A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Shewing that Officers ſtand in relation (as Officers) to a particular Church onelyonly, not to a Ʋniverſal Church in way of reply to Mr. Pooles exceptions in the three firſt chapters of his Book.
THere came lately to our hands, a Book entituled, A moderate enquiry into the warrantableneſs of the preaching of gifted and unordained perſons, written by Mr. Poole at the deſire and appointment of the Provincial Aſſembly of London; in way of reply to ſome part of our Book, intituled, The Preacher Sent. We ſhall give ſome brief animadverſions upon the moſt conſiderable paſſages of his Book, and ſo leave it to the Reader to judge between us.
The Provincial Aſſemblies definition of Office is this, The Office of the Miniſtry is a ſpiritual relation to the whole employment of the Miniſtry, in a Perſon qualified, founded upon a ſpecial and regular Call, Jus Div. Min. pag. 3.
This we excepted againſt, becauſe either it altogether omiteth or elſe determineth employment to be the correlate unto this relation, and either way it is very faulty. For, it is groſſely to ſwarve from the right Rules of a definition, to omit the correlate in defining a particular relation, which is Eſſential to the thing defined; even themſelves ſay, that Relatives cannot be underſtood the one without the other, Jus Divin. Min. p. 2. we infer, Ergo they cannot be defined aright, the one without the other.
And there is nothing in their definition to be the correlate, unleſs it be [employment,] and that this cannot be it, our four Arguments do evidence, Preacher Sent. pag. 5. 6. 7.
So that Mr. Poole may ſee that our Arguments were not onelyonly brought to batter down one expreſſion brought in, onelyonly obiter and occaſionally as he ſuppoſeth, pag. 3. but to diſcover a very conſiderable defect or imperfection in their definition, which was made more obvious by that expreſſion.
He ſaith (pag. 3.) it was not the deſign of the Aſſembly to deny the Miniſtry to be a relation to a Church, nor was it their buſineſs accurately to inſiſt upon the notions of relate and correlate; they never called the work of the Miniſtry the correlate, but onelyonly obiter they aſſerted the Office of the Miniſtry to be better defined, by relation to the work, then to a particular Church, which he ſaith we have not diſproved.
Anſw. We ſpeak nothing of an accurate inſiſting on the notions of relate and correlate, but we ſay, it is a falſe definition of a particular relation, if nothing be aſſerted as the correlate, and therefore their not denying a Church, nor aſſerting work to be the correlate, will not help, unleſs they had affirmed and proved ſomething elſe to be it.
Our proving (in the ſecond queſtion) a particular Church onelyonly to be the correlate, is enough to diſprove that expreſſion; for Office muſt needs be better defined by its reference to its correlate, then by its end.
His inſtance about a King (pag. 3.) cannot ſalve the buſineſs; For it were very improper to ſay, the Office of a King is a relation to Ruling, and to give this as the definition of that; and as abſurd were it to ſay, that the Office of a King is better defined by Ruling, then by relation to his Subjects or Kingdom; and it is not paralel unleſſe it runneth us. And ſo it is abſurd to ſay that the abſtract Miniſtry is better defined by relation to the work, then to a particular Church; for we have proved that ſuch a Church is the correlate, work not ſo, but onelyonly the end.
That office is a predicamental, and not a Tranſcendendal or nominal relation, and that a potential being is not ſufficient in ſuch a relation, he may ſee in our reply to Dr. Collings.
But to clear the matter more fully, and make way for the next queſtion, as a clew leading the right way out of this controverſie, we ſhall give this diſtinction. The terms Office and Officer may be taken largely or ſtrickly, in a general or a ſpecial ſence.
1. In an general ſence, there is an Officer to man, and the foreign, or work it ſelf is the Office wherein one man doth ſerve another: thus a m…n may be an Officer from an inferiour to a ſuperiour, or from one equal to another, and have no relation proper or Predicamental growing thereupon. In this large ſenſe, gifted men preaching, yea any Church-members exerciſing any gift, or doing any work for the profit of the body or Church, may be called officers, and the work an Office, as Rom. 12. 4. foreign is tranſlated Office.
But this is an Officer without Rule or Government, of whom in this controverſy we ſpeak not: In this ſenſe, though Apoſtles or others be conſidered as Officers to heathens, it doth not at all contradict us.
2. In a ſpecial ſenſe there is an officer over man: as a Prince over his ſubjects, a maſter over his ſervants, ſo a paſtor over his flock; this is an officer with power of Rule and Government.
Whenſoever the Scripture ſpeaketh of Office or Officer, notified by the Titles of Paſtor, Teacher, Elder, or Biſhop, they are taken thus, Acts 20. 28. Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1 Theſ. 5. 12. And thus we conſtantly conſidered it in our former book called, The Preacher Sent. In this ſenſe Apoſtles were not officers, nor did preach as Officers to the heathens; they had no power of Rule or Governement over them, 1 Corin. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge thoſe that are without?
Queſt. Whether officers ſtand in relation (as officers) to a particular Church onelyonly?
We hold the affirmative part; Mr Poole would have them officers to the whole Church, (pag. 6. 7. &c.) by which we ſuppoſe he intendeth a Church Catholike viſible.
To his premiſes and preamble we ſay,
The Judgement of Churches is not our Rule, but the Scripture, & we can find no ſuch Synods as he ſpeaketh of there. Acts 15. holdeth forth that one Church may ſend meſſengers in difficult caſes to an other Church as Antioch did there to Jeruſalem, for help and council, but it cannot be proved that any acts of Government were there put forth, towards any abſent Churches, and therefore this is no warrant for provincial or Occumenical Synods.
We wiſh that all differences in judgement amongſt the Saints were at an end, but we are not to ſilence a truth of Chriſt, becauſe ſome deare friends are diſſenters, neither is the difference between congregational brethren ſo great in this point as he ſuppoſeth, We do not obtrude our Notions upon the world, but have publiſhed our perſwaſions with our grounds, deſiring that they may be weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and that either others may receive light from us, or we from them.
