at a loss to know what election to a particular Church preceded the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas of Timothy of any one preaching Elder in Scripture Our Brethren go on They that preach in such cases of necessity are either officers or no officers If no officers then preaching is not a peculiar act of office then there is a difference betwixt Preaching by Office and by Gift If they be Officers then Ordination is not essential to office Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination then Baptism is valid without Ordination c.
less absurd to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth it should be done by a Church made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons then by seven persons none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ who is very tender of all his peoples souls Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things You tell us Brethren that the Officers of Churches met together are no true Church Zuinglius you say said some such thing but it was in a case no more like this than chalk is like cheese We are disputing now whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod may not be called a Church they being sent to represent the particular Churches We have a Rule in Logick Cui competit definitio convenit definitum I therefore argue A Church say you Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ for the glory of God the edification of their own souls and the good of others But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company Ergo they are a Church 1. They are a Company one cannot make a Synod 2. They are a particular Company they are but a part of the Church not every individual nor say our Brethren did ever any other company exist 3. They are an holy Company at least should or may be so 4. They are united their consent to meet and sit together unites them so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them 5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship we will suppose them while they are together to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear pray receive Sacraments together c. 6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God the edification of themselves and the whole Church and the good of others So that in Answer to our Brethrens expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case Representativant esse credo veram non credo I return Aut veram esse credo aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem Either they are a true Church or your definition of a Church is not true Thirdly you tell us a Church must be an holy Company I Answer 1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32 42. But concerning the Church of Christ we grant it sano sensu upon some of your Arguments which I think are conclusive enough 2. We say God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy Exod. 19.6 The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy where one of them was a believer 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy separated from a Paganish conversation and under an external Covenant with God 3. We say it is their duty to be holy by sanctification this they are to labour after But we deny 1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints or no Church and this our Brethren will not own 2. That a visibility of saving grace is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it 1. Because our Brethren we hope will own the Infants of their members to be members in whom is no such visibility 2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible and of which we can make no true judgement 3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel Fourthly our Brethren themselves say that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted which is not fit matter in the constitution We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes as they have united themselves in means of worship Churches constituted not to be constituted and do not understand while the form which doth dare esse continues how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound makes the house while it stands and keeps the form not to be an house But fifthly we grant to our Brethren that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel or are affectedly ignorant of them or are guilty of leudness in their lives ought to be cast out of the Church though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace remembring the failings of Lot Noah David Solomon and Peter yet we say by vertue of the Command of God though they may have a root of grace they ought to be admonished suspended and excommunicated and this for the glory of God the honour of the Church and the good of their own souls not because they have no saving grace or no visibility of it for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them as to make us of another minde We therefore grant you brethren that the visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ the body of Christ and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom who give not due homage to him members of this body real members and yet must be cut off branches in this Vine and yet not bringing forth fruit John 15.2 You desire to know what reason we have to justifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints The Answer Brethren is very easie Because we find that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup but we no where find Let a man examine himself before he comes into the fellowship of the Church and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission to do it very throughly But our Brethren know no Rule they say for an ordinary suspension of compleat and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6 He will shew you plain Scripture for it if the incestuous person had been excommunicated St. Paul needed not to have said sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted for they had punished him as much as they could Nor was there any thing to be remitted See Beza on the Text more fully However our Brethren as I hear ordinarily practise it when a person is under admonition and the Church waiting to see the issue of it we plead for it no further 5. You tell us fifthly Brethren
undertaken me the second time in the defence of the Preaching of gifted mens Preaching I shall only give thee a true account why I have said nothing to the three other Answerers nor have any thoughts to do it As for John Timson had he fallen upon me but with his Cart-whip I think I should have turnd again but falling so fouly upon me with his plow-staff upon a maxime I have learned from some Gentlemen that a Rapier is no weapon fit to engage a Carter upon the Road I thought it prudence to runaway Besides that perceiving he had got the Art to answer himself by more then one manifest contradiction I thought it pity any one else should be put to the trouble especially considering that after I had drawn seven or eight sheets of an Answer my Stationer assured me he had not sold above one of his Books and it was pity by an Answer to commend his Book to the worlds Enquiry Mr. Humfry indeed discovers a reverend opinion of his Book I suppose for the Notion he in the main drives not for his way of handling of it which I think scarce deserves such a character As for Mr. Humfry I perceived him sailing in his last Book at a lower rate and I was loth by an answer to serve him with a wind which might have tempted him to have spread his sails to their former wideness I remember the ill influence learned Spanhemius his Answer to Amiraldus had upon him to this purpose Besides that I saw I must have differed with him in more momentous matter then that of the Sacrament if I had given him a strist answer and I was not willing to raise more dust of Controversie then is already raised in the world As for Theoph. Brabourne as I could finde nothing in his Book besides error and non-sense so I perceive the world had no better opinion of it the Stationer returning him his Printed Copies for New-years-gifts for his Friends because he could sell none of them or but exceeding few and though I have often met the Books at my Friends Houses where he had given them yet that I know of I never found any of them made fit to read or otherwise used than to kindle Tobacco Besides that immediatly after his publication of that Rapsody of impertinence I saw some Papers he had scattered up and down this City to prove there were three distinct Gods and to the will of which of them he had calculated his Book I could not tell The GOD whom I serve is but one he that can blaspheme the Living GOD may be excused for that crime towards his Truths and Servants and deserves not to be mentioned in a Christians mouth As for this last Book called The Preacher Sent I finde it written by grave and sober persons with a good shew of Argument indeed as much as their Cause would bear I think and dictated by a sober composed and gentle Spirit and the concernment of the Book to be of exceeding Moment especially in relation to this County which I believe hath more of that sort of Preachers then any three Counties in England have I have therefore thought it worth the while to examine their Book so far as I am concerned in it with what success Reader thou must be Judge and the Lord guide thee in Judgement both as to this and every truth So prays Thy Faithfull Servant in the Lord Jesus J. C. The Printer to the Reader READER I Would desire thee by reason of the Authors dwelling so far off that he could not Correct his Book himself that thou wouldst mend with thy Pen the Errors of the Press Farewell CHAP. I. Containing an answer to the three first Chapters of our Brethrens Book Concerning Preaching without Ordination In which the terms Minister Ministry and Office are considered and explaned and three Questions discussed 1. Whether gifted men not ordained can be called Ministers and in what sense 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the work or no. 3. