A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
Wherein is briefly ſhewn, that Office hath neither the work of the Miniſtry, nor a Ʋniverſal Church as its Correlate, in anſwer to the firſt Chapter of Dr. Collings Book, called Vind. Revind.
IN his firſt Chapter to pag. 10. He endeavoureth to open the terms, Miniſter and Miniſtry, and to ſhew the ſignification of the Originall words whereby the the former is expreſſed, and all this to deny the name of Miniſter unto gifted men.
To all which we ſhall ſay but this.
The term is a Generical term divided.
1. According to the ſubject matter of the Miniſtration, into 1. Civil. Rom. 13. 4. 6. 2. Eccleſiaſtical. 1 Cor. 4. 1.
2. According to the manner of Miniſtration into.
1. A Miniſter ex officio, which is paſt diſpute.
2. A Miniſter ex dono.
We did not argue the denomination from Miniſtering in genere▪ but from Miniſtering in the word.
We grant it is an appropriated terme, and do uſe it according to its appropriation, it being uſual to ſay, There is the Miniſter of ſuch a place, ſpeaking of one that ordinarily Preacheth there, whoſe Preaching and Miniſtering in the word, is the reaſon of the denomination, Preacher, Miniſter.
We have proved that gifted men have a Divine allowance to Preach, and that may aptly denominate them Miniſters i. e. of the Goſpel, becauſe they Miniſter unto Chriſt therein.
But if he liketh not to have them bear this name, let him call them (as the Apoſtle doth 1 Cor. 14.) by the name of Prophets.
In our Book we have this Poſition.
Poſit. 1. That Office is not a relation to the work and employment of the Miniſtry as its Correlate.
After ſome unbeſeeming Language he levelleth two Arguments againſt this Propoſition.
Argu. 1. If the Office of the Miniſtry either hath its whole being in Ʋind. Revind. Pag. 12.relation to the work, or be any other way referred to the work, then the Office and employment according to Logick are relations.
But the Office and work of the Miniſtry have at leaſt one of theſe references each to another. Ergo,
Anſ. Office is ſome way referred to employment, and ſo hath ſome relation to it; we expreſſely ſay, That Office is a relation which reſpects employment as its end, Preacher ſent. p. 4. and Dr. Collings repeateth theſe words as ours, Vind. pag. 11. and therefore here he diſputes againſt what he knoweth his adverſaries do not ſay, which he would blame us for, Vind. pag. 25.
If this whole Argument be granted, nothing is gained by it againſt the Propoſition, for his concluſion is onelyonly this, Ergo the office and employment according to Logick are relations; whereas if it had concluded the queſtion, it muſt have been, Ergo Office is a relation to the work and employment of the Miniſtry as its Correlate.
Arg. 2. The Correlate to any relation is, that wherein the ſubject is termniated, Ʋin. Revi. But the office of the Miniſtry is terminated pag. 12. in the work; Therefore the work is its Correlate.
Anſw. 1. An illogicall argument… in the major, the ſubject of the relation is remembred, in the Minor it is forgotten, and the relation it ſelf put in the place thereof.
If it were in form, it muſt run thus; The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the ſubject is terminated: But the ſubject of office relation is terminated in the worke. Ergo, work is the Correlate.
Anſw. 2. If his major be underſtood univerſally, viz. That the correlate to any relation is any thing wherein the ſubject is any way terminated, we may fairely deny this without denying all Logick. If it be taken particularly, it is not concluſive againſt us; we grant that the Correlate to any relation is that wherein the ſubject is ſo terminated as the eſſence or being of the relation is introduced by its termination; as a Father is ſo terminated in a Son or Child, that he hath his being as a Father in having a Son or Child, and therefore a Son or child is Correlate, & ſo in other ſuch relations. But the Correlate to any relation is not that wherein the ſubject is terminated as the end of the relation; for the ends cannot be attained until the relation it ſelf hath an actuall exiſtence, and exiſt it cannot without a Correlate. As the relation of a Father is terminated in the worke of a Father as its end, yet there muſt be a Son or child in being before the doing of that work; and the ſame may be ſaid of other relations, as Maſter and ſervant, Husband and wife, &c. and thus the work of the Miniſtry being the end of that relation, there muſt be a Correlate in being, before that worke can be performed, and ſo work cannot be the Correlate; If this will hold good in relations, ſecundum eſſe, that is enough in this matter to evidence his argument to be falſe, for that runneth generally, the Correlate to [any relation, &c.] and beſides it doth not yet appear that officers are relations ſecundum dici.
