Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 2

Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons · Religious tract · Response to chapter 2

p. 4CHAP. II. & III.

Qu. Whether Ministers are only Ministers to their particular Flocks?

IN handling of this I shall 1. State the Question plainly and faithfully. 2. I shall offer some Arguments for the Negative. 3. I shall enquire what our Brethren have to say for the Affirmative.

For the state of this Question we must take notice of another Question, whence it hath its rise and being, to wit, Whether besides particular Congregational Churches, there be any other visible Political Churches mentioned in Scripture? It hath till these last times been universally received in the Church of God, that, Besides that union and communion, whereby the members of a particular Church meet together in a Congregation for the Word and Sacraments, there is another union and communion, whereby particular Churches do by their Delegates (because in their persons they all cannot) meet together, combine, consult and conclude in common, as they judge most expedient for the good of their particular Churches.

p. 5This sufficiently appears from the constant practise of the Church in all ages, even from the Apostles times, Acts 15. and so downwards; which was, when ever necessity required and opportunity was offered, to meet together in Synods, and in common to govern all their Churches. And as these meetings were greater or lesse, so they received a differing denomination, being called Synods Oecumenicall, Provincial, &c.

And this is at this day the judgement of all the Reformed Churches in the world, some few amongst our selves being excepted, and our dear Brethren in New-England, both known by the name of Congregationall men, so called from this their first principle, That the Scripture owns no visible Church but one Congregation. From hence it must needs follow, according to our Brethrens mind, That Ministers are Ministers only to their own Congregations.

As on the other side, they that own another Church, besides Congregational, do assert, that Ministers have a double relation, the one to their own particular Flocks, the other to the whole Church. And thus much for the rise of the Question.

For our Brethrens mind we shall not need to go far, they affirm possitively, that Officers stand in relation to a particular Church onelyonly, and they deny them to be Officers to a Church universall, or to any but their owne Flocks, Pag. 8. But here I cannot but take notice of a weighty difference amongst our Congregational Brethren, in which they should do well to be reconciled before they endeavour too eagerly to obtrude their Notions upon the world; It is this: Mr. Shepheard and Allen in their answer to the nine questions assert, that though Ministers are Officers only to their own Flocks, yet they may perform acts of their Office towards others, Pag. 133. And Learned Mr. Norton foreign p. 6concludes, that a Minister preacheth to another Congregation non tantum virtute donorum & charitatis, sed ex vi vocationis, &c. i. e. not only as a gifted Brother, but as an Officer; And it is sufficiently known that it is the judgement of persons of greatest note in that way among us in England. Now on the other side, Reverend Mr. Hooker expresly affirmeth that when a minister preacheth to another Congregation, he preacheth not as a Pastour, but as a gifted man, Survey Part 2. P. 32. And our Brethren in this Book fall in with him, and will not allow Ministers either to be Officers, or to act as Officers towards any, except their owne Congregation.

For the better clearing of the present Question I shall premise two Considerations which indeed do strike at the root of all their Objections.

I. That there are two waies whereby a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church.

1. Actu secundo, actually, immediatly, absolutely and independently, so that he may without any other warrant undertake to teach and govern the whole Church, if it were possible; This was peculiar to the Apostles, and surely this is abundantly sufficient to distinguish them from ordinary Pastors.

2. One may be an Officer to the whole Church actu primo, habitually, aptitudinally, mediatly, conditionally, and dependingly, so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where (Go preach the Gospel to every Creature) but may not exercise that jus or power, every where, but by the consent of the Church or Rulers, not as if there was any defect in his authority, but only because there is a manifest inconveniency and disorder in such a promiscuous and unlicensed exercise, which therfore is unlawful because it is repugnant to Order, and obstructive to Edification: and this is the case of ordinary Pastors.

p. 7II. I shall premise another Consideration, which being well digested is sufficient to enervate all that is said by our Brethren as to this point: it is this, A generall respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church.

Suppose one having a vast number of sheep, needeth and chuseth twenty Shepheards to look to his sheep, and these shepheards because each of them cannot possibly look to all, do therefore distribute the sheep into twenty parcels, and each undertakes to look to his share, yet so, as that in things of common concernment to all the sheep, they all meet and consult together, &c. but in matters of private concernment every man looks to his own parcel: In this case every shepheard hath a double relation, the one general to the whole, the other particular to his own parcel, which he doth more especially take care for, and feed, and keep, and watch over, &c. And in case any of those sheep which properly belong not to his charge go astray, if he see them and can keep them in, he is obliged by vertue of his office to do it, and if through his neglect they miscarry, he doth not only sin against Charity but against his Office. This is the case of the Church, and so it was out of doubt with the Apostles, unto whom Christ committed the care of his sheep indefinitely: And because each of them could not look to all, therefore the sheep were divided into parcels, and every Apostle takes upon himself a special relation unto some one parcel, and had his proper line; 2 Cor. 10. And because the sheep multiplied so fast, that to look to them all was a work too heavy for the Apostles shoulders, therefore the Flock was divided into more parcels, and they ordained more shepheards, who although peculiarly entrusted with their proper Charge, yet were not freed from their Care of the whole, but in things of common concernment did meet p. 8together with the Apostles in their daies, Act. 15. And afterwards among themselves.

Or as it is in Germany, where every Elector and Prince of the Empire sustains a double relation; He is related more especially to his owne peculiar Territory to which he is an Officer, acting ordinarily, and constantly, &c. But over and besides his, he hath a general relation to the whole Empire, and is an Officer to the whole, not singly and by himself, but together with others, being intrusted with a joint-power of governing the whole, as in case of chusing of an Emperor, or other weighty affairs of the Empire, as the necessities and occasions of the Empire require. Just so it is in the Church, which is one entire body (as the Empire is) governed by one Systeme of laws, and molded under one Government, every Minister hath a double relation, the one special and peculiar, to his owne Flock which he is to feed constantly; the other general to the whole Church, which he is to feed occasionally, as far as his ability will reach, and as the Churches exigencies command, and which he together with others hath a power to govern.