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the Universal Church The Negative part of the first The Affirmative part of the two latter is defended And whatsoever our Brethren have offered on the contrary is fully answered and proved fallacies their description of Office proved faulty c. 1. THat two of the Books lately Published against the Preaching of persons meerly gifted and for Ordination as that which gives the call unto the work of the Ministry should as our Brethren say contain the substance of all the rest is no great wonder considering that I trust they were all wrote by the same Spirit and for the most part made use of the same Scripture for the Sedes of their Arguments But that our Brethren should take my Vindiciae ministerii Evangelioi to be one of them either speaks their too much respect for me or their policy to magnifie that Enemy whom they conceive they have conquered 2. For my Pamphlet it was written seven years since commanded almost to the Press by an holy and eminent servant of God now with God Mr. Jeremy Whitaker who was with me when I was writing and arguing the need or expedience of such a Pamphlet he told me he was of Augustine's mind who would have every body write against Pelagius It was occasioned at first by the troublesomness of a gifted man as himself judged in communion with me who had a great ambition to be expounding Scripture and in a teach because we would not allow it afterwards left us and joynd himself with a Congregational Church who had no better opinion of his gifts than we had before restrained his lust in that ambition too and in a like teach he left them and turned Quaker For the satisfaction of those Christians in communion with me upon the trouble given us by this person I first at private meetings of Christians in communion with me discoursed the things in my Book afterwards Printed them It pleased God so far to bless my indeavours that since that time none of those committed to my charge have presumed to attempt any such practice and it hath pleased God so far to give my Printed Book success that I think it hath been twice Printed and several persons some of quality have returned me thanks for my poor labours in it And our Brethren having singled me out for a combatant once more in this quarrel I shall indeavour to discharge the duty they have imposed upon me and to do it with the same moderation and spirit of meekness which they profess and for ought I observe yet have practised 3. Our Brethren in the first Chapter do two things 1. They Open the term Ministry 2. The term Office 3. They raise two Questions 1. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the work or to the Church If our Brethren would have been content that it should have been in its relation divided we should
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most restrained word of the three both in civil and also in sacred writ yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate Rom. 13.6 To the Minister of the Gospel Rom. 15.16 to a publick Person but ministring in a private manner Phil. 2.25 To Angels Heb. 1.7.14 To Christ himself Heb. 8.2 Some note that it is alwayes a title of publick performance but Philip. 2.25 It is otherwise used Yet there are that think that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office and in that ministration to Paul so acted if any credit may be given to civil Authors for the proper usage of this word it signifieth both a publick office and a sacred Service So Suidas and Scapula assure me and the Etymology of the word as much It is true in civil Authors it is sometimes used otherwise but Suidas saith it is abusively I think we may say there is this difference betwixt this word and the other that whereas other words primarily signifie ordinary private civil Service this word ptimarily signifies sacred publick Service and in all holy writ is not applied to a private person Sure I am that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as publick persons in sacred Services 5. But though both Minister in the Latine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Minister in our English tongue are equivocal terms Yet we must cum vulgo loqui speak according to vulgar usage not according to equivocal notions of the word Gifted men cannot in propriety of Speech be called Ministers We will grant to our Brethren that the persons they plead for may be called Ministers if they do but wait at their Masters Table or be but under-Commissioners to the State or the like though they should never Preach according to the signification of the words but as the Church of God hath in all late ages used the term Minister we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be called a Minister we do not deny but that every General of an army may be called Imperator and was so but as the term hath lately been used and is used we deny he can be called an Emperour we do not deny but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer we do not say but our Brethren though not ordained may be such Ministers as you read of Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5 but not such as you read of 1 Cor. 4.1 Acts 26.16 And by vulgar usage such only for a long time have been so called to distinguish persons in office from such as only do acts of Service Civil or Sacted I must confess I must commend people for keeping that term still as distinctive if every one should be called Sir John or Sir Thomas such a one in time there would be no difference betwixt a Knight and a begger and names are given for distinction sake If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench should say there sit a dozen Ministers people would not understand what they said and according to vulgar speech it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment yet if our Brethrens Argument were good that gifted men should be called Ministers because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would justifie that new dialect in other things as well as this For Magistrates are called Ministers and Magistrates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am much against this removing of the Antient Land-Marks which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with and think it a very ill design which would produce nothing but confusion Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture where a gifted man not ordained is called a Minister of the Gospel a Minister of Christ c. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much Preaching without ordination p. 3. Nor will a general course of acting as they would hint entitle them to that name It is true constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker for neither of them are titles of office But suppose now a Rebell should overcome his Prince and for seven years together exercise the Acts of his place he would not yet by bare acting be entituled to the name of a Prince or King The Conclusion is that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense according to later ages restriction and constant usage of the word Minister be called Ministers they may be called Speakers if you please Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister and of the Greek words so translated Second Term Ministry let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry imports And this also we shall find Homonymous 1. Every one will conclude that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie their service or ministration and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to express that in Scripture which we translate Ministry I mean two of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first onely in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple the latter very often Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 c. And indeed I think this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture to signifie the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers Acts 1.17 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18 Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Gospel perform in Preaching administring Sacraments c. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church who more strictly are called Deacons Rom. 12.7 1 Cor. 16.15 though there be some question upon that Text So Christs execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry And the old service of the Priests and Levites is called a Ministry Heb. 9.21 But in this sense I take not Ministry in the Question yet if our Brethren contend for words I can state the question so viz. Whether that work of the Ministry which the Scripture mentioneth eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel be the work of persons meerly gifted 2. But there is another usage of the word which use at least hath procured it according to which we call the Ministry A certain order of persons set apart according to the will of God for the dispensing out of Publick Gospel Ordinances In Analogy to the description of the High Priest described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the description thus The Minister is one taken from amongst men and ordained for men in things pertaining to God for the dispensation of Publick