2. As to his Minor we ſay, The office of the Miniſtry is not terminated in the work conſidered abſolutely, but reſpectively, as the office of the Mayor of Norwich is not terminated in the work of a Mayor or Magiſtracy abſolutely, and ſo for Juſtices of the peace or other civil officers, if they go out of the city, Corporation or county whereunto they are limited, they cannot act as officers, and therefore their office is terminated in their work in ſuch a place or amongſt ſuch a people. And thus the office of the Miniſtry is terminated, not in the work in general, but with reſpect and reference unto ſuch a people, or ſuch a Church, Relata ſunt aliorum. Dr. Collings proceedeth in a reply to our four arguments, which ſhews that worke cannot be the Correlate to the Office; In anſwer to the two firſt, he ſaith,
Ob. 1. Officers are, Relata ſecundum dici, not Relata ſecundum eſſe, nominal relations, not thoſe that Logicians call real relations, Vind. Revind. pag. 14. 15. 16.
Anſw. We ſuppoſe Dr. Collings is the firſt that hath ranked officers, (who are to be over others) amongſt thoſe that are Relata ſecundum dici; we have not met with any Logicians that have done in before him, & the Rules upon which our arguments are built, are known (by all that are acquainted with Logick) to be true in ſuch as are Relata ſecundum eſse.
Anſw. 2. Againſt its being a Nominall Relation we ſhall offer an argument or two.
Arg. 1. If the office of the Miniſtry hath no abſolute being, nor doth appertain to any other predicament beſides that of Relation, then it is (according to Logicians) a relation ſecundum eſſe, or a real relation. But the Office of the Miniſtry hath no abſolute being, nor doth appertain to any other predicament beſides that of Relation; Ergo, The office of the Miniſtry, is (according to Logicians) a relation ſecundum eſse. The major none that is acquainted with Logick can deny.
The Minor appeareth, becauſe there is no other predicament that it is reducible to; let him ſhew to which, if it may be referred.
We yet adhere to Ariſtotle in this, and Seton who giving an inſtance of predicamental relation, giveth it in the office of Magiſtracy, & we ſuppoſe the office of the Miniſtry is in the ſame predicament with that.
Arg. 2. If officers qua officers have their whole being in reſpect and reference unto others, then office is a Relation ſecundum eſse, but officers qua officers have their whole being in reſpect & reference unto others, Ergo, office is a relation, ſecundum eſſe, The major he cannot deny, The Minor he excepteth againſt.
Ob. But the Eſſence of office lyeth not in its relation, but in that authority wherewith the perſon is cloathed by his ordination, Vind. Revind. pag. 14.
Anſw. 1. Authority hath no Cauſal influence into office, but floweth from it, and followeth after it; therefore the eſſence of Office doth not conſiſt in it.
The London Miniſters ſay, Church Officers are the foreign the firſt recepticle, or ſubject of Church authority, Jus. Divin. Regim. pag. 163. If ſo, then officers are before authority, at leaſt prioritate nature, and then authority is but an adjunct, which though a neceſſary concequent, yet is no conſtituent: conſider Maſter and Scholers, a Tutor & pupils &c.
Anſ. 2 If this were true, then it were poſſible for a relation to hold, though every thing in the world ſhould ceaſe which it ſhould ſtand referred to: There might be a relation, and yet nothing be related to, or elſe ordination in ſuch a caſe muſt be loſt.
It is not proved that a perſon can ſtand cloathed with the authority of the Miniſterial relation, if there be no Church that he ſtandeth related to.
Ob. 2. Relations exiſt and periſh together as to the ſame degree of being.
A man is not actually an officer when he cannot do his Office, but the habit remaines, Vind. Revind. pag. 14.