Premiſe, 1. He premiſeth (pag. 6.) a Miniſter may be a Miniſter to the whole Church, 1. Actu Secundo, actually, immediately, abſolutely, and independentlie.
2. Actu primo, habitually, aptitudinally, mediately conditionally & dependingly, ſo that he hath a jus or power to teach every where, but may not exerciſe that jus or power every where, but by the conſent of the Church or Rulers, &c.
Anſw. To aſſert an habituall Miniſter or Officer, ſeemeth to us no better then to aſſert an habitual King, Juſtice, Conſtable, or an habitual husband, Father, &c.
To be habitually and conditionally a Miniſter to a Church, and to be no miniſter to it, is all one.
1. That Miniſters have a jus or power to teach every where Office-wiſe, is not proved; the place alleadged, [go preach the Goſpel to every creature] injoyneth the exerciſe of the power, and ſo muſt prove that they ought to exerciſe their power every where, if it were to his purpoſe; but the Scriptures frequently witneſſe, and himſelfe confeſſeth that they may not exerciſe that power but by the conſent of the Church or Rulers.
2. That any unblameable Officers of Chriſt ſhould be iuſtly hindred from the exerciſe of all Office-power, or have none that they can (in Chriſts order) exerciſe it upon, whilſt the Office-power continueth upon them, in a ſtrange paradox: For all that have Officepower, are actually and immediately under a command of Chriſt to do office-work; as thoſe Scriptures which ſpeak of the duty of Officers do abundantly teſtifie; and ſo Chriſt ſhould command the ſame perſons, at the ſame time, to do, and yet not to do Office-work, and then Chriſts commands ſhould claſh one with an other. Now ſuppoſe ſuch an Officer hath no particular flock, and all Churches and Rulers deny their conſent, either from their being full of Officers, or upon other lawful accounts; in this caſe he will be juſtly hindred from the exerciſe of all office-power, and hath none that he can exerciſe it upon; for Mr. Poole confeſſeth (p. 6.) he may not exerciſe the power, but by the conſent of the Church or Rulers.
We might ſhew many other inconveniencies that the aſſerting officrs to have a habitual power over a univerſal Church, draw along with it, but we forbear, ſaying onelyonly this; It doth not looke like the order of Chriſt, that a Miniſters power ſhould extend to the Catholike Church, when it is impoſſible that he ſhould ever exerciſe that power (it may be) to the thouſand part of that Church; nay, when he is by divine right fixed in a particular Church, the reſiding in which, forbiddeth his traveling to do acts of Office to the univerſal.
Premiſ. 2. He premiſeth (pag. 7.) that a general reſpect to the whole Church is not inconſiſtent with a peculiar reſpect to ſome one Church.
This he illuſtrateth by an inſtance of a vaſt number of ſheep, which twenty ſhepherds are choſen to look unto; and by the German Empire, &c.
Anſ. 1. We deny that there is ſuch a whole Church as he ſuppoſeth, for which denyal we have given reaſons elſe where. And let the Reader take notice once for all, that when ever we ſpeak as if there were ſuch a whole Church or Catholike Church, we onelyonly ſuppoſe it, but do not grant it in his ſenſe.
2. Suppoſe there were ſuch a Church, we denie that any inſtitution of Chriſt hath determined ordinary officers to have a general reſpect (as Officers) to the whole Church; and ſo his infrances of a vaſt number of ſheep, and the Empire come to nothing.
3 A peculiar reſpect to ſome one Church is inconſiſtent with the ſame relation to an other: for, nothing is peculiar but that which is appropriated; Iſrael was Gods peculiar people, that is, his onelyonly.
As to his inſtance about ſheep, we ſay, If the Maſter of the ſheep chooſeth the twenty ſhepherds, and committeth the whole number of ſheep to them, then the actual care of every ſheep is upon every one; and if but one ſheep be loſt, every ſhepherd will fall under blame, neither will the diſtributing the ſheep into twenty parcels (though ſome be careful of their parcels) excuſe any from blame, the diſtribution or diviſion being the act of the Shepherds (according to his infrance) not the Act of the Maſter. If the catholike Church were thus committed to officers, then every Officer would be blameable for the wandrings of any one member of that Church, though their habitations were thouſands of miles diſtant each from other.
But Chriſt hath committed onelyonly a particular Church or flock of his ſheep, to the charge of any one of his officers; and if others, not of a mans own flock, do miſcarry, his not ſeeking their reducement to the utmoſt of his ability and opportunity, is a ſin againſt charity, but not againſt his office according to any Goſple rule that yet we can find. The Angel of the Church of Epheſus is not rebaked for the miſcarriages of the Church of Smyrna; nor is the Angel of the Church of Smyrna reproved for the ſins of Pergamus, or Thyatira, or Sardis, Revel. 2, and 3. but every Angel is reproved for the ſins of that particular Church which he was ſet over.
As to his inſtance of the German Empire (page 8.) we ſay it hath a vaſt diſparity in it to the caſe in hand, For there are no acts to be performed in the Church (to make a double relation neceſſary) anſwerable to thoſe in the Empire.
If no Emperours were to be choſen, or acts of general concernement to the whole Empire, as ſuch, to be exerted, thoſe Princes or Electors would not ſuſtain any ſuch general relation to the whole Empire: and there being no univerſal Church-officer to be choſen, or any acts of inſtituted worſhip to be performed, which are peculiar to a univerſal Church, as ſuch, hence the caſes are vaſtly different, and alſo it is very improbable that ſuch an order ſhould be of Chriſts appointment. They have not one by Syſteme of Lawes, neither are theſe Electors or Princes intruſted with a joint-power for the ordinary government of the whole, but every free Prince hath power to make what Lawes he will, and if he will allow every congregational Church as entire a power within it ſelfe, as every of thoſe Princes hath within his own Territories, we ſuppoſe no power beyond that will belong to any but Chriſt himſelfe.
Ob. The Apostles were Paſtors of the whole Church, yet the work was divided among them, and they undertook aſpeciall relation to ſome particular parts, as Peter to the Jewes, and Paul to the Gentiles, James to Jeruſalem, &c. Mr. Poole, pag 8.