preaching of the gospel c. which he may do as an officer of Christ in any place of the world We do not say he is bound to do it in all places that is impossible nor to travel up and down as the Apostles were for that work is ceased at least as to those places where people have received the gospel But we say he may do it as opportunity is offered And we believe that in case it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England The Church might by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands set apart some particular persons to the office of the ministry without a particular designation of them to this or that place but only designing them as the officers of Christ to preach the Gospel amongst the Indians and to baptize such as should receive the Gospel and though not by their single Act as the Apostles yet by the advice of the Church and with their assistance these might ordain Elders in their Cities and form them up into complete Gospel order yet the office of such would differ from that of the Apostles both in regard of their mission being more ordinary and also in regatd of their power being more limitted These things being premised let us consider our Brethrens Arguments their first reduced into form is this What the Gospel knoweth not no Gospel officers can be correlates unto Of Preaching without ordination cap. 2 p. 8. But the Gospel knows no Universal visible Political Church Ergo 1. At the first dash our Brethren here take away the subject or at least the suppositum of the question The suppositum of the question is That there is a Church Particular and Vniversal The question is to which of these the office of the Ministry is related They say to the Church Particular we say to the Church Vniversal to prove their assertion they tell us there is no Church Vniversal This is foul disputing 2. But secondly The whole may be granted and yet nothing proved by it for whether the Gospel knowes a Church universal under a political form or no is not the question it is enough if it knowes a Church Vniversal under any notion 3. Thirdly the minor is false as Mr. Hudson abundantly proves the Church universal is in scripture set out under the notions of a political body it is called a Kingdom a City Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens it is called an Army terrible with Banners Cant. 6.10 see Mr. Hudson more p. 133 134 135 c. for it nothing concerns me as to the present question as I said before Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto these officers viz. Pastors teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 Overseers Acts. 20.28 1 Tim 3.2 Titus 1.7 Themselves form their argument thus or at least should have formed it thus Arg. 2 That Church alone which is committed to ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But the universal Church is not that Church which is committed to a Minister to feed teach and oversee Ergo I am sure that the Argument must run thus if it concludes the question which at present is not whether a particular minister but whether the office of the ministry residing in all ministers be a correlate to the particular or to the Universal Church And therefore our Brethren may see a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the question stated by themselves Now to the argument thus formed I answer By denying both the propositions I deny that That Church alone which is committed to a ministers charge to feed teach and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate For I suppose that our Brethren mean which is more especially committed to his charge as pastor thereof in a restrained sense if they do so I say that Church alone is not correlate to his office or to the office of the ministry because another Church viz. the catholike Church is also in some sense committed to his charge viz. so far as pro re natâ as occasion serveth he may and ought to feed others besides that Church yea such as are of no Church but may for ought he knowes be members of the invisible Church of Gods elect and so his office doth relate to them But secondly the Minor is apparently false viz. That the particular Church is that alone which is committed to a ministers eharge to feed teach and oversee Go preach the gospel to every creature is a commission which hath put all the reasonable world under the charge of the ministeral office And although as our Brethren of London say right that no minister is an Actual Minister to the Vniversal Church viz. in these two senses 1 None can be here and there and every where thus the Spirit of God is only an Universal actual teacher Nor secondly is any Minister set in a particular Church bound as the Apostles to an itinerant Execution of his office yet our Brethren of London do not say but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens the Church may by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands confer the office of the Ministry uppon some persons with a special designation of them as Christs officers to carry the Gospel to people all over the Nation or over the world Neither do our Brethren of London say but that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church wherever he preacheth preacheth as an officer of Christ in the worke of the Gospel whom people are bound to hear nor do they say that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church may not by vertue of his ministerial office so far as his opportunity strength and finite nature gives him leave feed and teach by the word and as a minister oversee any others that are not members of his particular Church Though indeed that be in a more special manner committed to his trust care and oversight But I observe that our Brethrens argument though put into the best form I could and cured of one fault yet is sick of another and indeed the Argument should have run thus That Church or those Churches alone which are committed to all ministers respectively to feed teach and oversee respectively are the Churches to which the office of the ministry is a correlate But those Churches are only particular Churches Ergo. As they put it thereâ—s a great fallacy in it for suppose this or that particular Minister had no work appointed him by Jesus Christ to do but onely in his particular Church and so the office of the Ministry as it resided in that single man were only a Correlate to his particular Church Yet it would not follow That the office of the Ministry as it resides in every particular Minister in the world had no other Correlate
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
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
will prove that by the authority of this Text he who hath a gift of wisdom may use it in the Magistratical service or that he who hath a gift of knowledge or zeal may administer the two Sacraments meerly by authority of his gifts without any more ado And this is enough for their Fifth Chapter CHAP. IV. Containing a short Answer to the three latter Arguments brought by our Brethren for Gifted mens Preaching in their Sixth Chapter from a pretended promise annexed to it The preaching of Apollo and the scattered Saints and the prophecying and Prophets mentioned in 1 Cor. ch 12. ch 14. OUR Brethren in their Sixth Chapter produce three Arguments to prove the Lawfulness of persons Preaching if Gifted though not Ordained Their first is this The Preacher sent chap. 6. That practice which hath a Gospel Promise annexed is warrantable But the Preaching of some such hath a Gospel Promise annexed Ergo. The Major we grant the Minor we deny They prove it from Mat. 25.29 For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance Let us put it into Form What the Gospel promiseth unto him that hath a talent i. e. that improves it That it promiseth to Gifted mens Preaching without Ordination Here 's enough Let me have the same Liberty and our Brethren will quickly see the vanity of this Argument What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talent i. e. that improves his talent that it promiseth to every one that will having a gift of wisdom and justice execute justice though not any other way called to it than by his gifts But the Gospel promiseth c. Or thus What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talent or ability i. e. that by practice improves it that it promiseth to gifted persons that have ability to baptize and administer the Supper and will do it without any other authority than what their gifts give them Therefore gifted men not Commissionated for the Magistracy nor ordained to the Ministry may execute justice and administer Sacraments I believe my Lord Protector will hardly allow the first and I think our brethren will not allow the latter and when our Brethren have found out a distinction to help themselves we hope it will help us Our Brethren pag. 63. say plainly they restrain not the Text to preaching Gifts But they must do it or else our Arguments from it are as good as theirs and if they do restrain it we shall hardly rest in their sense without good reason to justifie their restriction And this is enough for their third Argument to which the same answer may be applied which was given before to that drawn from 1 Pet. 4.10 Let us see if they be more happy at a fourth Their fourth Argument is drawn from Gospel Presidents thus formed The Preacher sent or preaching without Ordination p. 66. What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents with Divine allowance may be practised But the ordinary exercise of preaching Gifts in publick Assemblies c. Is so holden forth Ergo. I can neither allow the Major nor the Minor I cannot allow the Major in the terms our Brethren have put it for they might as well assume But Apostleship or an universal inspection and government of all Churches is holden forth by Gospel Presidents Paul and Peter Therefore we may have Popes Archbishops and Bishops Or thus But the Holy kiss and anointing with oyl are held forth by Gospel Presidents with divine allowance Ergo Mr. Tilham and Mr. Pooly are in the right If our Brethren understand the Major thus I shal◠allow it What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents to be in ordinary Cases a standing practice may be lawfully practised Then we deny the Assumption viz. That the preaching of Gifted persons in the sense before expressed is by any Gospel Presidents held forth as a standing practice to be continued in the Church of Christ Our Brethren prove it 1. By the instance of Apollo upon which they descant à p. 66. ad p. 73. 