This will be put out of doubt by considering more fully that which even now was intimated of the Apostles themselves, who also had this double relation, one to the whole, whereby they were Pastors of the whole Church, and yet because they could not possibly each of them look to all the Churches, therefore the work was divided among them, and they undertook a special relation to some particular parts, as Peter to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, Iames to Ierusalem, &c. Which division did not proceed from any defect of authority in the Apostles to feed the whole, but from the impossibility of the thing in regard of the vastnesse of the work, and because they were to carry on all Church-work as most suited with edification.

p. 9In like manner we that are ordinary Pastors, sequimur patres, non passibus aequis; and though every Minister is a Minister of the whole Church, and hath an Authority extending to it suo modo, yet because it is impossible for every one to look to every Church, and all things are to be managed with special respect to the Churches edification, therefore Ministers are forced to divide the work, both as to Teaching and Ruling; yet so, as that there still remains a relation to the whole, whereby he is obliged to teach, and with others to rule other Churches, so far forth as his ability reacheth, and the Churches necessities require.

And by the way, I cannot but take notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling, in point of the possibility of the thing, and the edification of the Church (which is the great Rule in all Church-administrations) for a Minister may jointly with others rule a far greater proportion than he can teach. David as a King, could rule all Israel, but David as a Prophet, could not vivâ voce, teach all Israel, at least not ordinarily and constantly. And the Apostles, though it was impossible for every one of them actually to teach every Church, (they neither could do it, nor did it) yet it was possible for each Apostle joyntly with the rest, to govern every Church, and they did actually rule all the Churches, at least all the Churches there mentioned, in that famous Synod, Acts 15. (in which, whether they acted as Apostles, or as ordinary Elders, all is one to the present Question.) And this may serve for Answer to that specious Argument so much insisted on by the Reverend and Learned dissenters, taken from the conjunction of Teaching and Ruling.

These things premised, I shall now come to the Arguments: And here I shall have a double work;

p. 101. To lay down an Argument or two, to prove that Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers to more than their own particular Churches.

2. To Answer their Arguments, and to justifie those inconveniences objected by the Provincial Assembly to the contrary Opinion.

For the former, I shall not here dilate, only I shall propound three Arguments.

The first Argument is this, If Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens, then they are not Officers only to their particular Congregations: But Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens. The Minor is the only Proposition that can be denied, and that I shall now endeavour to prove.

1. The case is plain in the Apostles: That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel-Church was erected, is undeniable, and appears plainly from Mat. 28. The Apostles, at that time, were Officers for they had actually received their Commission; they being relata, must have a correlatum: A correlate there was none, but those who were to be made Disciples, who were to be converted: So that, one of these two must necessarily be granted, either that the Apostolical relation wanted a correlatum (which to say, is grosly absurd) or that the Heathens and Jews to be converted, were the correlatum to them.

There is but one thing that can be said, to wit, that at that time there were divers already converted Christians, who were a sufficient correlatum to the Apostolical Office. To which I Answer, If we suppose that all such Christians had died, or forsaken the profession of the Faith, (which might have fallen out without any detriment to the perpetuity of the Church, seeing the essence of the Church had been preserved in the Apostles, if they only p. 11had continued in the faith) I say, suppose they all had thus fallen away, yet had the Apostles been Officers, and therefore the Heathens had been their correlatum.

2. And such indeed are clearly expressed, Matth. 28. 19, 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostolical Office and relation. From whence will follow, that a Minister may be a Minister, though he have no particular Church to which he stands related: Just as the Eunuch was a member of the Church visible, though there was no particular Church into which he was admitted, Acts 8.

The only probable Answer which I can apprehend is this, That the Argument no way holds from Apostles to ordinary Ministers: But in this case I conceive it doth. For,

1. The Apostles as well as Pastors (say our Brethren) are Officers only to the Church. Chap. 3. p. 18. they say of Ministers, That it is lawfull for them to go and preach to unbelievers; and they instance in the Apostles preaching to Heathens, Acts 11. & 16. and yet (say they) they are no Officers to such unbelievers: Whereby it is plain that they deny not only ordinary Pastors, but also Apostles to be Officers to Heathens; which also further appears by the reason they adde, why such Ministers are no Officers to Heathens (which is common to Apostles with other Ministers) viz. Because they cannot as Officers exercise Church-government towards them; which holds true even of the Apostles; What have we to do to judge them that are without, 1 Cor. 5. Now if the Apostles, who were (according to our Brethren) only Church-officers, yet acted as Officers towards such as were wholly without the Church, and towards Heathens, much more is it true of ordinary Pastors, that, albeit they are Officers in special to their particular Flock, yet they are Officers, and p. 12act as Officers, towards other Churches.

2. Apostles and Pastors are paralleld in this case, Eph. 4. 11, 12. And he gave some Apostles—and some Pastors and Teachers, For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. From whence it is most evident, that the object of the Apostolical and Pastoral Office is one and the same, both of them being by Office related to the Saints, not only that are actually brought in, but also to those that are to be gathered: And the Offices were appointed, and the Officers bestowed for this very end, for the edifying of the body of Christ: By which Body of Christ, we must with judicious Interpreters, necessarily understand the whole collection of all Christs members in all ages of the Church; all which, in Scripture phrase, go to the making up of Christs body, so that if one of them were lacking, Jesus Christ should want his fulnesse (as he is pleased to express himself) Eph. 1. 21.

And answerably to this the word foreign, or edifying, is not to be understood, as in some other places, for building up of such as are brought in only, but also for the bringing in of those who are yet without; for that indeed was the great end why the Ministry was instituted, Mat. 28. 19, 20. And the very phrase of building, implies as well the gathering together of stones for the building, and the laying of the foundation, as the raising up of the building; and the nature of the body, as we have now explained it, necessarily requires, that this edifying should be understood extensively, as well as intensively.

I shall contract all this into a short Syllogism, The body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum, or the object of the Pastoral Office; But the body of Christ includes Heathens: Therefore Heathens to be converted are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office. The major is p. 13plain from the Text, and what hath been said; the minor also is no lesse evident, that Heathens are a part of Christs body: They are called his sheep, Iohn 10. 16. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Heathens to be converted Christ laid down his life for (else they had never been converted) and yet he laid down his life only for his body, Eph. 5. And therefore they are his members and part of his body, and therefore they are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office.