Anſ. Zabarel whom he mentionethis againſt him, who ſaith, Non eſt relatio niſi interea que ſunt actu, non eſt enim pater niſi qui actu filium habeat, quo fit ut ſemper neceſſarium ſit uno relativorum exiſtente, alterum quoque exiſtere. Zab. de fac. an. cap. 3.
Conſider Job, to day he hath children, he is a Father, conſider him to morrow, he hath no children, he is no Father when he hath none; it is poſſible he may afterward; ſhall we ſay therefore he is potentially, or habitually a father? His dividing an officer into actual and potential, is as the dividing Ens, into Ens & non Ens. His inſtance about the Mayor of Norwich is nothing to his purpoſe; we grant that though he be ſick or in priſon, and ſo cannot execute his Office, yet he is not only potentially but actually an officer ſtill.
But ſuppoſe the City of Norwich ſhould either by fire, or ſword, or famine, or any ſuch ſad providence, ceaſe to exiſt, if the Mayor ſhould be left alive, we ask whither he could be deemed a Mayor or an Officer ſtill when there were no City of Norwich exiſting to be the correlate to him as a Relate? The like we ſay in the caſe in hand, how can a man remain in the Office of the Miniſtry, if there be no Church as a correlate for him to ſtand related to? Either he muſt be an Officer or no Officer. If there be no Church exiſting that he is over, then no Officer exiſteth, for they exiſt and periſh together, as to the ſame degree of being.
What he meaneth by habit of Office, we know not. He intends not (we ſuppoſe) the indelible character, which Bellarm. ſaith is qualitas abſoluta, as every habit, excepting the tenth predicament. Office cannot be proved a qualitative habit, foraſmuch as it is not any thing inherent in body or mind, but ſomething adherent onelyonly.
And now (Chriſtian Reader) thou mayeſt ſee Dr. Collings dealeth not kindly with thee, in perſwading that Officers are nominal relations; Is it not more likely, that Office ſhould be ſuch a relation as is between a father and child, maſter and ſervant, husband and wife, Magiſtrate and ſubject, then ſuch a relation as is between ſcibile & ſcientia, a thing to be known, and the knowledge of this thing.
Object. But may not a man be in the Office of Colonel though at preſent he hath neither men to make up a Regiment, nor conſequently the goverment of them? it is his Commiſſion makes him an Officer, Vind. Revind. pag. 15.
Anſ. This is but a ſimilitude and ſo proveth nothing; and it will ſerve our purpoſe as well as his, for his Commiſſion doth not make him an habitual Officer, nor give him a power in actu primo, to act as a Colonel in the goverment of all Regiments in the Army, but limiteth him unto one particular Regiment, and ſo will ſpeak as much againſt a mans being an Officer to any but a particular Church, as it may ſeem to ſpeak for the actual exiſtence of a relation without a correlate.
2. Here is a begging another queſtion, viz. That Ordination doth Commiſſionate men to be Officers; this being denyed there is no parity in the caſes, and ſo no ſtrength in the objection.
We have proved that Election with acceptation doth make men to be Officers, and ſo the correlate, viz. the Church electing, doth exiſt as ſoon as the Officer.
3. We would know, whether a Licence given a man from his Prince, whereby he is impowered to keep ſo many ſervants unto ſuch an end, and ſo to govern them, doth make a man a Maſter, when not one ſervant is engaged by him or related to him?
4. A Colonels Commiſſion before he hath a Regiment, doth authorize him to raiſe one, & giveth him right unto a Colonels pay, and ſo maketh him an Officer nominal and Titular: but it is the Aſſignment or ſubmiſſion of a Regiment unto him, that maketh him an Officer reall and actual.
Many Captains and Colonels retain Commiſſions and former Titles, when Wars are ended, and Companies are disbanded, yet are no Officers, but as is expreſſed. If he will yet contend that a Colonel as is inſtanced, is an officer; we ſay further, In ordinary caſes a Regiment is Aſſigned to him, and if he hath none, he can be but an extraordinary Officer, anſwerable to Apoſtles having Commiſſion from the General of the Army, as the Apoſtles had their call and Commiſſion immediately from Chriſt, not from men, Ergo there is no parity in the caſes, and ſo the inſtance is vain.