Anſ. 1. The Apoſtles were extraordinary officers, our queſtion is onelyonly about ordinary officers.
2. The Apoſtles had immediate directions from the Lord where to labour in the work of their office, Act. 13. 4. Act. 16. 9. Act. 10. ver. 19. 20. yea that committing of the Jewes to Peter, and of the Gentiles to Paul ſeemeth to be by immediate ducture from the ſpirit, Gal 2. ver. 7. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apoſtleſhip of the circumciſion, the ſame was mighty in me towards the Gentiles. The Lords making ſuch a diviſion (if it were one) was ſufficient to give them a diſpenſation for acting in Office-work elſewhere, until freſh inſtructions came.
But ordinary Officers have no ſuch directions from the Lord, or any thing equivalent to them, and ſo are obliged to perform acts of Office to all Churches in the world, and ſin if they do not, (according to him) for they have no diſpenſation from the Lord for acting in any, and without that, they muſt act to the utmoſt bounds of their relation.
3. Apoſtles were not ſo limited and confined in their Office, unto thoſe which eſpecially were committed to them, as ordinary Officers are to their particular Churches: the Goſpel of the uncircumciſion was committed to Paul, and the Goſpel of the circumciſion unto Peter, Gal. 2. v. 7. but yet Paul (to uſe Mr. Pools words though improper) was actually, immediately and abſolutely an officer at the ſame time to the Jews, hence he is often executing his office amongſt the Jews, as Act. 21. ver. 15. 17. 18. &c. And he ſaith expreſſely, the care of all the Churches was upon him dayly, 2 Cor. 11. ver. 28. Ergo, He had an actual relation to the Jewiſh, as well as the Gentile Churches, even to all the Churches, and ſo no double relation did ariſe by his being the Apoſtle of the Gentiles; but as a father having many children with families of their own, may abide and continue longer with ſome of them then with others, yet ſtandeth in the ſame relation of a father to all. So the Apoſtles though they did abide more with ſome Churches then with others, yet no diſtinct relation was introduced thereby, and therefore this inſtance of the Apoſtles is nothing to his purpoſe; For, the relation of ordinary Officers to a particular Church is ſuch, that if they had a relation to a Univerſal Church, it would not be the ſame but another, and ſo diſtinct, that themſelves aſſert a double relation, and that one (viz. that to the Church Univerſal) laſteth, though his particular relation ceaſeth, Jus Divin. Min. p. 151.
Neither doth it appear that all the Apoſtles had ſome Churches more eſpecially aſſigned to them, then others, and thoſe that had not, muſt needs be (as he phraſeth it) actually, and equally related to all Churches, and without any ſuch double relation, but were obliged to travel from one Church to another; where as ordinary officers are fixed in their particular Churches, and obliged to abide there. Mr. Poole (p. 9.) taketh notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling, in point of the poſſibility of the thing, and the edification of the Church (which (he ſaith) is the great rule in all Church adminiſtrations) for a Miniſter may joyntly with others rule a far greater proportion then he can teach:—-he taketh notice that the Apoſtles could not teach every Church, yet did actually rule all the Churches at leaſt which are mentioned, Act. 15. &c.
Anſ. 1. The queſtion is not, whether there be a poſſibility of a Miniſters ruling more then he can te… but whether by Chriſts appointment a Miniſter is to undertake the Ruling of more then he can teach, or o… more then a particular Church? we can find no inſtitution of Chriſt for any ſuch thing, and without that, edification will not be a rule ſufficient to warrant the acting in Church-adminiſtrations, when every thing may lawfully be done that is poſſible to be done, then this arguing will be good.
2. It is not proved that any act of Rule, or Government was put forth, Act. 15. and there is no ſyllable of proof, that the Apoſtles power of Government was more extenſive then their teaching power, ſo much as in the exerciſe of it.
He proceedeth to lay down ſome Arguments to prove, that Miniſters are Officers, and act as officers, to more then their own particular Churches.
Argu. 1. If Miniſters are Officers, and act as Officers towards convertible Mr. Poole p. 10.heathens, then they are no… Officers onelyonly to their particular congregations. But Miniſters are Officers and act as Officers towards convertible heathens.
To prove his Minor he ſaith. 1. That Apoſtles were conſtituted Officers before the viſible Goſpel Church was erected, is undeniable. 2 Such are clearly expreſſed, Mat. 28. ver. 19, 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apoſtical Office and relation.
Anſw. 1. There were multitudes baptized by John, before the Apoſtles were conſtituted Officers, Mat. 3. ver. 5, 6. and either there muſt be ſome viſible Goſpel Church then erected, to which theſe Baptized perſons were related, and then his Argument is untrue; or elſe that muſt be a truth which he calleth a monſtrous paradox (pag. 28.) viz. That Baptiſm doth not admit, or make a man to ſtand in relation to any Church; for they were members of the Jewiſh Church before, and ſo were not admitted into that by their Baptiſm, and if no Goſpel Church was at this time erected, then their Baptiſm did not admit them into any Church at all.
2. Many did viſibly ſtand in relation to Chriſt before the Apoſtles were conſtituted Officers, or had that miſſion, Mat. 28. therefore either his Argument, p. 29. muſt be falſe, or elſe this his poſition. p. 10. that Apoſtles were conſtituted Officers before the viſible Goſpel Church was erected, cannot be true, of which he ſaith, its a plain caſe and undeniable.
3. If the Eſſence of the Church had been preſerved in the Apoſtles in caſe all converted Chriſtians had dyed (as he ſuppoſed, pag. 10.) how can he deny the Church to have a being, the Apoſtles having a being, in whom (he ſaith) the Eſſence of the Church was?
4. We deſire our diſtinction formerly mentioned may be remembred: we grant the Apoſtles were, and others are, in a general ſence, Officers to heathens: but we deny that they were, or that others are, Officers to heathens in a ſpecial ſence, namely as over them in the Lord; and this anſwereth his ſuppoſition, pag. 10. of Chriſtians dying and none remaining to be Preached to but heathens, and alſo taketh off his charge againſt us in the ſame page, for denying Apoſtles to be Officers unto heathens.