And as the whole Church in all ages (to wit, including persons yet uncalled,Predestinati nondum congregati. Aug. but by election belonging to it) is the correlatum of the Ministers and Ministerial Office in all ages, so the whole Church in one age (including such as by predestination, though not yet by actual vocation and congregation, belong to it) is the correlate of the Ministers and Ministerial Office in that one age: So that not only a particular Church is the correlate of a Minister, but also such as are not yet members of any particular Church, nor of any Church at all.

The second Argument may be taken from 2 Cor. 5. 20. where the reconcilable world, which consists of such as are yet without and no members of the Church, are made the chief object and correlatum of the Office of the Ministry; and from thence I shall thus argue, To whom Ministers act as Ambassadours, to them they act as Officers: But Ministers preach as Ambassadours to Heathens convertible and to be converted, Ergo. The Proposition is evident from the terms, To be an Ambassadour, is nothing else but to be an Officer; and it may receive further light and strength from this consideration, that Ministers are not Ambassadors a pari ad parem, from one King to another as equal, but a superiori ad inferiorem, from one superiour in authority to all; from a Prince to his subjects, whom he is calling in; from one who may and doth require all p. 14Heathens, as well as others, to hear and obey his Ambassadors, I mean from the Lord Christ. For the Assumption, that Ministers preaching to Heathens, do preach as Ambassadors (where all the doubt lies) I proceed to make good.

1. If the Scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others; then there is no difference, Ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. But the Scripture makes no difference, &c. Wherever a Minister preacheth, he is to preach with all Authority. Strangers are as well obliged to obey him as his own people.

2. Even Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them, and that not only ex vi materiae, because of the matter they treat of, but virtute muneris, by vertue of their Office. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, Luke 10. 16. And therefore as the Jews and Heathens were bound to hear Christ, not only in regard of his message which he brings, but also in respect of his Office as he was the Mediator and the great Prophet in the Church, Deut. 18, 15, 19. So also it is with Ministers, who act as in Christs stead, they are to be heard even by Heathens, for their Office sake, as well as for their Doctrine. And those Jews or Heathens which disobeyed the Doctrine of the Apostles, are not only charged with the guilt of rejecting the truth, but also of contemning the Persons and Offices of the Apostles, which could not have been, if the Apostles had not preached as Officers to such. And surely it must needs be reputed strange doctrine, to say, that a Minister, yea an Apostle, preaching to Heathens, doth preach no more authoritatively, than any woman or child that is occasionally discoursing to such of the things of God. The Apostles might challenge Maintenance of those Heathens to whom p. 15they preached, Mat. 10. 10. 1 Cor 9. which such women and children could not pretend to; which clearly demonstrates that the Apostles preached not as gifted persons, but as Officers to them. The Apostles preaching to such had a power authoritatively to pronounce pardon, or to denounce wrath to them, upon their believing or disobeying, (which are the two acts of the Keys) and which to do requires an Office-relation to them.

If it be objected that this may be true of the Apostles, that they were Ambassadors, and preached as Ambassadors to Heathens, and yet not true of ordinary Pastours. I answer; either ordinary ministers are Ambassadors, or else Christ hath not had any Ambassadors in the world since the daies of the Apostles, But Christ hath had, and hath Ambassadors still in the world; therefore Ministers are ordinary Ambassadors: the Major is plain, for if only extraordinary Officers be Ambassadors; then where there are no such extraordinary Officers, there are no Ambassadors: The Minor also is no lesse clear, that the Office of Gospel Ambassadors was a continuing Ordinance, and it is most ridiculous to think, that while the design and work of the Ambassador lasts his Office should not continue; and besides, Christ hath perpetuated the Office, Mat. 28. 19, 20. If it be said they are Ambassadors indeed, but it is to their own people, not to Heathens: I answer, yes rather they are Ambassadors to Heathens: for as the great work of other Ambassadors is to make peace, so also Gospel-Ambassadors their great businesse is to beseech men to be reconciled to God, and therefore their principal object is not the Church who are already supposed to be reconciled, but Heathens and Strangers who are yet unreconciled: and seeing ordinary Ministers preaching to Heathens, have a power upon their repentance to remit sin, i. e. To declare their sins p. 16remitted officially, it must needs follow, that they are Ambassadors to such: And the Apostle in this place ascribes both the name and work of Ambassadors unto ordinary Ministers, speaking in the plural number, We then as Ambassadors, &c. And he attributes the name to himself, upon a ground common with him to ordinary Ministers, i. e. because he besought them as in Christs stead to be reconciled to God: and as we rightly infer the assurance of salvation of ordinary believers from the Apostles assurance, because he fixeth his assurance not upon any peculiar revelation, but upon grounds common to all Christians; so may we that are ordinary Ministers, justly take to our selves the Name and Office of Ambassadors, because the Apostles assum'd it upon such grounds as are common to all Ministers: and not upon such as are peculiar to the Apostolical Dignity.

And this may suffice for the enforcement of this second argument: but there is one block that must be removed. It is plausibly objected by Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepheard, in there answer to the nine Questions, That Ministers, though Officers to their own Flock, yet may do the acts of their Office towards others, as a Steward of an house acteth as an Officer in the entertainment of strangers, &c. And thus Ministers may preach as Officers to others, and yet be only Officers to their own Congregations. To this I answer, 1. This concerns not our Brethren here, who do possitively determine, that Ministers preaching to others, do preach only as gifted men, not as Officers, p. 18. So that I might without disparagement wave this Objection. 2. This is a meer fallacy, the resemblance it self is misunderstood or mis-applied: for a Steward of an house, it is true, he acts as a Steward in the entertainment of strangers, but how? he acts as the Steward of that house, not as a Steward to them whom he entertains: But a Minister p. 17preacheth as an Officer with authority, not only in relation to his own Church, but any others that occasionally hear him, as hath been proved. And yet 3. If the similitude were well laid, there is a further dissimilitude in the case in hand; for a Steward of an house is a Steward only to that particular Family, but Ministers are Stewards to the whole Church, all which is called one family, and one houshold, 1 Tim. 3. 15. How thou shouldst behave thy self in the house of God. Gal. 6. 10. Do good to all, especially the houshold of faith. Eph. 2. 19. You are fellow Citizens of the Saints, and of the houshold of God. And the reason why the Steward of an house is no Officer to strangers, is because the Lord that makes him a Steward hath no authority to make him a Steward over strangers, nor further then his house or jurisdiction reacheth. But Christ, who makes Ministers Stewards, hath authority to make them such over the whole Church, yea, over Heathens; and indeed so he hath done, as the former Arguments have proved: and he requires of the world to own his Ministers as Ambassadors, and will severely punish their rejection and contempt of them.