Obj. 3. To our third Argument he ſaith, The Goſpel owneth the Church as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry, Acts 20. 17. 28. But not alone, he ſaith it owns the work too, Epheſ. 4. verſ. 11. 12. and Epheſ. 4. is as much Goſpel as Act. 20. 17. Vind. Revind. pag. 16.
Anſw. In the Major of our third Argument nothing is wanting, not alone or onelyonly; for the Church alone or onelyonly is the correlate to a Church Officer: ſhould we ſay a wi…e is the correlate in wedlock, not onelyonly, but cohabitation, &c. Or a Son not onelyonly, but Education; whatever we might be for Logicians, yet in this our Logick would not be good, In dividing between the correlate and the end, non dividimus componenda ſed diſtinguenda, which upon ſecond thoughts he will not blame us for.
That Epheſ. 4. is Goſpel, we grant, but that it owneth the work as the correlate, we deny. It owneth the work of the Miniſtry as one end of Office-gifts, not as the correlate to the Office of the Miniſtry.
It is ſaid he gave ſome to be Apoſtles &c. and if it be enquired for what end? the anſwer is [for the work of the Ministry.]
Obj. 4. To our fourth Argument he ſaith, It is a feeble Argument Vind. Revind. pag. 17. 18.which is drawn from names and titles.
If we ſay that [all] their titles have the Church onelyonly as their correlate, he deſires to know whether foreign & foreign have ſo, 1 Tim. 27. &c.
He ſaith every rational creature, yea God himſelf is the correlate; and therefore they are called the Ministers of God, &c. He deſireth us to ſhew one Scripture where a Preaching Miniſter is called the Miniſter of the Church; he addeth that we ſpeak no Scripture phraſe, when we call Miniſters (i. e. preaching Miniſters) Miniſters of ſuch a Church, &c.
Anſw. 1 An Argument from Names and Titles ſurely is as feeble when our brethr…n uſe it, as when we uſe it againſt them: doth not D. Collings argue from the name of Officers to their acts, and particularly from the title of Teacher, Vin. pag. 34. yea in this very book, Vind. Revind. pag. 89. lin. 1, 2, 3, 4. 5. Alſo to prove the Office of the Miniſtry of divine inſtitution, the London Miniſters argue expreſſely from their Names and Titles, Jus. Divin. Minſt. pag. 8. 9.
2 So far as Nomen is notamen rei, ſo far definitio nominis is definitio rei; Conſider Father in a naturall ſenſe, and the definition of the Name is the definition of the thing. The names of Paſtor, Teacher, Elder, &c. Notifie the relation, and ſo are forcibly Argumentative for a Churches being the Correlate.
3. The intendment of ſome names and titles is not to expreſſe what is the Correlate, but ſome thing elſe about a relation: as Officers may be called Miniſters of God and Chriſt, onelyonly to intimate who is the Author and inſtitutor of their office. Miniſters of the Word, to intimate what is the ſubject of their preaching, Cryers or preachers (as in the Texts he mentioneth, 1 Tim. 2. 7. Rom. 10. 14. where foreign & foreign are uſed) to ſignifie their declaring or publiſhing their meſſage as Cryers or Heralds uſe to do. Some names and titles are not intended for the diſcovering what is the Correlate to the Office of the Miniſtry, but for other ends; and therefore our Argument is firme, though all titles have not the Church onelyonly as their Correlate.
4. We judge his firſt anſwer which he calleth moſt proper to this Queſtion, To whom are they Officers? moſt improper, For it is this, to Jeſus Chriſt.
Should a King paſſe through a ſtreet, and it be enquired what or whoſe King goeth there, and one ſhould anſwer Chriſts King, he ſhould give a very improper anſwer, and leave the enquirer in the dark; but he that informeth that he is the King of France &c. leadeth into light. So for a Mayor, its improper to ſay, there goeth the Protectors Mayor, but there goeth the Mayor of Norwich, is proper.