2. By the instance of the scattered Saints Acts 8. 11. upon which they descant ad p. 88. It must be granted that the Scriptures say that Apollo spake and taught diligently Acts 11.24 25. and that some of the scattered brethren preached But to answer all in short Every understanding Reader will grant the Argument being ab exemplo pari If these examples prove not paria matches the Argument falls to the ground If either there were not a parity of species in their gifts or in their acts or not a parity in the state of the Church at that time with that which is the present state of it now we say that in some if not in all these their argument from hence halteth First I say there must be a parity in the species of their gifts for I hope our brethren have no design to put this fallacy upon their Readers if those who were furnished with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost suited to the first plantation of the Church might preach then those who have but very ordinary gifts according to the size of these times and the opportunities of that little leisure they could get from their Trades may do the like this were just such an Argument as if one should conclude that because one who had the gifts of healing might go to a sick person and anoint him with oyl and lay hands on him and pray and by a faith of miracles believe he should upon this recover therefore one may do so now So that if it appear that Apollo or those Acts 8. or 11. had gifts of another species either Office or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which all grant to be now ceased our brethrens Argument sinks Now let us examine the instances by this rule According to which our brethren have been told concerning Apollo 1. That he is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1.12 called a Minister 1 Cor. 3.5 2. That it is very probable his gifts were of another species from that which our gifted men now adays have it is said he was mighty in the Scriptures Our brethren say nothing to this but let those who say it prove it but as I take it they assert and should prove however we have proved that he is called a Minister and ranked with Paul and Peter But say our brethren this was afterward A very little time it seems for the Text saith he went soon into Achaia and in the first verse of the next chapter he is reported in Corinth So that it is plain that he preached only in order to Office that he might be proved in which case our brethren know we allow preaching ex dono But Secondly for the scattered Christians they have been told 1. That it is the opinion of some these were some of the 70. whose Office-gift was of another species being an extraordinary Mission 2. That the Sctipture saith expresly of one of these Philip
To answer to all this Those who preach in such Cases of necessity where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear may be said to Preach by an extraordinary authority which the word of the Lord hath in such cases given them which may be called a Mission and they may be Officers as to that time and state yet it will not follow but in another state of the Church Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister that is to one who according to the Rule of Christ in ordinary cases ought to preach All this arguing is nothing to the purpose for our brethren are to prove that Gifted men may ordinarily preach in a tranquil and setled state of the Church where are Ministers Ordained enough to supply the place or at least to ordain and authorize them Their Argument à pari here is no Argument because of the disparity of the Churches State If our brethren can bring us any Texts out of the Epistles wrote to setled Churches requiring commanding or allowing such a practice for persons not in office nor furnished with extraordinary gifts to preach publickly and ordinarily they say something all this is no better than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or go round about the bush but never strike one blow at it I come therefore to their fifth Argument p. 88. All that are Prophets may publickly they should have put in ordinarily too preach But some men they should have said some such Gifted men as we have now who are not ordained Officers are Prophets Ergo. If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propositions I will deny the Conclusion because the question is not in it If they will allow my corrections I deny their Assumption and say No such Gifted men as now live for whom our Brethren must plead are Prophets They prove it p. 89. All that have the gifts of prophecie are Prophets But some such Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecie Ergo. The Major I grant The Minor I deny Three things our Brethren undertake to prove p. 90. 1. That prophecie is a Gift not an Office 2. That some have the gift of prophecie and that gift still continueth 3. That some persons not ordained have it I shall only premise this that I hope our Brethren understand by prophecie such prophecie as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians otherwise they deceive their Reader with an equivocal word and then I deny all three of their Positions and shall proceed to examine their proof of them 1. That prophecie is a gift not an office they prove 1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain prophets 2. Because they cannot be ordained till they be discerned to have the gift of prophecie 3. Because some have this gift who are no officers This last I deny they pretend to prove it hereafter As to the two first our Brethren dispute ex ignoratione Elenchi against what none deny who ever said those Prophets were ordinary Officers We say they were extraordinary Officers who were furnished with an extraordinary Gift either to foretell things to come or else to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit without the use of such means as we now must use and being thus furnished were made Officers at that time by an immediate Mission to which Ordination was not necessary So then two things we insist upon 1. That Prophets were extraordinary Officers 2. That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost The first is enough for this place That they were officers appears from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. Acts 13.1 2. And that they were extraordinary appears in that they are set before Evangelists Eph. 4.11 12. and from their extraordinary gifts Acts 11.27 28. 1 Cor. 12.9 10 11. and from 1 Cor. 14.26 from which text it is plain that they spake from revelation this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of London Jus Divinum pag. 97 98. Vindiciae ministeâ—ii p. 50 51 c. by my self Now for our Brethren to argue against this because they were not ordained is a pitifull Non sequitur for none ever said Ordination was necessary to the constitution of an Apostle or any extraordinary Officer But our Brethren judge that they can prove that prophecying was not an office but a gift p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments p. 91. c. Their first Argument in form is this If all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets then prophecie is a gift not an office But all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets Ergo. We deny the Consequence and say our Brethren have not proved it for this it all they say They must first have the gift before they can be made Prophets We deny that God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary Authority furnished them with an extraordinary gift So he did Jeremy Amos and all the Prophets of old I wonder which of them could be said to have the Gift of prophecie one moment before they were Prophets by Office too this is still a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi to extraordinary Officers no such thing was needfull Our brethrens second Argument is this That which ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in Corinth was a gift only not an office But Prophecying might so be coveted Ergo. Before I give a direct answer to the Argument I conceive prophecying to speak properly to be neither a gift nor office but an act by which either is exercised which act we say none could exercise but he who had the gift for it and also the extraordinary authority which impowred him to it and that prophecying is in no sense to be called a gift but as an office is a gift being constituted for the good of the Church and an honour to them that have it But to speak to their Argument In the first place I deny the Major That which ought in those times to be coveted and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth might be an extraordinary office But say our Brethren The Lord had no where promised to make every member of the Church of Corinth a Church officer therefore it could not be an office 1. Our Brethren did not consider that the same Argument will prove it was no gift except they can shew us where the Lord had promised to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecie 1 Cor. 12.29 Are all Prophets The Lord no where promised to give all Christians a power to work miracles or to speak with tongues yet surely they might covet it as it is plain from the next words where though prophecying be preferred before tongues yet that is left upon record as one of those gifts might be coveted 2. God hath no where promised that John a Stiles should recover of his sickness doth it