The third and last argument shall be this; If the conversion of Heathens, &c. be the principal ground and end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted, and the principal work of the Ministry, then the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens: But the conversion of Heathens, &c. is the principal end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted, and the principal work of the Ministry so instituted, Therefore the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens. For the major it is evident from the very terms; every Minister is unquestionably related to those among whom his work lies. And as it is plain in Christ Jesus, our great Bishop, that the Church or his sheep, are his correlatum, because his end and his work was their salvation; so also must it p. 18needs be in Ministers, that their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lies. For the minor no man can doubt of it that hath read the Scriptures, especially those fore-cited places, Mat. 28. & Eph. 4.

If it be said, Conversion indeed was the great work of the Apostles, but not so of ordinary Ministers; those were to build up what the Apostles brought in:

I answer 1. Both those places do evidently relate as well to ordinary Ministers, as to the Apostles: For Eph 4. they are equally named; and for Mat. 28. it is clear, because those Ministers who are there spoken of, and set apart for that work of the conversion of Heathens, they are assured by God that they shall continue to the end of the world, which is not true of the Apostles in their own persons, unlesse to them you adde their successors, the ordinary Ministers. And 1 Cor. 3. 5. Who is Paul, and who is Apollo, &c. but Ministers by whom ye believe. And that text will continue true to the end of the world, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. of ordinary Ministers, as well as the Apostles.

2. If conversion be a work common and necessary in these daies, as well as in the Apostles daies, then Ministers are now appointed for that work as well as formerly they were: For while the cause and reason remains, the effect also must needs remain: But conversion is a work common and necessary now as well as then; For though men are not Heathens now as they were formerly, yet many are but professors and titular Christians, by vertue of their Church-membership, and so do need a work of conversion.

3. Either the ordinary Ministers of the Church were appointed for conversion, or else Christ hath appointed no Officers to take care of the greatest and most principal work, which is the conversion of sinners: But this is p. 19highly absurd that Christ should take least care, where there was most need: and therefore ordinary Ministers were instituted for conversion.

And thus I have done with the first thing, which was to prove, that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to others besides their own Congregation.

The second thing propounded was, To Answer their Arguments, and to vindicate the Arguments offered by the Provincial Assembly against that contrary opinion, that Ministers are Officers only to their own Congregations.

And for the better methodizing of it, I shall first with all brevity propound the Assemblies Arguments, then our Brethrens Answers, and then adde a Reply: And this I chuse to do in this place, although these things are discussed by them under another Head, p. 227, &c. because they properly concern this Question. But I shall passe them over with more brevity, because it is but a collateral Question, and our Brethren are lesse accurate in this, than in the other point.

1. This opinion is unheard of in the Church of Christ, before these late years. Provinc.

Ans. It sufficeth that it is heard of in the Scripture.

Reply. But you know that is denied; and for the Churches judgement, as it is not to be advanced into Gods throne, so it is not easily to be slighted, where there is an universall consent of all Churches (as there is in this case) which it is hard to shew in any Errour: Nemo pacificus contra Ecclesiam.

2. This opinion is contrary to our Br…threns practise, who hold the administration of the Sacrament to be a Ministeriall act, and yet give it to members of other Congregations. Provinc.

To this there is a double Answer given by our Brethren.

p. 201. The main Answer where they lay most stresse which therefore I propose first, is this, that In ministerial acts some things are common to men as men, as the Word and Prayer; some are common to them as Church members, or as confederates with any particular Church, not considering this or another Church, as the Sacraments; other things as special and proper to a particular Church, &c. as Excommunication, Election, &c. So that a man may claim the Sacrament as a confederate with any Church: And as a father giving instruction to his children and servants, teacheth them as a Father and Master; but, if strangers come in and partake of the instruction, he teacheth them not by vertue of any such relation; so if a Pastor preach and give the Sacrament occasionally, he acts not as a Pastor and Officer to them. This is the strength of what our Brethren say, p. 278, 279, 280.

Reply 1. If our Brethren perceive not how they have overshot themselves, I question not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it, how they are fallen from their own principles. Indeed the Answer were tolerable, if preaching and giving the Sacrament were of the same nature and quality, and did proceed pari passu, but seeing it is generally granted by our Congregational Brethren, That Preaching is not alwaies an act of Office, and that it is an act which may be done by Gifted men; and that the administration of the Sacrament is alwaies an act of Office, and cannot be done but by one in Office, it is most incongruously done to jumble these two together, and to make them alike in this very case where they acknowledge the difference.

2. To the Sacrament two things are required, which are warily to be distinguished; 1. A right in the Receiver to claim, and that indeed we have in the supposed case, according to our Brethrens principles. 2. A power in the Giver to administer, and this none hath but an Officer, p. 21and none can do it but as an Officer, and therefore no man can give it to any, but to them to whom he is an Officer, and acts as an Officer, and therefore they cannot give it to any member of other Congregations.

And this acute Mr. Hooker is so sensible of, that he grants it in terminis, using these words; Touching the partaking of the Sacrament by some of one Congregation in another, it hath been a course which I have ever questioned, and against it I have alledged many Arguments, professing the course unwarrantable, for this reason (among others) because the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministerial act, and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher, and what authority hath he to do it, and they to receive it from him to whom he is no Pastor; as he is cited by Cawdry, Inconsistency of Indep. Way, p. 203. Nor do I see how this can be fairly avoided by any that stick to Congregational principles, and I think such a strange paradox as this, asserted by so considerable a person, and flowing from such principles, may justly render them suspected to all impartial judges.