5. Apoſtles were extraordinary officers; our queſtion is onelyonly about ordinary Officers, and therefore all he ſaith is beſide the queſtion. If Apoſtles were before the viſible Goſpel Church was erected, and if Apoſtles acted as Officers towards convertible heathens, yet ſeeing they were extraordinary Officers, it will not follow thence, that ordinary Officers act as Officers towards convertible heathens.
Object. Apoſtles and Paſtors are parallel'd in this caſe, Epheſ. 4. verſ. 11. 12. &c. 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. That heathens are a part of Chriſts body, he thinketh evident, they are called his ſheep, Joh. 10. ver. 16. he laid down his life for them, which he did onelyonly for his body, Eph. 5. &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 12. 13.
Anſw. 1. If by the body of Chriſt, Eph. 4. ver. 11. 12. we muſt (as Mr. Poole ſaith, pag. 12.) 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, &c. then it is the myſtical body of Chriſt that is intended, conſiſting of the whole number of the elect, redeemed, juſtified, or ſanctified ones, and theſe onelyonly.
And if the body of Chriſt includeth heathens and viſibly unconverted ones (as Mr. Poole ſuppoſeth it doth here) then it muſt be taken in this ſence; but that miniſters ſhould be Officers, or act as officers to this myſtical body of Chriſt, is a ſtrange paradox; For, all the elect and called ones which lived before the coming of Chriſt in the fleſh, and all the Saints in heaven, and all the elect unborn, as well as thoſe living in this or that age of the world, belong to this body of Chriſt. And now we ſhall turn his Argument upon himſelf.
The body of Chriſt in its latitude is the correlatum, or the object of the Paſtoral Office; but the body of Chriſt includes all the elect which lived before Chriſts coming in the fleſh (and ſo before the Paſtoral Office was inſtituted) and all the Saints in heaven, yea heathens, even all the elect unborn; Ergo, all the elect which lived before Chriſts coming in the fleſh (and ſo before the Paſtoral office was inſtituted) and all the Saints in heaven, yea heathens, and all the elect unborn, are the object and correlate of the Paſtoral Office.
Who wil not eaſily ſee the weakneſſe of this argument: for many members of this body, were in heaven thouſands of years before any were inveſted with the Paſtoral Office on Earth, and ſurely they were not officers to thoſe who were in heaven, they had no need of their officr. If body be taken in this ſenſe, his major is apparently falſe. The body of Chriſt in its latitude is not the correlatum or object of the paſtoral office. 2. If it be underſtood of the viſible body of Chr. then his minor is falſe; The body of Chriſt, i. e. his viſible Church or body, doth not include heathens to be converted.
Even the Text he alleadgeth evidenceth ſo much, Iohn 10. v. 16. other ſheep I have; its true thoſe were Gentiles, heathens ſheep by election; but it is added, [which are not of this fold] which witneſſeth that heathens (though ſheep by predeſtination) yet are not folded into the viſible Church of Chriſt. It would be an unſcriptural and an abominable aſſertion to ſay, that heathens are members or a part of Chriſts viſible body or Church, which onelyonly is the correlate of the paſtoral office.
Arg. 2. The ſecond argument is taken from 2 Corin. 5. 20. where the reconcilable Mr. Pool p. 13.world, which conſiſts of ſuch as are yet without, and no members of the Church, are made the chief objects and correlatum of the office of the Miniſtry.
To whom Miniſters act as Ambaſſadors, to them they act as officers: But Miniſters preach as Ambaſſadors to heathens convertible, and to be converted. Ergo, His aſſumption, he ſaith is evident for the termes, to be an Ambaſſador is nothing el…e but to be an officer, &c. His aſſumption he would prove thus,
1. Firſt the ſcripture makes no difference between a Miniſters preaching to his own Church, and to others, Ergo, there is no difference.
2. Even heathens are bound to hear Miniſters preaching to them, and that not onelyonly ex vi materiae, becauſe of the matter they treat of, but virtute muneris, by vertue of their Office, Luke 10. 16. &c.
Anſ. 1. We deny his Major, Miniſters may act as Ambaſſadors to them, they do not act as officers towards in a ſpecial ſenſe: and it is obſerveable that as the word foreign is uſed 1 Corin. 5. 20. for [we are Ambaſſadors;] ſo foreign is uſed for the work of an Ambaſſador from a King, Luke 14. 22. he ſendeth [an Embaſſage]; and yet the ſame word is uſed to expreſſe the wicked act of thoſe citizens againſt their King, Luke 19. 4. …is citizens hated him, and ſent foreign an Embaſſage after him. It cannot be proved that thoſe who were ſent by theſe citizens were officers, or acted as officers (in a ſpecial ſenſe) in this meſſage, yet they acted as Ambaſſadors herein.
So if gifted men, or other Miniſters carry the meſſage of the Goſpel to heathens, and the reconcilable world, upon a command of Chriſt to goe with it, they act as Ambaſſadors, yet not as Officers therein.
2. As to his minor, in a general ſenſe we grant that Miniſters preach as Ambaſſadors to Heathens, i. e. as thoſe that are warranted or commanded by Chriſt to do a meſſage of peace to them, but in a ſtrict ſenſe they do not act as offfcers unto heathens.
As to his proofs of his minor, we ſay
1. The Scripture concludeth that an officer doth preach as a Paſtor, Biſhop, or overſeer to his owne Church, Acts 20. 28. as over it in the Lord, 1 Theſ. 5. v. 12. it no where ſaith that he preacheth under any ſuch relation to others, it lyeth upon Mr. Pool to prove it, if he will aſſert it: it were ſtrange unſcriptural language to ſay, that God hath made officers overſeers to Heathens, or ſet them over them; where are heathens called a mans flock? If they were the object or correlate of the paſtoral office they muſt be ſo, for Paſtor and flock are Relatives; and Ambaſſadors (if in office) are the ſame Officers, under an other name.