none of them is continuing I hope What else our Brethren mean by ordinary I cannot tell for if they mean it was given by God for a standing Ordinance it is yet to be proved for this they refer us to Mr. Rutherford a man whom I honour but am not of his minde in this thing It was indeed his opinion that the Apostle by prophecying 1 Cor. 14.1 means no other than the ordinary acts of Pastors and Teachers though from an extraordinary principle and faculty so that still he thought the gift was extraordinary which they by their prophecying did exercise For those eight particulars instanced in by Mr. Rutherford recited by our brethren p. 99 100. we say they were no other than rules of order which extraordinary officers as well as ordinary were to be limited by But I wonder our brethren should quote Mr. Rutherford and set down his words too which plainly say he thought the gift extraordinary though their acts were but the acts of ordinary Officers These are his words as quoted by our Brethren Only the internal principle to wit the infused gift of prophecying made them extraordinary prophets in fieri as our prophets become prophets in fieri by ordinary studies and industry but in facto esse and according to the substance of the acts of prophecying these extraordinary Prophets and our ordinary Pastors differ not in specie c. Let any Reader who understands English judge whether Mr. Rutherford thought the Gift of prophecie was ordinary he indeed thought the Act was viz. That God in those days by Revelation immediatly gifted the Ministers of his Gospel in the Church of Corinth but our brethren are to prove the Gift is ordinary if they remember what they undertook pag. 96. to prove which Mr. Rutherford will do them no kindness The faculty of seeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the blind man and the conversion of the water into wine at Cana John 2. which are the two instances Master Rutherford insists upon were both extraordinary though when the blind man had his visive faculty by a Miracle conferred his seeing was but ordinary as other men and when the Wine was made it tasted like other Wine Our Brethren proceed still with their fallacy of arguing from the Act to the Gift or rather of putting in Act where they should have put in Gift pag. 100. 1. And they again tell us the Rules to regulate the work are ordinary what is this to prove the gift is so the Act may be ordinary and yet the Gift not so as in the case of the blind man before mentioned The work of extraordinary officers and gifts were to come under general Rules of order I hope 2. But they tell us the description of the work is ordinary What if it be The question is what the description of the Gift would be the description of the Gift of seeing and the Act of seeing are two things I hope so in this case but where is that description They tell us 1 Cor. 14.3 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort Hete they tell us is the Act Exhortation 2. The Ends of it exhortation and comfort Surely our Brethren presumed that none should ever examine what they say the Text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men edification and exhortation and comfort 1. So far as it is a description It is a description of the Act not of the gift Secondly Our Brethren if they had pleased might as well have said edification or comfort was the Act as they say exhortation is for the Text proves the one as well as the other The truth is the Apostle by these words only expresseth the end of prophecying and such ends as were common to that with other ordinances duties too If I should say Paul working miracles confirmed the Gospel f r the conversion of unbelievers would it follow that the Act of working miracles was confirming the Gospel In the third place they tell us That one great end of extraordinary prophecying and their main and proper act viz. foretelling future events is denyed to this prophecying This they say but they have not told us where that denial is to be found and I cannot find it All that I can find them saying is this 1 Cor. 14.22 It is said Tongues were for a sign to them that believed not but Prophecy serveth not for them who believe not but for those that believe Hence they observe That the antithesis betwixt Tongues and Prophets that tongues were for a sign but not prophecie proves that prophecy could not be for a sign But this is wofully fallacious 1. The Antithesis lyes not there that Tongues were for a sign but prophecie not so but here That tongues were for a sign to heathens that belâ—eved not but prophecying was a sign only for such as believed viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church this text only proves that prophecie was no sign to them that believed not 2. Though the foretelling of things to come might bear the nature of a sign yet this was not the only end of it but the faith and holiness of the persons to whom the prophecie was directed neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come confirm any thing to any till they saw them accomplished 3. I conceive the chief act of those Prophetesses 1 Cor. 14. was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift which indeed to them that believed not the Scriptures would be of no use but was to such as did believe them Fourthly Our Brethren say Women Prophetesses are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 But women Prophetesses might prophesie things to come Luke 2.38 1. I answer that our Brethren do not find women prophetesses mentioned 1 Cor. 14.34 only women 2. Secondly our Brethren do not finde that Anna Luke 2.36 spake things to come the Text only saith She gave thanks unto the Lord and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel She spake of a Christ already born She was called a Prophetess in all probability because of an extraordinary faculty she had from Divine revelation to interpret Seripture So that our Brethren see this kinde of publike prophecying by their own instance belonged to women and therefore by their own Argument was extraordinary But the truth is this Liberty was restrained by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.37 But this is enough to shew the weakness of our Brethrens Argument Our Brethren having spent their shot upon us come at last to receive a volly from us to prove prophecie an extraordinary gift we had told our Brethren 1. That ver 26. it was evident When therefore you come together every one of you hath a Psalm a doctrine a revelation an interpretation I have put in the word doctrine now though I think it will not much serve our Brethrens turn 2. That
of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. Containing a Vindication of all my Arguments brought in my Vindiciae against the ordinary preaching of Persons meerly gifted from whatsoever our Brethren have said to infringe them either in the seventh or in the tenth Chapters of their Book OUr Brethren in their tenth Chapter pretend to Answer my Arguments against the licentious presumption of the ordinary Preaching of private persons My first Argument I laid thus Not to observe Gospel-order in acts of instituted worship is sinfull But for private Christians how well gifted soever to preach ordinarily i. e. to open and apply Scriptures in publike Church-Assemblies is for them in acts of instituted worship not to observe Gospel-Order Ergo I presumed our Brethren would only deny the Minor which I thus proved To adventure upon an administration of a Gospel-Ordinance without such a Mission as Gospel-precepts require and Gospel-Presidents hold forth such should have as so administer is not to observe Gospel-Order in Gospel-Worship But for such to open and apply Scriptures is to do so Ergo. I proved the Minor because all the precepts we have for the constitution of Elders in Churches constituting or constituted required that besides their gifts they should likewise be set apart by Ordination and all the Presidents we have of persons Preaching in a setled state of the Church ordinarily were of persons so set apart by Ordination Now what say our Brethren to all this 1. They doubt whether I would have my Major Proposition understood universally Pag. 194. 2. But anon they suppose it and they deny my Minor and say that neither do Gospel-Precepts require nor Gospel-Presidents hold forth that all those that preach the Gospel should be solemnly set apart to the work Then they review the Texts quoted by me as to the Text Titus 1.5 they say it only concerns Elders The same they answer to Acts 14.23 Acts 13.3 4 5. only as to 1 Tim. 5.22 they doubt whether by laying on of hands be not meant conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost because laying on of hands was used in that case too and Timothy was an Evangelist and as for Paul and Barnabas Acts 13.3 they were officers and preachers before this is all they have pag. 193 194 195. as to my first Argument I answer 1. That according to our Brethrens Logick delivered to us before That indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals Our Brethren needed not have doubted but that I understood the Proposition universally However I do not love to trouble my Readers with such fallacies as arguing from particulars to generals but I still maintain that no precept no president in the Gospel allows the ordinary publike preaching of persons meerly gifted in a setled state of the Church unless they were such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost or such as according to Scripture-direction preached only probationis Ergo. Secondly this being a negative I had no way to make a strict proof unless we had come to an argument vivâ voce then our Brethren know I should have argued thus If the Gospel-hath any Precepts or Presidents they must be found in the Gospels Epistles Acts or Revelations And so have followed on the Argument till I had brought them to assign the Place or the President If they had instanced in the scattered Christians Acts 9.11 all would have seen it had been nothing to the purpose for they were some of those upon whom the Holy Ghost fell and the Church was under persecution If they had instanced