And whereas our Brethren here imply the contrary, and talk of a Pastors giving the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor; 1. Let all men take notice that in this they have deserted their own principles, and have through incogitancy precipitated themselves into the gulf of Anabaptism, which, I doubt not, in their next, either their prudence or their ingenuity will ob…ige them to retract. 2. The Provincial Assembly were not obliged to take notice of the excentrical opinions of every particular Congregational man, but of those which were owned by the generality of them, and by such as seemed to be Pillars among them; and sure I am, such will reject this notion of a mans giving the Sacrament as a Gifted brother. They know the rule, Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali; If a Pastor gives the Sacrament to strangers not as a p. 22Pastor or Officer, but as a Gifted brother (for that is the other member of the distinction) then every Gifted brother may administer the Sacrament, which I suppose our Brethren will tremble to grant, and therefore they must call back their own words too loosely delivered.

2. But however (say they) this is an argument against our practise, not the assertion.

Reply. Yes, it may give just cause of suspicion of the truth of that assertion, which inevitably draws along with it such a strange conclusion as this, that no man may receive the Sacrament any where but in his own Congregation, which is in a great measure to cut the sinews of Christian and Church-communion; and yet for ought either I or M^r Hooker see, either this conclusion must be embraced, or the principle rejected.

I passe on to the Reasons. There are (say the Assembly) seven ill consequences which follow this assertion, That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation: I shall reduce them to two or three.

1. Then a Minister at the same time preacheth to his own members as a Minister, and to others as a Gifted man only.

2. Then a Minister baptizeth only into his own Congregation, not into the Catholick Church, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 13. and so a Minister can baptize none but those that are members of his own Congregation, and so there is no way to baptize Heathens converted, nor the children of such parents as cannot be members of any Congregation. And here our Brethren bring in that Argument mentioned by the Provinc. That a Minister Ministerially admits into and ejects out of the Church-Catholick, and therefore is a Minister of the Church-Catholick, and not only of his particular Congregation, p. 281, &c.

Let us now hear what our Brethren have to Answer.

1. They say, We see no absurdity in saying that a Minister p. 23preacheth to some as an Officer, and at the same time preacheth to others not as an Officer.

Reply 1. This is a conceit for which there is no shadow in the Scripture: Nay it is not only foreign but foreign, not only without, but against the evidence of Scripture. Ministers wherever, or to whomsoever they do the work of Ambassadors, whomsoever they beseech to be reconciled, to them they act as Ambassadors: And whose sins soever they remit Doctrinally (which is an act of Office) they are remitted; and whose sins soever they retain, in preaching, they are retained, whether their hearers be strangers, or of their own Congregation: And this they do by vertue of their Office. Surely it is very harsh to say that all strangers which hear a Minister, are no more bound to hear and obey him, then to hear or obey any woman discoursing privately of those things; and that a stranger rej…cting his message, is no way guilty of the contempt of his Office, (it will be an happy thing if that will be a sufficient plea at the last day.) Nay by this rule the very Apostles themselves (as we have more largely seen) must, when preaching to Heathens, be canton'd into the order of Gifted men; and if that be true, it was no act of their Office to disciple Nations, and to gather in the Saints: And all those Heathens which are now converted by Ministers, are not converted by vertue of the Ministers Office, nor was the Office of the Ministry appointed for the gathering in of souls, but only for the building up of such as are brought in, contrary to Mat. 28. & Eph. 4. as hath been argued.

2. They argue against that position, That a man is made a member of the Church by Baptism, p. 284. whereas indeed it is none of our assertion, and so all that labour, both of theirs and M^r Hookers is lost. They cannot but know that we allow Infants to be born Church-members, p. 24and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism, and a par, a Heathen converted, and professing the fai…h, is a Church-member inchoatè before Baptism; this only we say, That the solemn, publick and visible way of admission of members into the Church, is by Baptism; and this cannot be easily denied by any one that looks either to the Jewish or Christian Church: For as since the New Testament began, it hath alwaies been the door of admission, so was it also unto Proselytes in the Old Testament, who used to be admitted into the Jewish Church by Baptism,right foot. Hammond. Selden. as divers Learned Men have proved. Or if our Brethren question that, yet at least, Circumcision (to which our Baptism answers) was the door of admission into the Jewish Church. But of this more hereafter.

3. They deny that a Min…ster ejects out of the Catholick Church. Not the Minister, but the person renouncing his profession ejects himself out of it; He may be ejected with, and not by Excommunication And how can a mans being ejected out of a particular Church, make him no member of the Catholick Church; if being ejected out of Office in a particular Church, doth not make a man no Officer to the Catholick visible Church. p. 285.

Reply 1. Here two things are opposed which may be conjoyned; For both the person ejects himself, and the Minister ejects him: He ejects himself meritoriously, the Minister efficiently and juridically.

2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church, ejects him out of all other Churches (and that cannot be but by vertue of a Catholick Church, &c.) or he is not juridically ejected out of other Churches, and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches, (which what horrid confusion it would introduce into the Church of God, and how incongruous it is p. 25unto his wisdom, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, to appoint a remedy so short and insufficient for the disease, I leave to all sober men to judge.) And this is not a bare suggestion, for experience shews that the effect of this principle is such, and persons juridically and justly ejected out of one Church, have been admitted into another Church (who it may be, apprehend him to have been unjustly dealt with) and according to this principle there is no remedy, but so it must be.

3. For the ejecting of Officers, I say, 1. That a Church in their sense, i. e. the body of the people, hath no power of ejecting of Officers, as our Brethren suppose. 2. That when a Minister is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by deposition, he ceaseth to be an Officer to the Catholick Church.

4. They say, according to our way also we cannot baptize Heathens, for if there be a Catholick Church, Ministers are only Officers in the Church, and not to the Heathens converted, so cannot baptize them.

Reply. Ministers are Officers not only to those that are actually members of the Church, but to all that shall be brought in, as we have shewn; they are Officers even to Heathens, in the sense before explained, as they do ex officio offer them a pardon, and give it upon their repentance, so they do ex officio admit them into the Church.

5. They say, in such a case Heathens may joyn as members to some Church, and so be baptized.

Reply. Our Brethren should not obtrude such uncouth notions upon the world without evident proof. Their answer implies as if there were some other way whereby a man might be made a compleat Church-member, without Baptism, whereas in Scripture there is ne … quidem of any other door of admission: If there be, let our Brethren p. 26shew it; sure we are the New Testament way was by Baptism. But of this more by and by.