5. Whereas he ſaith, (p. 18.) every creature is the Correlate to office as well as the Church.
1. If ſo, then the Elders of the Church are the Elders of the World; Angels of the Churches, Angels of the World; then Paſtors and Teachers ſet in the Church are ſet in the World too; but where did he ever read of Elders of the world? &c.
2 We would know what is the foundation of the relation between a paſtor and the world: is it founded in nature, as that of Parent and children, or in Will or conſent, as that of Husband and wife, Maſter and Servant, or in ſome third thing?
3. Then its more proper to call Officers World-Officers then Church Officers; as to call the Protector, Protector of England rather then of London, becauſe of the extent of authority and office-power. Nor is that reaſon in the leaſt cogent, viz. Officers are appointed to gather out of the World, members unto Chriſt.
Suppoſe an Embaſſador from England be in France diſpatching buſineſſe for his maſter there, he is not thereby related unto France.
So an Embaſſador for Chriſt in the world, is not related unto the world as his Correlate, but onelyonly to the flock he is ever in the Lord.
He ſaith moreover, That God is the Correlate, that God is the Author and inſtitutor thereof we acknowledge, upon which account there ariſeth a Metaphyſical reſpect between Officers and God, and they are the Miniſters of God: but as the Correlate of a King is a ſubject, and only that in predicamental relation; he who is to be governed, Ruled, and not God: So the correlate of a Church Officer, is the Church, and onelyonly that which is to be watched over, prayed for, inſtructed by vertue of a ſpecial bond in which the Officer is engaged unto it. The duty of a relation terminates upon the correlate; God were to be governed, if he were the Correlate of a Governour.
6. Preaching Miniſters are expreſſely called Elders of the Church, Acts. 20. v. 17. He ſent to Epheſus and called the Elders of the Church. And this is as much as to ſay, The Miniſter of the Church, if not more; for Elder is the name of Office. They are called by that Church whereunto they are related, Revel. 2. v. 1. Ʋnto the Angel of the Church of Epheſus—v. 8. Ʋnto the Angel of the church in Smyrna, ſo v. 12. 18. and this is as much as to ſay, the Miniſters of ſuch a church; for what is it to be the angel of ſuch a Church, but to be the Miniſter thereof? And whereas he beſeecheth us not to endeavour to abuſe ſimple Souls with ſuch wofull falacies,—Vind. Revind pag. 19. Now let the Reader judge who hath gone about to abuſe him moſt, Dr. Collings or we. Whereas he ſaith this is no Scripture phraſe to call preaching Miniſters, Miniſters of ſuch a Church.
Our ſecond poſition is this.
Poſit. That Officers ſtand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onelyonly, not to an univerſall Church. Dr. Collings inſi…eth upon an explication of the word Church, and ſome other premiſes from pag. 19. to pag. 27. or 29. to which we ſhall not give any further reply at preſent then he meeteth within the anſwer to his Epiſtle.
Ob. 1. In his reply to our firſt Argument, He complaines of fowl diſputing, becauſe we take away the ſubject or ſuppoſitum of the question.
Anſw. When the queſtion was, whether the Pope were the ſupream Officer of the Univerſal viſible Church, Learned Proteſtants denyed the being of the Univerſal viſible Church; diſputing fully againſt the adverſary, not fowlly as he ſaith.
Ob. 2. He tels us (Vind. Revind. pag. 29.) what we ſay may be granted, and yet nothing is proved by it.
Anſw. This we confeſſe, we underſtand not how it was poſſible that the ſubject or the ſuppoſitum of a queſtion can be taken away, ſo as nothing ſhould be proved if the whole be granted, we deſire to know of him by the next.
But what is his reaſon?
If the Goſpel knowes a Church Ʋniverſall under any notion, though not under a Political forme, it is enough, Vind. Revind. p. 29.
Anſ. No Organ is related but to a body Organical; hands and feet, armes and legs as ſo, are not related to fleſh and blood as ſo, but as ſo formed. Rulers are not related unto men as ſo, but as formed in ſocieties, and reduced under policy and Government; as he referreth us to Mr. Hudſon, ſo we may refer him to Mr. Hooker, Mr Stone, and to our owne Epiſtle.