And this anſwereth his firſt particular, (pag. 14.) and proveth that the Scripture makes a difference between a Miniſters preaching to his own Church and to others; for it concludeth his being in ſuch a relation to his own Church, as he ſtands not in to others, and thence muſt needs ariſe a difference in actings.
2. Heathens are bound to hear Miniſters preach, not onelyonly for their doctrine, nor for their Office ſake, but for Chriſts ſake who ſends them with that doctrine: if they preach only as gifted perſons (not as officers) yet it may aptly be ſaid as Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. becauſe they are warranted or commanded by Chriſt to do the meſſage, and ſo it is not their own but Christs; he ſpeaketh by them, they are his words, not theirs, as in this inſtance: A maſter of a family being from home may ſend a meſſage by ſome friends or neighbours to his ſervants, commanding ſome work from them, if theſe ſervants do not hear thoſe meſſengers, they do not hear their maſter, yet theſe friends or neighbours are no Officers, nor can act as officers over them, either in doing the meſſage, or in caſe of diſobedience by inflicting any puniſhment, &c. So if a preachers meſſage be not heard, Chriſt is diſobeyed therein; concerning maintenance we have ſpoken in anſwer to Dr. Collings, and alſo elſwhere in way of reply to Mr. Pool, The pronouncing of pardon and denouncing of wrath upon believing or diſobeying in preaching, are acts (as we have ſufficiently proved) that gifted men may do, without an office-relation.
Arg. 3. If converſion of heathens, &c. be the principal ground and end why the office of the miniſtry was inſtituted, and the principal worke of the miniſtry, then the Office of the miniſtry is related to heathens.
But the convertion 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, their relation muſt be towards thoſe among whom their great work lyes, Mr. Pool pag. 17.
Anſ. 1. We ſuppoſe he intendeth that they are related to heathens as their correlate, elſe he ſpeaketh nothing to the queſtion; and then,
2. His Major may fairely be denyed; The fighting with enemies, &c. is the principal ground and end why the office of Colonels, Captaines, and other leaders of Armies were appointed, and their principal work; yet thoſe enemies to be fought with, are not the correlate to the office of Colonels, Captaines, &c. It is a Regiment that is the correlate to the office of a Colonel, and a Troop or company, that is the correlate to the office of a captain: And ſo heathens to be preached to are not the correlate to the office of the Miniſtery, but particular Churches. The inſtance of Colonels, &c. ſheweth that a mans great work may lye among thoſe that their relation is not toward.
3. As to the minor, that convertion of heathens, and ſuch as are without the Church, is a great worke of officers qua gifted may be granted; but that it is their principal work qua officers, thoſe texts Mat. 28. and Eph. 4. prove not. The office of Paſtors was not inſtituted until Churches were conſtituted, had convertion of heathens been their principal work, the inſtitution of them before, would have been as neceſſary as then.
And that officers and others qua gifted, are appointed by Chriſt to preach unto unbelievers, this ſufficiently manifeſteth Christs care for that great work, the convertion of ſinners, though they do not act as officers in their converſion.
Thus we have anſwered his argument againſt this Aſſertion, that Miniſters are officers onelyonly to their own congregations, the provincial aſſemblie uſed divers arguments, which we anſwered, and Mr. Pool ſeeketh to indicate, we ſhall briefly reply to his moſt material xceptions.
They objected that we receive members of other congregations to the Sacrament, yet the adminiſtration of that is a miniſterial act, and cannot be done but by a Paſtor or Teacher.
Mr. Pool. is ſo diſturbed at our anſwer to this, that he ſaith (p. 20.) he queſtions not but any judicious Reader will quickly diſcern it how we are faln from our own principles, and (pag. 21.) would have all men take notice of that, and alſo that we have through incogitancy precipitated our ſelves into the gulf of Annabaptiſme, and he doubts not but we will retract it, &c. And all this becauſe we ſay, If they perform theſe acts to any, not of their own congregations, they do not act as Paſt ors, as officers to them therein.
Anſ. We ſee no ground to retract what we have ſaid in this matter, and we think any unprejudiced Reader who ſhall view our whole anſwer to their objection, (Preach Sent. pag. 278, 279, 280.) will apprehend that there is more ſtrength in Mr. Pools flouriſh of words to dazel the Eyes of the weake, then of argument to convince the judicious that we are in an Error. To clear the caſe,
1. We profeſſe that it was (when we wrote our former book) and ſtill is our judgement, that the adminiſtration of the Sacrament is an act which cannot be done but by a Paſtor or Teacher. None but an Officer may perform this act.
2. Yet we conceive an Officer may adminiſter the Sacrament (which is a common Church priviledge) unto members of other Churches without being an Officer over them: for, if any ſuch relation as is between Paſtor and the members of his flock, did ariſe upon that act, then an obligation unto the mutual duties of the relation muſt follow alſo, elſe all in a relation were not bound to the duties of it; and who will ſay that Paſtors are to watch over the members of other Churches, or that the Lord hath made them overſeers of them? or that ſuch members are to aford maintenance, &c. to ſuch Paſtors?
And if they be no Officers over them, they cannot be ſaid to act as their Officers.
And let Mr. Poole and the Reader obſerve we never ſaid that he who is no Paſtor, no Officer might act in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, but that in adminiſtring it to members of other Churches, a man doth not act as a Paſtor, as an Officer [to them] i. e. in a ſpecial ſence.