And this is all of any moment which our Brethren have to say by way of Answer to the foregoing Argument.

3. Another Argument used by the Provincial Assembly, was this, that From hence it will follow, that when a Minister leaves, or is put from his particular Charge, he ceaseth to be a Minister; and so when he taketh up a new Charge, he needs a new Ordination, which is absurd, because every Minister is seated in the Catholick Church, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. And as a private Christian removing from his Church, doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church (for then his Baptism should cease, for every baptized person is a Church-member) and needs not to be baptized a new; so a Minister going from a Congregation, needs not to be Ordained a new.

To this our Brethren Answer divers things.

1. They say, This runs into direct Anabaptism, for by this rule, an Excommunicate person ceasing to be a member, his Baptism ceaseth, and so he needs to be re-baptized when he is re-admitted. p. 292.

Reply I. But this followeth not for a double reason.

1. It may be said, that an Excommunicate person ordinarily is a member, though a diseased member, 2 Thess. 3.—Admonish him as a brother. He towards whom I owe the duty of a fellow-member, is a fellow-member: But I owe the duty of a fellow-member, viz. fraternal admonition to such an one. Again, He who is under a Church Ordinance appointed for his good, is a Church-member, though diseased, and under cure: But such an one is under an Ordinance, Ergo.

2. Though his Baptism ceaseth at present actual…y and really, as to all the actual priviledges of it, and so ceaseth, p. 27that while he repents not, he is to be looked upon after a sort, as an unbaptized person, or as an Heathen; yet when he doth repent and renew his Covenant, and re-admit himself to the Church, he needs no new Baptism, for as much as God is pleased to impute to him his former Baptism, and the Church accepts of it; And this is the benefit of his repentance, that God looks upon his sins repented of, as if they had never been committed, and so in that case he looks on him, as if he had never fallen from his Baptism; and so he needs no new one: Just as it was in the case of Circumcision, when any turned Heathen or Idolater, and renounced his Circumcision, he was to be reputed as an Heathen, while such; and yet whenever he repented, he needed no new Circumcision, but his former Circumcision was accepted by God for him.

II. The Argument fals upon our Brethrens principles, not upon ours: For to us (who assert that Baptism is the door of admission into the Catholick Church) it is uncontroverted, that a man removing from one Church, may be admitted to any other, because his Baptism gave him a compleat visible and political membership, not only with that Church he was admitted into, but with all others: And this membership and Baptism, though they were lost in the sense before spoken, yet upon his repentance are recovered. But our Brethren, who make Baptism only the door of admission into a particular Church, they must own this conclusion, That upon every removal there must be a new Baptism. Even as it is in civil Corporations, which because they are distinct from one another, and there is no general Corporation of which each of these are members, therefore whenever a member passeth from one to another, he needs to be admitted a new, by what way soever they use in the admission of members. And to save them from this intollerable inconvenience, p. 28they have no shelter but one, which comes in the next place.

2. They say, Baptism doth not admit, or make a man to stand in relation to any Church, either general or particular, but it is a solemn sign of a persons taking the Name of Christ upon him, and therefore that remains wherever he removes. pag. 293.

Reply 1. Our Brethren granted even-now, that Baptism was a sign of a mans admission to the Church.

2. This may well stand with its being a sign of a persons taking the Name of Christ, nay indeed it is the same thing in substance, for what is a Church but a company of men professing the Name of Christ? and what then is it to be a solemn sign of a mans admission into the Church, but to be a solemn sign of his being a professor of the Name of Christ?

3. What a monstrous paradox is this, Baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church: This should not have been dictated without any proof, but demonstrated by clear evidences, it being against the judgement of the whole Church. Surely the Apostle was not of this mind, when he said, We are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. By which it is most evident, that Baptism gives a man relation to some Body, and it is also plain that he speaks of a visible body, because it is an organical body, having the distinction of teachers and taught, &c. And this Body, if it be the Church Catholick, (as we say, and as the place proves, for as much as Jews and Gentiles are all members of it) then we have our desire: If it be a Church particular, then Baptism makes us to stand in relation to such a Church. And if this were meant of the invisible body, and this Baptism of internal Baptism, yet it rationally follows, that as the inward Baptism makes a man stand in relation to the invisible p. 29Church, so doth the external Baptism make him stand in relation to the visible Church. Again, That which makes a man visibly stand in relation to Christ, that makes him visibly to stand in relation to the Church: But Baptism makes a man visibly to stand in relation to Christ, Ergo. The major is plain, because the Church and the Church only, and the members of it, stand in visible relation to Christ: The minor is evident from Rom 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Iesus Christ, were baptized into his death. Gal. 3. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; Therefore Baptism makes a man stand in relation to the Church. Again, That which makes a man visibly to stand in a Covenant relation, makes a man to stand in relation to a Church: But Baptism makes a man visibly to stand in a Covenant relation; Ergo. The major cannot be denied, because of the identity of a Covenant and Church relation: All and only they that are really in Covenant, are really members of the invisible Church: And all and only such as are visibly in Covenant, are members of the visible Church: The minor must needs be granted by every one that understands the nature of Baptism: Baptism is the seal of the Covenant; and to say the seal of the Covenant makes not a man to stand in relation to the Covenant, is a contradiction. Lastly, That which makes a man capable of Church-priviledges, makes him stand in relation to a Church: But Baptism makes a man capable of Church-priviledges, v. g. of the Supper, &c. (which unbaptized persons are not capable of) Ergo it makes a man stand in relation to a Church. So then this paradox being disproved (that I may reduce these things to my main scope) and it being evident that Baptism makes a man stand in relation to some Church, and that visible too (which all grant) it remains either that p. 30there is a Catholick visible Church, to which Baptism makes a man to stand related; or if the Church into which it admits a man be only a particular Church, then upon every removal, there must be, as a new admission, so a new Baptism.

3. They say, An Officer may be said to be set in the whole Church, though his authority reacheth only to a part: as it may be said, There are set in the Commonwealth, Iustices, Constables, &c. and yet this proves not that besides their relation to their Precincts, they have a relation to the Commonwealth, and a power to act there.

Reply 1. That phraseology sufficiently implies that the Commonwealth, wherein they are set, is one Political body, and so a pari, that phrase, God hath set in the Church, whatsoever that Church is, it proves it to be one Political body.