Our ſecond Argument he putteth into a form of his own, under a pretence to mend ſome faults it it, and is not ſatisfied with that forme which himſelfe put it into, but then putteth it into an other, and thus findeth himſelf work. Surely this is not fair dealing, he might have ſhewn us the faults of our argument, and leſt it to us to mend them, and not caſt them into his own form, and then ſpend time in anſwering them; we ſhall onelyonly ſay this in way of anſwer.
Anſw. 1. As he hath formed the Argument, the Office of the Miniſtry is made the correlate, whereas we aſſert the Church to be the correlate; let the Reader now judge whether he doth not wrong himſelf and us, by this way of proceeding.
2. Our Argument proceeded upon thoſe Relative names and Titles which the Scripture expreſſeth Officers by, and which they cannot loſe without loſing their Office, and which are uſed upon the moſt ſpecial occaſions, and theſe Titles forbid a Univerſal Church to be the correlate unto Office as is ſhewn, Preacher ſent. pag. 10. 11. &c. As to Acts 20. 28. It concludeth that an Officer is commanded to feed [all] the flock that he ſtandeth in the relation of a Biſhop or Overſeer to, and ſo denyeth a Univerſal Church to be that flock which he is an Officer or Overſeer to; for he is not commanded to feed [all] the Univerſal Church. And this ſheweth that the terms Paſtor and Teacher, when uſed to expreſſe Office, are taken in a ſtrict ſence to denote onelyonly a relation to a particular Church; for, Biſhops, Paſtors and Teachers are the ſame officers, under different names:
3. If we were convinced that there were ſuch a Univerſal viſible Church made up of all particulars, we ſhould then grant that the Office of the Miniſtry as it reſides in every particular Miniſter, had that Church of Churches for its correlate, as much as the Office of a Juſtice of peace (which he inſtanceth in) as it reſides in the whole number of Juſtices hath the whole nation as a correlate; but ſtill we ſhould think that every particular Miniſter were limitted in his Office to a particular Church, as a Juſtice is to a particular County; Dr. Collings uſeth three Arguments to prove that the Office of the Miniſtry relates not onelyonly 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.
Argu. 1. Thoſe whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Vind. Revind. pag. 33.Chriſt, are related to the Univerſal Church. But God hath given Paſtors and Teachers for the edifying of the body of Chriſt, Epheſ. 4. 12. 13.
Anſ. 1. This Argument from, Eph. 4. v. 12. 13. for the ſubſtance of it, is anſwered, Preacher ſent p. 295.
2. This Argument doth not conclude the queſtion, if ſuch a Univerſal Church could be proved, we might grant them to be ſome way related to it, yet not as Officers. His Argument, if it were to the purpoſe, ſhould conclude not onelyonly that Paſtors and Teachers are related to the Univerſal Church, but 1. As Officers. 2. As to their correlate; whereas if a Univerſal Church were the body of Chriſt there intended, the place alledged, Eph. 4. doth only ſpecifie that the edifying of that body is one end of giving Paſtors and Teachers, and a correlate muſt be exiſting before the end of the relatoin can be attained, and ſo that body may not be the correlate to Paſtors and Teachers.
In his following this Argument there is an altering of the phraſe, from the Univerſal viſible Church or body, about which the queſtion is, unto the myſtical body of Christ.
If we grant that Paſtors and Teachers are related to the myſtical body of Chriſt which is made up onelyonly of the Elect, yet we may deny them to be related to it as Offices, or that to be the correlate to their Office: They may be given for the edifying of that body, although they have no work appointed them by Jeſus Chriſt to do, but onelyonly in a particular Church; that body is edified if any member of it be edified.
Argu. 2. Thoſe whom God hath commiſſionated to Preach and Baptize Vind. Revin. Pag. 34.all Nations, are not related onelyonly 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,
Anſ. 1. His major may fairly be denyed if it ſpeaketh to the queſtion as ſtated by himſelf, Vind. Revind. pag. 33.