in Apollo he was either an officer or at least a probationer if they had told us of the Prophets at Corinth if they were not ordinary officers as Mr. Rutherford thinks yet it is plain they had extraordinary gifts as I have proved if they had brought that general Text 1 Pet. 4.10 I had told them what I have now said that if they will understand that Text in the general of any gift to be exercised without any more ado then the gifted men may command States and Armies and administer Sacraments if they restrain it we have as much warrant to restrain it to Hospitality executed in the distribution of the gifts of Providence So that considering the nature of my Argument it was enough for me till they had assigned precepts or presidents to instance in such precepts and presidents as the Scripture afforded laying most stress upon what I found in Timothy and Titus those Epistles containing the standing Rules for the Government of the Churches planted and setled Thirdly It was enough for me who knew no other ordinary Preachers than teaching Elders besides extraordinary officers that the Scripture owns to prove they were ordained they are those only that were to labour in the word and Doctrine that was their work 1 Tim. 5.17 and they have their denomination from it from feeding called Pastors and from Teaching called Teachers and if every one might ordinarily and publickly feed and teach I know not for what use their names served which usually are given to persons and things to distinguish them from others Fourthly as to what they say that 1 Tim. 5.22 may be meant of conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost They should first have proved that Timothy had any such power his being an Evangelist proves no such thing but only that he was left at Ephesus to put the newly planted Churches into order the Apostles in regard of their travelling not being able to stay so long nor do I finde any thing to perswade me Timothy himself had received those extraordinary gifts however the caution had bin needless for it is plain there was no long trial of any who received those gifts Act. 2.4.4.31 Act. 8.17 Neither do I believe those gifts were by the Apostles hands conveyed to any but upon extraordinary revelation made first to them directing upon whom they should lay their hands Hence they prayed Acts 8.15 That the people might receive the Holy Ghost and yet laid no hands on Simon though he believed and was baptized Acts 8.13 Besides I hope our Brethren will not say the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 was the conferring those Gifts Fifthly As to that instance Acts 13.3 I made no further use of than to conclude the great honour God put upon this Ordinance I granted Paul was an extraordinary Officer and Preacher before yet that the Lord may let us know his everlasting will concerning such as should be mediately sent out by the Church Paul and Barnabas though extraordinarily Commissionated yet being to be sent out by the Church are to shew what all Churches should do sent out by solemn fasting and prayer and laying on of hands how much more should others who can pretend no such extraordinary gifts or office And this is I think enough to set my first Argument on its legs again My second Argument I stated thus Vindiciae pag. 33. For any who
are no Officers to take upon them to do Acts of office is sinfull But for persons meerly gifted to preach ordinarily in publike Assemblies in the setled state of the Church is for persons who are no officers to take upon them to do Acts of office Not to multiply words needlesly by Acts of Office I meant Acts peculiar to office then say our Brethren they deny my assumption Preaching they say is not an act peculiar to office I foresaw this and therefore laid in some proof for it The proper acts of Pastors and Teachers c. are acts peculiar to office But ordinary preaching in publike Church-Assemblies in a setled state of the Church is the proper act of Pastors and Teachers c. By proper Acts our Brethren might have concluded that I meant proper quarto modo such as are peculiar to them Then they tell me they deny the Minor and Reader this is it that they affirm That preaching is not the peculiar work of a preaching Elder teaching the truth is not the peculiar work of a Teacher but although Pastors and Teachers be standing Officers in the Church of Christ who must and ought to Preach yet others may preach as well as they Our Brethren do allow that Pastors and Teachers are needfull to feed the flock of Christ but yet that this flock may feed it self that Christ hath appointed some whose ordinary work should be to teach and whose office it should be to the performance of which they must be set apart but yet there are others who may do the same thing without being set apart this is clearly our Brethrens sense but how consistent with reason let the Reader judge As to the making of my Argument good 2. My former discourse will make it appear that iâ— will lye upon our Brethren to give an instance of any one in Scripture except extraordinary persons in respect of extraordinary gifts and offices who not in order to Ordination in a setled state of the Church did ordinarily preach or any precept to warrant such for the future We have proof enough in Scripture that the Elders and Officers of the Church did it I can yield it our Brethren that the name Teacher is to distinguish from him that exhorteth but the name of Teacher and Pastor too must have teaching and exhorting as their proper acts by the force of the same Text Rom. 12.7 8. That work upon which the Officer of the Church is to wait that is his peculiar work but preaching is that work upon which Pastors and Teachers are to wait Rom. 12.7 8. That by Gods appointment it should be the work and charge of some to wait upon the performance of an action which any others may do as well and as ordinarily as they is a strange piece of sense Pag. 199. Our Brethren p. 199. argue fallaciously when they say Distribution is an act of the Deacons office and yet every one may distribute Distribution of the Churches stock is indeed an act of the Deacons Office and this none but they may distribute They might as well have said speaking is the act of a man Ergo Preaching the word is not peculiar to office He that breaks Bread and gives it to another doth materially in our Brethrens sense the Acts of him that administreth the Lords Supper Yet our Brethren will grant that the Sacramental breaking of Bread is an act of Office Distribution to the poor is not materially an act of the Deacons Office but distribution of the Churches stock is and that none may do if the Church have Deacons but they I proceeded to prove Preaching an Act of Office thus If Baptizing be an act peculiar to office then is preaching such But baptizing is Ergo. I proved the consequence 1. Because they are both in the same Commission 2. The Apostle makes preaching the greater Act 2 Cor. 1.17 Our Brethren of London had used the same Argument and brought the same Text in justification of it to which these Brethren endeavoured an answer ch 9. pag. 165 166 c. To which here they refer me yet withall pag. 200. they give me a repetition I will fairly sum up what they say in both places First Our Brethren say 1. That the Argument falleth as heavy upon us for we will allow Probationers to preach yet not to Baptize Secondly Some they say think the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is given to the Apostles as Officers and that there is another Commission for gifted men But Thirdly they tell us it is a mistake for the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is not that which impowereth men to preach It was only an enlarging of a former Commission and a making the Gentiles capable of being preached unto For the Apostles preached and baptized before Mark 10. ver 5 6 7. The Apostles they say received as much power by this Commission as any others their Successors could but they received no Office-power by it It can they say only be concluded from hence that those who were in office before might go and preach to the Gentiles Hence they deny that the joyning those two acts together in that Commission doth conclude that all who may do the one may do the other Fourthly they say some deny that preaching is a greater work than baptizing Here they quote a great Friend of theirs Dr. Homes Fifthly page 170. they suppose preaching the greater work else where our Brethren ingenuously grant they think it is pag. 233. yet it doth not follow that those who do the greater may do the less because the less may be more limited Sixtly and lastly They finde that men out of Office are allowed to perform the same acts which have the denomination of preaching and for the same end Preaching without Ordination p. 165 c. Matth. 18.15 Heb. 3.13 Heb. 10.25 Now they cannot finde the Gospel allowing men out of Office to perform that act called Baptizing and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of Baptism is instituted for This is the sum of all said in many more words page 165 166 167 168 169 170 199 200. Now let us examine what there is in all this to prove That those who may preach may not baptize when as Christ with the same breath said Go preach and baptize and Saint Paul saith he was not sent to baptize i. e. that was not his main act but to preach I shall shortly answer to all our Brethren say 1. Under favour our Brethren are mistaken in the fall of the Argument from this Text upon us who allow Probationers to preach For 1. They were excepted out of the question as being by a special rule in Gods word dispensed with Our Brethren can shew no such Rule for their gifted men 2. Neither do we allow them to preach ordinarily 2. As to the second thing they say to make their assertion good they must bring forth that same other Commission for gifted men before we shall believe it if it