2. The case wholly differs, for Justices, Constables, &c. have limited Commissions, confined to their particular Precincts; whereas the Commission of Ministers is large and universal (as hath been proved.) If our Brethren would chuse a fit resemblance, let them take it from that of the Empire before mentioned, wherein the Princes are set in and over the whole Empire, and he that shall say, In the Empire are set Princes, States, &c. shall imply that such Princes and States, besides their special relation to their particular Territories, have another relation to the whole Empire.

3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon, but the sense and the explication of the phrase given us by other Scriptures, and which necessity requires in this place, as plainly appears from the Apostles, who were so set in the Church, that they were also set over the Church; so are not Justices, they are in, not over the Commonwealth; and who, besides a special relation to their particular parts p. 31(which we have before discoursed of,) have also a relation to, and over the whole Church: And so have other Ministers to, suo modo, as hath been proved; and both Apostles and Ministers are equalized in this, that they are in and over the whole Church, and so have a relation to it.

4. They say, The Church, in 1 Cor. 12. may be taken for this or that Church; and so the body to be edified, for this or that particular body, Eph. 4.

Reply. That cannot be, for it is one Church in which all the Apostles and Ministers are set, 1 Cor. 12. It is one body which all the Apostles and Pastors, &c. were given to edifie and perfect. It is that body into which we all are baptized, both Jews and Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12. 13. It is that one body which is Christ, i. e. mystical, which is made up of all the members of Christ, v. 12. It is that one body which is called the whole body, Eph. 4. 16. From whom the whole body fitly joyned together, &c. And surely he had need have a good confidence of his abilities, that will assert, that all this is true of a particular Church.

Another Argument used by the Provincial Assembly was this, That hence it follows that if a people unjustly through covetousnesse, starve a Minister from them, or through heresie or schism vote him down, in that case it is in their power to nullifie the Office of a Minister.

To this our Brethren answer foreign, That

1. Though the people sin, yet indeed they do nullifie the Office of a Minister, as if they should murther a Minister, they nullifie his Office, and if they may debar him from the exercise of his Office, why may they not make void his Office?

Reply 1. Our Brethren confound two things vastly differing, to wit, the nullifying of the Office, and the hindring of the exercise of the Office; It is true, the peoples opposition, nay indeed one mans violence may hinder the exercise, but cannot nullifie the Office.

p. 322. I demand whether this hold of the Apostles or no: The Apostles were made Officers to the Church only, (say our Brethren) and they say they were constituted Officers by the Church, alledging Acts 1. (although the Scripture tell us the Apostles were neither of man, nor by man▪ ) Well then, this being premised, Suppose when the Catholick Church was confined to one Congregation, this Congregation had proved hereticall, and voted down the Apostles: I only suppose it, and suppositions are allowed by all, and to deny that liberty is a tergiversation: Nor doth this supposition imply any contradiction to that promise that God hath made, that he will preserve his Church, for that might have been preserved in the Apostles alone. I now Quaere, Whether in this case the Apostolical Office had been null or no?

If they affirm it, as it is a strange assertion, so it is also false: For 1. The Apostles were not constituted by man, and therefore their Office could not be nullified by man. 2. The Apostles in such a case had a power officially and authoritatively to denounce the wrath of God against them, Mat. 10. 14. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart—shake off the dust of your feet. 3. They were Apostles even to Heathens to be converted, as we have proved.

If they deny it, I prove it thus, that it must needs follow from their principles: For

1. The Church being, according to them, the adequate correlatum of the Apostles, the Church ceasing, they must needs cease also.

2. Ejusdem est instituere & destituere, and seeing they allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people.

3. I thus disprove that monstrous paradox: That which renders it in the power of mens lusts or humours p. 33to nullifie the promises of Christ, the authority, end and use of Christs Ambassadors, is most absurd. That which makes it in the power of men, whether there shall be any Officially to preach peace, to remit sins, &c. is highly dangerous; But such is this doctrine. I prove the minor by these steps; 1. There are now none but ordinary Ministers in the Church. 2. The essence of a Minister (say our Brethren) consists in relation to a particular Church, which is his correlatum, and sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum, so that when that relation ceaseth, his Ministry ceaseth. 3. It is in the power of the people to dissolve that relation, to eject a Minister; so say our Brethren, and it is generally asserted by Congregational men. 4. That which one Congregation may do, another may do, and so every one may do: Suppose then that there are twenty, and but twenty Congregations in the world, if each of these resolve severally to eject their Ministers, through covetousnesse, heresie, &c. I say, then it is in the power of these men to falsifie Christs word, and destroy the authority, end and use of Christs Ambassadors. But you will say, it is in the power of men to kill these Ministers, one as well as another, and so thereby, as well as by our way, it is in the power of men to disanull the promise of Christ. And therefore as it would be answered in that case, that the bones of Christ were breakable, yet by divine providence were kept from being broken; so though it is remotè in the power of men to kill all those Ministers, yet God will restrain them from the act of killing them, that he may keep his promise; in like manner though it is in the power of such Churches to depose them, yet God will hinder the act, &c.

I Answer the case is wholly different, the one is an act of horrid violence, the other a juridical act, and here is the great inconvenience for a man to assert, that Jesus Christ p. 34hath given to every Congregation a juridical power to depose their Ministers when ever they please, for the power of judging is left by our Brethren in their hands; and to disanul an Ordinance of Christ, and to punish an Officer and Ambassador of Christ without his fault, and without all hope of remedy: In what a sad condition were Gospel Ministers, if it were in the power of their people upon every Capricio, when ever the humour takes them, to rob a godly Minister, it may be for the faithful discharge of his duty among them, of that which he accounts better than a world, and that without any possibility of redresse, forasmuch as he hath none to make his appeal to. How secure might a people be in their wickednesse, if when a Minister reproves them sharply for their sins, they might take away from their Minister the power of reclaiming their sins, or officially denouncing wrath against them.

But they have a second Answer to relieve them. If such a rejection of their Officers do not nullifie his Office, the reason is, because he is de jure, and of right still over that Church as their Officer, though hindred from the exercise of his Office.