As Officers in corporations, &c. may afford ſome priviledges to ſuch as they are no Officers to, which none but ſuch Officers can grant out; Or to uſe the inſtance Mr. Poole mentioneth (pag. 16.) with ſome variation; many acts of a Steward of an houſe, in giving entertainment unto ſtrangers, cannot he done by any but the Steward (except the Lord of the houſe) yet ſaith Mr. Poole (pag. 16.) he acts not as a Steward to them whom he entertains: whence it is undeniable that there are ſome acts which none but an Officer can perform, wherein he doth not act as an Officer to ſome objects of them; and therefore though none but Officers can adminiſter the Lords Supper, yet they may give it to members of other Churches, which they are no Officers, nor do not act as Officers towards. That Rule Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali, holds true, onelyonly in materia neceſſaria, not in materia contingenti; and therefore if a Paſtor gives the Sacrament to thoſe who are not of his own Church, not as their Paſtor, yet it will not follow, that every gifted brother may adminiſter it, or that our aſſertion cuts the ſ…news of Chriſtian and Church-communion, which he inſinuates, p. 22. That their Argument was againſt our practice may eaſily be ſeen in their Book, not againſt the aſſertion, but as ſuppoſed (though ungroundedly) to be contradicted by our practice. And this is enough to anſwer what he ſaith, pag. 20. 21. 22. and may clearly vindicate us from his aſperſion for Anabaptiſm. He replyeth nothing to what we have ſaid, Preacher Sent, pag. 281. where we have clearly anſwered their third particular in the ſeveral branches, and have proved againſt them, that Miniſters are called Elders of the people, &c.
There are ſeven conſequences which they ſaid (Jus Divin. Min. pag. 140.) would follow this aſſertion. To our exceptions againſt the firſt and ſecond of theſe, Mr. Poole anſwereth little or nothing; what he ſaith (p. 23.) is but a repetition of what he had ſaid before, which we have already anſwered.
In our reply to the third, we argue againſt that poſition, that a man is made a member of a Church by Baptiſm. Mr. Poole telleth us it is none of their aſſertion—-that they allow Infants to be born Church-members, and make their Church-memberſhip the ground of their Baptiſm, and a pari, a heathen converted and profeſſing the faith, is a church-member inchoate before Baptiſm, and that this onelyonly they ſay, that the ſolemn, publike and viſible way of admiſſion of members into the Church is by Baptiſm, Mr. Poole, pag. 23. 24.
Anſ. 1. They ſaid, that every Miniſter by Baptiſm admitteth into the Catholick viſible Church, Jus Div. Min. pag. 139. and Mr. Poole ſaith (pag. 25.) in Scripture there is ne foreign quidem of any other door of admiſſion, and cals the contrary a monſtrous paradox, pag. 28. And how he can deny it to be their aſſertion, or free himſelf from ſelf-contradiction in theſe expreſſions we know not; for what difference is there between being [made] a church-member by Baptiſm, and being [admitted] into the Church by Baptiſm? and how can one be a church-member [before] Baptiſm, and yet be admitted into the Church [by] Baptiſm, eſpecially if there be not [any other door] of admiſſion? How can thoſe that are within the Church already, be ſaid (without a loſs of memberſhip) to be admitted into it, by any after act? ſurely admiſſion is of thoſe who are without, and no members, not of thoſe who are within, and are church-members. The ſcriptures know no ſuch thing as a being church-members inchoate; either they are church-members or not; if they be church-members (as he confeſſeth they are, before Baptiſm) then they are admitted, for memberſhip preſuppoſeth admiſſion.
2. As well may we ſay, that men are Officers by a Churches Election before Ordination, and onelyonly the ſolemn admiſſion into the Office (or rather exerciſe of it) to be by Ordination, as he may aſſert an admiſſion by Baptiſm after memberſhip; and then the Eſſence of the call to Office, is not in Ordination.
3. If Infants church-memberſhip be (as he ſaith, pag. 24.) the ground of their Baptiſm, then they are viſible church-members before their being Baptized, (for the ground of an action muſt be viſible, before acting) and ſo their viſible admiſſion into the Church is not by Baptiſm, but before it. And in converts, profeſſion of faith (which he ſuppoſeth them church-members by) muſt firſt be viſible, and ſo their viſible admiſſion into the Church is antecedaneous to, and is not by their Baptiſm.
And as publike as their profeſſion is, ſo publike is their viſible church-memberſhip, or admiſſion into the Church, before Baptiſm. As to what followeth, pag. 24. 25. we formerly did, and ſtill do deny, that a Miniſter ejecting a man juſtly out of his own Church, ejects him juridically out of all other Churches; for this ſee our anſwer to Dr. Collings Epiſtle.
Object. If he be not juridically ejected out of other Churches, then he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches, which what horrid confuſion it would introduce, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 24.
Anſw It will not follow; for, that ſin which made the ejection juſt, would make another Churches admiſſion unjuſt.
Yet mens incapacity to be received by other Churches, doth not ariſe from their being caſt out of thoſe Churches, but from the want of ſuch qualifications as are perquiſite to admiſſion into church-fellowſhip.
He grants (p. 25.) that when a Miniſter is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by depoſition, he ceaſeth to be an Officer to the Univerſal Church. Whence we infer, that if he repenteth and becometh an Officer again, he muſt have a new Ordination, or elſe he may of no Officer become an Officer without Ordination, and ſo Ordination is not Eſſential to Office.
That which followeth (pag. 25.) is but a repetition of what he had ſaid, and is anſwered before. That ſuch as are converted from heatheniſme may joyn as members to ſome Church and ſo be baptized, we proved, Preacher Sent. pag. 289. he replyeth nothing to the proof of it, yet chargeth us for obtruding uncouth notions upon the world without evident proof, &c. And he that ſaith (pag. 24.) they are church-members inchoate before Baptiſm, and who maketh ſo little a matter of admiſſion into a particular Church, ſhould not ſtumble at this notion. And what is ſaid to ſhew that admiſſion is not by Baptiſm, will not be far from a proof of it.
Our Arguments (Preacher Sent. pag. 292.) plainly ſhew, that their aſſertion runs them upon Anabaptiſm; Mr. Poole, (pag. 26. 27.) giveth a double reaſon againſt it. 1. That an excommunicate perſon ordinarily is a church-member, though a diſeaſed member, 2 Theſ. 3. &c. 2. Though his Baptiſm ceaſeth at preſent actually and really as to all the actual priviledges of it, ſo ceaſeth that while he repents not, he is to be looked upon after a ſort as an unbaptized perſon, yet when he doth repent, and readmit himſelf to the Church, he needs no new Baptiſme, foraſmuch as God is pleaſed to impute to him his former Baptiſm, and the Church accepts of it, &c.