We ſay, thoſe whom God hath commiſſionated to Preach to and Baptize all Nations, are ſo related to particular Churches, as that they may not do acts (materially and formally) of Office and Authority, beyond the bounds of the particular Churches they are over. As the whole number of Juſtices of Peace in this Nation are commiſſionated to perform the acts of Juſtices in all Counties and ſhires in England, yet the office of a Juſtice of Peace, as it reſides in this or that particular perſon (as himſelf obſerveth, Vind. Revind. pag. 31. 32.) is limited by his Commiſſion to ſuch a County, and he cannot act as a Juſtice beyond the bounds of that County of ſhire. So the whole number of Church-Officers may be commiſſionated to perform acts of Office in all Nations, yet the Office as it reſides in this or that particular perſon is limited to a particular Church, ſo as none may do acts of Office beyond the bounds of that particular Church which the perſon is over.
2. To his minor we ſay, The commiſſion (Mat. 28. 19.) was not onelyonly for the Apoſtles in the ſubſtance, but in the Univerſality it was for them onelyonly.
Apoſtles as ſuch were extraordinary Officers, and had no ſucceſſors. Were this Commiſſion ours in the Univerſality, we ſee not how we could fix with a good conſcience. As warrantably might a man confine his miniſtry to a family when appointed to a Church, as confined to a church when appointed for all the world.
Our granting that the commiſſion reacheth Officers now in the ſubſtance of it, is enough to evidence how far we are from ſhaking hands with Socinus, Smalcius, &c. though we deny their Office to have the ſame extent that the Apoſtles had.
Argu. 3. His third Argument is drawn ab abſurdo. Vind. Revind. p. 35. There are five abſurdities which he layeth at our door, againſt which we have ſufficiently juſtified our ſelves in the body of our diſcourſe; out of the womb of two principles he mid-wives forth theſe.
Pr. 1. That the Authority of him who Preacheth, is that which makes the action of the hearer duty.
Pr. 2. That an act of Office cannot be done by him who is no Officer. Vind. Revind. pag. 35.
Anſ. The latter of theſe is fully ſpoken to, Preacher ſent. pag. 278. 279. 280.
And in the ſame book we have largely proved this principle, That many gifted men (who are not in Office) have Authority or a command and warrant from Chriſt to Preach. From which joyned with
Dr. Collings firſt principle aforementioned, it will appear that the abſurdities Vind. Revin. Pag. 36.he talketh of, are pitiful non ſequiturs. For, hence it followes,
1. That where there are no particular Churches formed, yet the people are bound to come to hear; becauſe many gifted men (not in office) have authority to preach, and it is the authority of the ſpeaker (ſaith he) that maketh the action of the hearer duty; and this taketh off his firſt abſurdity.
2. That in England where there is neither Church nor officer, yet they may wait upon that publike meanes which is a ſpecial appointment of Chriſt to ſave their ſouls; for gifted men (not in office) have authority to preach; and ſo his ſecond abſurdity cometh to nothing.
3 That where a particular Church is formed, when their Officer preacheth not on the Lords day, yet the members are bound to hear, though gifted men (not in office) preach, for they have authority from Chriſt to do it.
4 That perſons not of that Miniſters Church who Preacheth, may go in faith; for he hath authority as a gifted man to preach unto thoſe that are not members of his Church; and ſo his fourth abſurdity is taken away.
His fift, Concerning giving the Sacrament to one that is not a member of his Church, we have ſpoken ſufficiently to elſewhere. And here let us expoſtulate a little, can Dr. Collings ſee a mote, and can he not behold a Beam? doth he ſtrain a t a Gnat and ſwallow a camel? Are there not greater abſurdities in his way?
1 Is it not an abſurdity to engage a man by office to preach, when none are ingaged to hear? ſuppoſe ordination make an officer, ſinetitulo (which may be in Dr. Collings judgement) a Paſtor, Teacher or overſeer, to whoſe charge no man or company of men is committed, to whom none are bound. Where ever this pretended officer Preacheth upon the Lords day, the people may leave him and goe to other Miniſters (eſpecially if ordained alſo) whom they preferre before him, who yet is bound to preach, and none to hear.