And this indeed is much more tolerable than the other, but our Brethren have lost the benefit of this refuge, forasmuch as they positively acknowledge, that the people have a power to annull his Office: And besides it helps them not at all; for if the people, and they only, they beyond appeal, have a full juridical power of deposing and rejecting their Ministers (as our Brethren hold) then they only have a power to judge whether the cause of the deposition be just or unjust, and be it just, or unjust, the Minister hath no way but to acquiesce in their sentence; for if once this gap were opened, either in Church or State, that a person judged and censured might thwart the judgment of the supream Court, by his p. 35private opinion, it would introduce intolerable confusion: It is true in such a case he may appeal to God, and find comfort in this, that in fero Dei his cause is good, but as for the forum humanum he is gone irrecoverably: And however neighbouring Churches, or Ministers may endeavour to convince and rectifie such a Church, and to perswade them to own him as their Minister, yet, if they will persist, they must all be contented, and he must not be owned for a Minister. And thus much may serve for the Vindication of those Arguments which were urged by the Assembly.

I shall now take notice of two or three of their Arguments.

Their chief Argument is this: A Minister is a Pastour only to his own Flock: But it is only a particular Church which is his Flock; Ergo He is a Pastour only to his particular Church: The minor is proved thus, All that is a mans Flock, he is commanded actually to feed, and to take heed to, and he sins if he do not, Acts 20. 28. But no Bishop is commanded actually to feed the whole Church, Ergo the whole Church is not his Flock, p. 8.

Ans. 1. The major of the first Syllogisme is untrue: A Minister is a Pastour to his own Flock especially, but not only.

2. The major of the second Syllogism is denied, A Minister is not obliged actually to feed all his Flock; and I suppose I shall give an unanswerable reason for the deniall of it: Every Apostle was a Catholick Pastour, and so had the whole Church for his Flock, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Here our Brethren are consenters: But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church, and all Nations, they neither did it, nor was it possible for them to do it, and therefore their work was divided among them; the Circumcision being more especially committed to Peter, p. 36and the uncircumcision to Paul: And yet, although by this distribution, Paul had a special relation to the Gentiles, and was obliged to feed them more especially, yet he had upon him the care of all the Churches, and it was his duty, as far as his ability and occasions reached, to feed the whole Church, and no farther: And so it is with ordinary Ministers, though they are especially obliged to feed their own Flocks, and indeed can do no more constantly, yet according to their ability and opportunity they are bound to feed the whole Church, by teaching, and consulting, &c. And this is the only Argument urged formally in this place against our Assertion. But because there are some other passages which seem to be argumentative, though scattered elsewhere, I thought fit to do them that right, as to bring them in here, that so the Reader might see all their strength together.

Their second Argument is this; This makes the power of ordinary Ministers as extensive and large as that of the Apostles.

Ans. I Answer plainly and clearly, that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation (If any assert it, let them prove it) but in the independency, superiority, and singularity of jurisdiction, which, if it be not sufficient to distinguish between Apostles, and ordinary Ministers, besides their excellent and infallible gifts, I dare make our Brethren Judges.

Their third Argument is this; Ministers are only Pastours to them whom they can govern, as well as teach: but Ministers cannot exercise Church-Government towards Heathens, for they are not their Flock; and therefore in preaching to Heathens they act not as Officers, but as gifted brethren, p. 18.

The Answer to this is not difficult; If the not exercising of Government be a sufficient foundation for this assertion, p. 37that a Minister preacheth not to such as a Pastour, then the Apostles did not preach as Officers to Heathens, for towards such they could not exercise Church-Government: What have I to do to judge them that are without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. But the Apostles did preach as Officers to Heathens, which hath been already fully proved.

Their fourth Argument is; That this brings in Episcopacy, to make one man an Officer over many Churches. And this Argument I have often wondred to meet in all sorts of anti-Presbyterians, Greeks, and Barbarians, wise and unwise, learned and unlearned, all agree in this charge; and they prosecute it with so much confidence, and eagernesse, that if a man had so much charity, or so little judgment as to beleeve them, he would think there were no difference between Geneva and Canterbury.

For Answer, to omit other differences which might be insisted on, as 1. That the Episcopal way leaves to inferiour Ministers nothing but the Name and Title of Officers, all power of jurisdiction being ingrossed into the Bishops hands; whereby all other Ministers are made a strange kind of men, being Officers without Office, Rulers without rule, &c. Whereas in the Presbyterian way, every particular Officer is confessedly invested with, and hath liberty for the exercise of his Office, and power as need requires.

2. That Government by Bishops, is a Government by forreigners, as it were, the power of Ruling being neither in the hands of the people, nor of any chosen by them, (as it is in the Presbyterian way) but in the hands of persons wholly extraneous to most of the Churches they rule, and generally, neither knowing of, nor known to those whom they undertake to govern. But I wave these things and many other, as being extravagant in this place: This only I observe for the present purpose.

The formality of Episcopacy lies in this, in the superiority p. 38of one Pastour to another, and to many other; and of one Church to all the rest in a Diocesse; not in the superiority of a Colledge of Pastors, or convention of Churches over one Pastour or Church: Will any indite the Apostles for introducing Episcopacy, because all the Apostles met together, Acts 15. did assume a superiority over Paul, (who was there met, as the rest, in the capacity of an Elder) and examine and judge of his Doctrine? Shall any man say the united Provinces in the low-Countries are under a Monarchy, because every particular Governour, &c. is subject and accountable to the rest of the Governours, the States Generall? this no man will say but he that understands not the difference between Government by one, and by many: And therefore it is equally absurd to charge us with Episcopacy, because we would have every particular Officer and Church subject (not to any one man, that, and that alone is Episcopacy) but to a convetion of Officers, &c. And therefore for the future I shall desire our Brethren to forbear such frivolous and intemperate accusations. And this is all that I shall say to this present Question, closing only with this intimation, that I principally recommend the serious and impartial consideration of what is here said, unto such, who though they professe they will be ordained (and we are obliged to believe their professions) yet for the present refuse it, because they are not called to any particular charge; I hope what hath been said will satisfie some at least, that although it is convenient that every Minister should have relation to some one Church, yet he hath also a relation to the whole, and his relation to a particular Church as a Lecturer is foundation fully sufficient for his Ordination.