Anſw. 1. Anabaptiſm unavoidably followeth upon their aſſertion, thus, he that ceaſeth to be a member of the viſible Church, his Baptiſme ceaſeth ſay they, Jus Divin Min. pag. 146.
But he that is excommunicate ceaſeth (ſay they) to be a member of the viſible Church, for they tell us excommunication ejecteth out of that Church, Jus Divin. Min. pag. 139. Ergo, He that is excommunicate, his Baptiſm ceaſeth. Ergo, If he be readmitted he muſt be rebaptized, or elſe be in the Church unbaptized.
Surely Mr. Poole will not ſay that one may be ejected out of, and yet remain a member of the Church; for, it is a contradiction to ſay, that one is [out of] and yet [in] the Church at the ſame time, and contrary to, 1 Corin. 5. 12. which proveth that thoſe who are [without] are not [within,] yet he hath no other way to ſave the London Miniſters from the dint of the foregoing concluſions. To help them out of this Laborinth Mr. Poole telleth us, that an excommunicate perſon is a church-member ſtill; but this is not to defend, but to contradict them whoſe cauſe he undertaketh to to plead; for they tell us an excommunicate perſon is ejected out of the Church, and Mr. Poole ſaith, he is a member of the Church ſtill. This therefore might ſuffice for the defence of what we have ſaid, but we ſhall add a few words.
2. It is the judgement of many, that the withdrawing mentioned, 2 Theſ. 3. ver. 6. 14. vaſtly differeth from excommunication; becauſe after the one, a man is to be deemed as a brother, and after the other, he is to be accounted as a heathen and a Publican, Mat. 18. ver. 17. and if ſo, this is no proof that excommunicate perſons are church-members, ſeeing the Text ſpeaketh nothing of excommunication, but onelyonly of withdrawing.
3. We obſerve his halting here, he doth not ſay an excommunicate perſon [alwayes] but [ordinarily] is a member; as if excommunication did ſometimes make a man ceaſe to be a church-member, but ordinarily not, which there is no ſyllable in Scripture for, and much againſt it, Mat. 18 v. 17. excommunicate perſons are to be deemed as heathens and Publicans, Ergo, Not as church-members. That ſuch as are excommunicate for blaſphemy, denying Chriſt to be the Meſſias, or renouncing ſome ſuch grand Article of faith, ſhould ſtill be a church-member, is ſtrange doctrine, yet this muſt be, or elſe his Argument (pag. 26. is nought, for it may be ſaid,
He who is under a Church Ordinance appointed, for his good, is (according to Mr. Poole) a Churchmember.
But he who is excommunicate for blaſphemy, denying Chriſt, &c. is under a Church-Ordinance for his good.
Ergo, According to Mr. Pool, he who is excomunicate for blaſphemy, denying Chriſt, &c. is a Churchmember. And that the ſame ordinance of excommunication doth paſſe upon ſome and cut them off from Church-memberſhip, and paſſe upon others and leave them members ſtill, let him prove.
4. Neither they in their Jus Divin. Min. nor we in our former book, do ſpeak of the ceaſing of baptiſm as to the actual priveledges of it, or as to mens account, onelyonly or chiefly, but about the ceaſing of the water baptiſm it ſelfe; And therefore what Mr. Pool ſ…ith, (p. 27.) is altogether beſides the queſtion. Neither doth his inſtance of circumciſion help him, for if any turned heathen or Idolater, and renounced his circumciſion, yet he remained a circumciſed perſon, and his circumciſion might be a witneſſe againſt him though he were to be reputed as a heathen, while ſuch. And ſo we apprehend, though a baptized perſon ceaſeth by excommunication to be a member of any viſible Church, yet this baptiſm ceaſeth not, but if it did really ceaſe (as they ſay it doth) rebaptizing would neceſſarily be inferred.
5. If baptiſme it ſelfe (about which the queſtion is) did ceaſe upon the ceſſation of memberſhip in the viſible Church, that upon the perſons Repentance, the Lord ſhould impute his former baptiſm to him, is ſuch a notion, as (to uſe his own phraſe) in Scripture, there is ne foreign quidem of any ſuch thing.
6. If a man, ceaſing to be a member of a particular Church, ſhould make his baptiſm ceaſe, upon its being the door of admiſſion into that, as they aſſert; then a pari, a mans ceaſing to be a member of the catholick Church by excomunication or otherwiſe, would make his baptiſm ceaſesupon its being the door of admiſſion into that, & ſo rebaptizing muſt follow upon re-admiſſion, ſo that this falleth heavie upon their principles; But it toucheth not us, becauſe we deny baptiſm to be the door of admiſſion into an… Church, and this anſwereth what he ſaith, pag. 27. He ſaith, (pag. 28.) we grant that baptiſm was a ſign of a mans admiſſion to the Church.
Reply. He much miſtaketh us; for, we do not grant that its Sacramental uſe is to be a ſigne of admiſſion into the Church: But in regard Church-member-ſhip is pre-required unto baptiſm, hence as things conſequential are ſignes of what is antecedent, and fruit a ſigne of a tree, ſo baptiſm (if orderly adminiſtred) is a ſign of admiſſion into a Church.
We grant it to be a ſigne of ones being ingaged for the profeſſion of the Name of Chriſt.
He asketh (pag. 28.) what is a Church but a company of men profeſſing the name of Chriſt?
Reply. 1. We ſpeak onelyonly of a ſubſequent ſign, which preſuppoſech his being admitted into the Church, and being engaged for the name of Chriſt, and ſo is not the door of admiſſion.
2. A company of unbaptized perſons may profeſs the name of Chriſt; Ergo, According to Mr. Pool, they are a Church, and then baptiſm cannot be the door of admiſſion into the Church. We ſaid baptiſm makes not a man to ſtand in relation to any Church, by which we intend onelyonly this, that baptiſm doth not admit a man into any Church.
Mr. Pool (pag. 28) calleth this a monſtrous paradox, which ſhould not have been dictated without any proof, &c.