be that Matth. 10. ver 5 6 7. Our Brethren acknowledge they baptized too the Text proves they had power to work miracles ver 1. 3. As to what they say next viz. that the Commission Matth. 28.19 20. is not that Commission which authorizeth any to preach we must crave leave to deny it Their Argument is this That Commission which did not give authority to the Apostles themselves to Preach and Baptize did not give others authority claiming by and under the same Commission But that Commission did not give them Authority Ergo. The Major we confess as to the present Commission The Minor we deny All they have to prove it is this What authority they had before that Commission did not give But they had authority before to Preach and Baptize Ergo The Minor we grant the Major we deny 1. I say that if a man hath two Commissions to the same work he is by both of them impowered and authorized and made in Office Suppose an act of Parliament constituteth some as Commissioners for ejection of scandalous Ministers in the County of Norfolk and afterwards another Act passeth to the same purpose enlarging also their power to the City and County of Norwich doth not the later Commission authorize and impower them as well as the first It is true that Commission Matth. 28.19 20. was not the first Commission that impowered them to Preach but it did impower them surely for the same authority is in the latter as in the former Secondly our Brethren grant they were in no office to the Gentiles without that Commission therefore I think that Commission impowred them Thirdly our Saviour saw that after his Ascension there might be some question whether they might Preach and Baptize as they had done during his Life and whether any others might in that work succeed them by authority from Christ he therefore reneweth and enlargeth their Commission and by making an everlasting promise to those who should succeed them in that work he doth establish a constant office of the Ministry to the worlds end As to their fourth Allegation it being that which our Brethren refuse to own or insist upon I shall spend no time about it For what they say fifthly that supposing Preaching the greater work yet it may be that Baptizing which is the less may be limited to Officers and yet not that Iâ— may be so indeed but it is not very likely And I suppose our Brethren must produce a very plain Scripture to prove the limitation before they will make any endued with a competency of reason believe thaâ— God hath by his will in his word authorized Ministers in office to Preach and to Baptize and in the same word declared that Preaching is the great and chief act to which he hath sent them and rather sent them for that than for the other viz. Baptizing and yet it is his will that any ordinary gifted persons may perform that greater act but none but those Officers may do the less He that hath so much credulity as to afford any to such an assertion may in the mean time our Brethren have not brought us one title of Scripture to prove the limitation of Baptism Some thing of reason they pretend to in what they say in the sixth place that they finde in Scripture that other persons besides Officers may do the acts of Preaching and for the ends the acts viz. admonition exhortation Mat. 18.15 Heb. 3.13.10.25 for the ends viz. to prevent sin build up in grace c. To which I Answer Sixthly Admonition and Exhorting simply considered without reference to the persons or manner are not the acts of Preaching ordinary Admonishing and exhorting in the publick Assemblies of the Church are indeed The pronouncing of the words which the Judge pronounceth in passing Sentence upon a Malefactor is not the act of his Office unless pronounced in due manner upon the Arraignment and condemnation of a Malefactor in an open Court after Trial. Object Oh but it serveth to the same end Resp This is not enough to make it the same act An Highway-man may pronounce the same Sentence the Judge doth and to the same end yet his act is not the same But it is they say materially the same 2. Our Brethren in this say nothing for this doth not Legitimate the action our Brethren may do actions materially the same with such as are commanded and yet sin in doing of them in this or that place or manner it is therefore no consequence that because our Brethren no where read in Scripture that any but Officers did materially the acts of Baptism c. But do read that they did the material acts of Preaching Ergo They may Preach but not Baptize But Thirdly Our Brethren need no Scripture to prove that any man may do the material acts of Baptism and administring the Supper The material act of the one is sprinkling or powering water upon a face of the other a breaking of bread and giving it to others None ever questioned but every one may do these acts and our Brethren oft do it to their children Therefore this is no ground of restraining those from Administring the Sacraments whose authority to preach we implead And so much shall serve for the vindication of my second Argument My third Argument was From the uselesness of the great Ordinance of the Ministerial Office as to its chief act viz. Preaching if this practice be allowed Now the word of God cannot be so contrary to it self as first to set up an Office and then to make it useless as to its chief work To make this good I had but two things to prove 1. That Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial Office 2. That if every one who hath gifts may preach there were no need of the Ministerial Office as to its chiefest act To prove it to be the chief Act of the Ministerial Office I urged 1. That it is the first Act mentioned in the Ministerial Commission 2. That St. Paul makes it his chief act 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach 3. Either this is the chief act of the Ministerial Office or a Minister hath no act proper to him but that of administring Baptism and the Lords Supper But no Scripture shews these more peculiar to him To all this our Brethren answer 1. That the order of words doth not prove preaching the chief act in that Commission Matth. 28.19 20. Neither did I bring it as a demonstrative Argument but I do not think Dr. Homes his assertion true that Preaching is but a preparation to Baptism for he will find it must follow Baptism as well as go before it Teaching them to observe c. That same But therefore is a but of the Doctors own setting up which all Scripture and right reason will throw down 2. But to make my work short our Brethren p. 203. at last do grant that Preaching is the chief act of
preach but such as are really gifted 4. If there be Scripture-Warrant for gifted mens Preaching it is needfull whether we can see it or no. 5. The Preaching of Apostles and Evangelists did not make the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless nor è contra because every Church-member may distribute to the poor it will not follow the Office of Deacon was needless This is the sum of what our Brethren say pag. 203 204 205 206 207 208 209. in many more words To all which I shall give a short answer 1. As to the present debate I have nothing to do with arguing the needlesness of Officers as to the Government of the Church of Officers if others besides such Officers may act with them Acts of Jurisdiction in the Church were never by Christ committed to the single hand of any person nor yet to any single Office I think neither the Minister alone nor the Ruling Elders alone nor the multitude alone are the Church to which offences should be told or who can singly act in any formal censure except in a very high Case of Necessity The work of Preaching is of another nature it is by Christs Order to be performed by this or that single hand It will not therefore follow that because there is a need of a Pastor though ruling Elders as we say and the multitude as our Brethren say ought to concur with them in acts of Censure and Discipline â—herefore there is a need of Teaching Elders though others may teach as well as they for the work of teaching may be as I said before performed by single hands without a concurrence to the act of any others whether Officers or Members so may not acts of Government 2. As to what our Brethren say That Pastors and Teachers act under another relation as set over people in the Lord this amounts to no more than a notion and makes no real difference Let us examine what this signifies Will our Brethren say these Preach as appointed by Christ others not so pag. 209. No say our Brethren the gifted men are also by Divine appointment to preach so their authority is the same Christ appointeth both the one and the other they say What then do they not do the same material acts That they do our Brethren told us p. 200. they had found that in Scripture What then Is not the end the same to convince convert exhort edifie Our Brethren told us pag. 112. They knew not wherefore they should prophesie if there were no hope of such effects So then our Brethren say that gifted men have the same authority to preach that teaching Elders and teach the same things to the same end Now I wonder what this different relation which they here tell us of signifies more then an empty notion let us see if their similitudes will help us A man they say provideth for his children as a father for the poor under another notion But the quest is quite another thing viz. Whether it would be necessary that there should be a special order of persons called fathers to provide for the poor if every one were bound to provide for them and to do the same acts in the same order and to the same end that they should do A Christian Friend they say occasionaelly gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance so doth the parents of those children yet the manner is different the one is under a standing Obligation the other not If this