2 Is it not an abſurdity ſolemnly to ſet a man apart to the work of the Miniſtry, wherein nevertheleſſe he ſhall not be engaged to work, but turning aſide to a School, Phyſick, &c. may ſay to them that ask why he ſtandeth idle as to preaching work, no man hath hired me?
3 To make an Officer to every rationall creature, when no creature can rationally ſay, this is my Miniſter, nor he ſay, this is my people; As if a Juſtice ſhould marry a man to woman kind, and leave him to act as an husband where he could find a woman that would entertain him.
4 To determine a relate and relation actual, and the Correlate potential onelyonly.
He excepteth againſt our deſcription of office, pretending that two Rules are offended by it.
Ob. 1. The former rule he ſuppoſeth to be broken, by our bringing a particular Church into it, and our leaving Ordination out, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 38.
Anſw. In our former book, and alſo in this, we have proved, that a particular Church is the Correlate to Office, and that Ordination is not of the Eſſence, but onelyonly an Adjunct of Office; and what Logick teacheth to leave the Correlate out, or to put an adjunct into the deſcription of a relation?
Ob. 2 His ſecond rule ſuppoſed to be offended, is mentioned, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 38.
Anſw. In his explaning himſelfe he doth not onelyonly oppoſe us, but a multitude of ancient and modern Popiſh and Proteſtant divines, yea Scripture and reaſon; That a man ſhould be ſet apart for the work, though at preſent he hath no place; be put into office when there is not a man in the world whom he can challinge by vertue of office to ſubmit to him. It is not onelyonly rational and prudential for a man to ſtay his coronation till he have his Kingdome, but orderly and juſt; but when a man will cauſe himſelfe to be crowned, and cannot tell whether ever his kingdome will come, it is a diſorder, nor is he a King, though crowned. The terme is of the relation as laid down by us, he doth deny, which we yet aſſert, and let the Reader judge between us.
The cauſes of the relation we declared viz. principal, God, inſtrumental, the Church or flock.
His anſwer is the efficient cauſe we allow to be the Lord and the Church, but not the flock.
Anſw. 1. We deſire to know what difference there is between Church and flock, or how they can be diſtinguiſhed, Acts 20. 28. Take heed to all the flock, to feed the Church of God, &c. In the very ſame verſe Church and flock are uſed Synonymouſly.
2. What one Scripture doth call officers the church in the neceſſary ſenſe thereof? See Park. de Polit. Eccleſ. l. 3. cap. 15. upon this queſtion; An ſoli Sacerdotes ſint Eccleſia? which he anſwereth in the negative, ſaying, no place in the ſcriptures or Fathers can be found, where it is ſaid, officers by themſelves conſidered are the Church. The former cauſe he aſſerts to be Miſſion; of which in the ſpecial controverſy thereabout; He finds fault with our Logick (Ʋind. Revind. pag. 39.) in arguing from the leſſe to the greater Affirmatively.
We wonder Dr. Collings ſhould trouble the Reader with ſuch objections that are fully anſwerd in the very book he is replying to. In what ſenſe we argue from the leſſe to the greater, and how far we are from arguing from ability to do the leſſer, to ability to do the greater, and how full the ſcripture is, (as Mat. 6. 26. 30.) of ſuch Logick as we uſe, he may ſee, Preacher Sent. pag. 224. 225. 226. having blamed us for arguing aminori ad majus Affirmative; To prove preaching for tryals ſake he alleageth, 1 Tim. 3. 10. and (ſaith he Ʋind. Revind. pag. 40.) we may argue, a minori ad majus negative, If the loweſt Officer of the Church muſt be firſt proved, then much more the higher officer, I meane ordinary officers, &c. We deny not that Officers are to be proved, but we wonder Dr. Collings is not aſhamed to accuſe others cauſeleſly for uſing falſe Logick, when in the very next page, himſelfe doth ſo groſly miſtake. He pretendeth to argue from the leſſer to the greater negatively, and yet there is never a note of negation in his argument. If the loweſt Officer muſt,—then much more the higher-Surely no man will reckon this a negative propoſition.