similitude runs on four feet our Brethrens sense is this That there is a need of Pastors and Teachers though gifted men may Preach because gifted men are not under a standing Obligation to preach only may do it occasionally So then the sense is this gifted men may Preach shall not need except they list they may preach they may let it alone but Pastors and Teachers they must do it That they may let it aelone I most freely grant But that they may either do it or let it alone I can never grant All the precepts our Brethren pretended to for this Preaching of gifted men do not only if they were to their purpose assert their Liberty but enjoyn it as their duty See 1 Pet. 4.10 He that hath received the gift is commanded to Minister he that hath the gift of Prophecy must Prophecy Our Brethren say they preach by Divine appointment pag. 209. Now those that are appointed to Preach are not at their liberty whether they will Preach or no. This pretence is therefore exceeding vain besides it gives the gifted man a superiority over the Officer for Greater is he that sitteth at the Table and may choose whether he will serve or no than he who serveth and must serve For our Brethrens other instance viz. that Bayliffs in a Corporation may be usefull though the Common Councell may act with them it concerns not the present case it may have something in it to prove that although the Members of the Church have a joynt power with the Officers of the Church as to the executing some act of censure yet there is a need of them as to other acts and that is all it will do too in that Case but here it signifies nothing because Preaching is an act which may be done by a single person and we argue that there is no need of a special order of single persons to be in Commission for a work for which all were commissioned and in which others may act 3. It is true that our Brethren say we do allow such an Office as we say hath no act peculiar to it viz. that of Ruling Elders their work is rule and in that work they are joynt Commissioners with the Teaching Elders But the question is whether we allow such as are not Officers to act in it We say the office of ruling is a partible Office divided betwixt the Teaching and Ruleing Elder who as to that work make but one office to the execution of which a double Species of Officers is ordinarily necessary These two as heretofore the King Lords and Commons of England made up the three Estates all necessary to enact a Law do make up the two States as it were in the Church without whom an act of Rule cannot be put forth in ordinary cases But the case is quite another as to the work of Preaching which may be performed by a single person If indeed we had said that the Ruling Elder might alone without the Teaching Elder have in ordinary cases exercised acts of Rule Our Brethren had said something and we should have thought the Pastors Commission as to ruling needless and so è contra we should have thought the ruling Elder needless and should so judge it if we could see that the Pastor in ordinary case without them might rule which is the thing our Brethren plead for the Preaching of Gifted men Fourthly Our Brethren say they do not say all may preach only those who are gifted
say God sends men tâ— relieve the poor But be it so at present We say the written word commands none to Preach but such as are ordained Our Brethren only say gifted men are allowed and they may do it occasionally no more therefore say they they are not to be maintained 2. Besides sending makes them Officers who ever I send is my Officer the Kings Ambassador is his Officer and so by this Rule they are all Gods Officers no man can send another but he is in office as to that whereabout he is sent nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary If a man be an Officer before another Mission makes him still an Officer those sent Luke 10.1 were Officers by their Mission though Mission may be repealed and yet the Office not lost yet Mission makes an Officer My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer as to that business and if I send him a second time my second sending makes him my Officer too I see no contradiction in that when the work is enlarged as in those instances Matth. 10.5 6 7. Matth. 28.19 Nor will it follow that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers because it is said How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard or how can they hear without a Preacher c. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases else a man may believe without hearing suppose a man be deaf and hear without a Preacher too c. 3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Providential sending and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach if God doth not by his providence direct or permit them to Preach if God doth not give them legs to stand and a tongue to speak Hence it follows That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is denied as if a man should say How can a man see if his eyes be out And this our Brethren own pag. 137. for they say all the other interrogations deny a natural possibility Christian Reader doest not thou think this had been a great Gospel-Mysterie worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans none could preach if they had no tongue to speak or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where But to evince this to be a vanity 1. If this notion of sending be true then none can run before they are sent for all motions are under the providence of God But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent 2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned 1 Tim. 3.6 were sent for they could never creep into houses but by divine providence Object But say our Brethren Gods command in his word must concur with his providence Answ What command is that 1 Pet. 4.10 say our Brethren As every one hath received the gift let him minister But say these men we have received the gift therefore we are sent who shall judge now Not the Presbyterie say our Brethren nor is it necessary the Church should say they Ergo t is enough they say they have and you ought to believe them and look upon them as sent till the great day comes which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order can any one think which Jesus Christ hath taken for his Church But I need not multiply words here our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending unless the Person â—o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word and they can shew no command conclusive in the case but for such as are otherwise sent then meerly gifted and providentially disposed Only I must examine their reasons why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended though we only contend it to be the ordinary Mission and that alone which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased as our Brethren easily will grant they be They say 1. They no where finde Ordination called Mission But this falls as heavily on our Brethren for they cannot finde us any Text where the Command of God in his written word is called sending 2. We find Acts 13.3 Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas They fasted and prayed and laid their hands on thâ—m and sent them away if the last words be not exegetical of the former our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth in sending them that is called by that name 2. Because our Brethren finde Deacons were ordained but they do not finde they were sent It doth not follow that because the Ordination of Officers by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending on the Churches part therefore no Ordination is or may where the persons are ordained Officers to more then those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them 3. Because Mission may be repealed but not Ordination According to our Brethrens principles Ordination also may But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned Matth. 10.5 6 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission we do not say Ordination is so There was a new work to do but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do which shall need require a new ordination 4. Our Brethren say None can send to themselves But a Church which hath a Presbyterie may Ordain its own Officers Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers no more will I if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Churches have excepting onely Cases of necessity but although a Church cannot send to its self yet it may send one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member a Citizen of Norwich may properly enough send a Message to the Corporation though himself be a Member of that Corporation and the person thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholick Church to all which he is sent And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15 My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a topick From the contrary practise and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches and all Reformed Churches Our Brethren make light of this But in cases where the Scripture speaks at best but so darkly on our Brethrens side and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty we think it very much if we can say with the Apostle If any list to be contentious we have no such custom neither we nor the Churches of Christ And in cases which are dark we follow the guidance of Christ while we walk by the footsteps of the flock and feed our kidds by the shepherds tents Cant. 1.8 CHAP. VI. Containing a review of some passages in our Brethrens Book and in my answer where is examined whether the Baptism of Christ and John are according to our Brethrens sense to be distinguished Our Brethrens three Texts for Election by a particular Church arâ—
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