Reply. We have not meerly dictated it, but have given clear proof for it, Preacher Sent, pag. 284. 286. 292, 293. himſelfe granteth that both infants and otners are Church-members inchoate before baptiſm, pag. 24. Church-memberſhip is a relation, and as it were groſſely improper to ſay that a man is a Father or Maſter, &c. inchoate, but not a compleat Father or Maſter; ſo, its improper to ſay that one is enchoate only a Church-member, and therefore they are admitted not by, but before baptiſm. But that baptiſme doth not make men members of the Church, is largely proved in the anſwer of New-England Elders to the 32. Queſtions, pag. 12 to 20.
Ob. 1. We are all baptized into one body, 1 Corin. 12. 13. By which it is moſt evident that baptiſm gives a man relation to ſome body, &c. Mr. Pool pag. 28.
Anſ. The whole ſtreſſe of this Argument dependeth upon tranſlating the Prepoſition foreign [into] whereas it is frequently uſed to ſignifie [in] is Mat. 2. ver. 23. He came and dwelt foreign [in] a city, &c. So 1 Peter 5. 12. Acts 2. 27. Luke 11. 7. Mark 1. v. 9. were baptized of Iohn foreign [in] Jordan. and hence, v. 5. foreign [in] the River Jordan That which is expreſſed by i… in one verſe, is expreſſed by foreign in the other. All which clearly ſheweth that no argument can be grounded upon its ſignifying [into] and if it be rendred [in] as often it is in other Texts, then his argument commeth to nothing, whether it be the viſible or inviſible Church that is there intended; for it runneth thus, by one ſpirit we are all baptized [in] one body, & then they are firſt in that body & baptized after, & ſo baptiſm is not the door of admiſſion, or doth not give relation to that body.
2. An Antecedent enterance into a relation is uſually expreſſed by a ſubſequent adjunct of that relation: as an enterance into Kingly government is expreſſed by Coronation; and Gen. 45. 10. The Scepter ſhall not depart, &c. i. c. there ſhall be one to bear the Scepter. There becoming governours, is denoted by a Scepter, which is a ſubſequent ſigne of Governement: ſo, if … be rendred into, yet it may be onelyonly an adjunct priviledge of Church-memberſhip, and not that which maketh to ſtand in relation to any body or Church.
3. There are different gifts and graces in the members of the myſtical body of Chriſt, and therefore theſe cannot prove it an Organical political body; yet what doth the Apoſtle ſay more of this one body? But whatever the body be, the relation thereto is not proved to be by baptiſm; as Mr. Cartwright obſerveth on Gal. 3. 27. where we are ſaid to put on Chriſt by baptiſm, it is the uſual phraſe of the Scripture, which giveth that unto the Sarcrament, which is due unto the thing whereof it is a Sacrament: So here,
Ob. 2. That which makes a man viſibly stand in relation to Chriſt, that makes him viſibly to ſtand in relation to the Church: but baptiſme makes a man viſibly to ſtand in relation to Chriſt, Ergo,
Anſw. Both Propoſitions are falſe.
1. His major is untrue, becauſe a viſible relation to Chriſt muſt precede or goe before a viſible relation to the Church; for, none but viſible Saints or believers are to be admitted into Church relation, Acts 2. v. 47. They were ſaved ones, i. e. viſible at leaſt, who were added to the Church, therefore they ſtood in a viſible relation to Chriſt in order before addition to the Church, for this, ſee more in our Epiſtle to our former book.
2. His minor is untrue; for multitudes (even amongſt us) are baptized, and yet do not viſibly ſtand in relation to Chriſt, but to Satan; Ergo, Baptiſm doth not make viſibly to ſtand in relation to Chriſt. Again, a man muſt ſtand in a viſible relation to Chriſt before baptiſm, Math. 28. 19. They muſt firſt be diſciples, and then baptized; And therefore it is not baptiſm (but ſome thing antecedaneous to it) that maketh viſibly to ſtand in relation to Christ.
As to Rom. 6. 3. and Gal. 3. 27. They may ſhew that believers being baptized in the name of Chriſt are ſolemnly engaged to profeſſe and conform themſelves unto him, and that in his death, but they do not prove, that men cannot viſibly put on Chriſt in his death, or that they cannot viſibly be in Chriſt, without baptiſm; and therefore they do not evidence, that baptizing is that act in or by which they are ſo much as viſibly made to ſtand in relation to Chriſt.
Our anſwers to this objection, do alſo anſwer his next argument. We ſay, men muſt viſibly ſtand in a covenant relation, before admiſſion into the Church; or unto baptiſm, for viſible believing or a profeſſion of Faith is pre-required, (in thoſe that are adulti) unto baptiſm, Mark. 16. 16. Acts 8. v. 12. 36, 37. And therefore baptiſm neither maketh a man to ſtand viſibly in relation to the covenant or to the Church.
Its being aſeal of the covenant, implyeth a precedent conſederation, or preſuppoſeth a mans being in covenant, as being but a ratification, or confirmation of a covenant already made.
We demand whether the Lords Supper, be not as wel a ſeal of the covenant as Baptiſm? And whether that maketh a man ſtand in relation to the covenant, and he be in covenant as often as he partaketh thereof, and out when he doth it not? If otherwiſe, then it is no contradiction, that the application of ſuch a ſeal ſhould not make to ſtand in relation to the covenant, and ſurely they muſt ſtand in a viſible relation to the covenant before a partaking of the Supper; and then ſomething elſe muſt make to ſtand in relation to the covenant.
To his laſt Argument (pag. 29.) we reply, It is not that which gives the capacity, but that which giveth the right to Church-priveledges, that makes a man ſtand in relation to a Church. Nei her doth Baptiſm make a man capable of Church-priviledges; no not of the Supper, which he mentions; for ſome infants are Baptized and excommunicate perſons alſo, and yet are uncapable of that Church-priviledge; nay the Presbyterians will not admit to the Supper without examination, and the Provincial Aſſembly plead againſt admitting the ignorant or ſcandalous to the Supper, Vind. Presb. Govern. pag. 56. &c. By which it appeareth, that though they donot account unbaptized perſons capable of the Supper, yet they do not judge Baptiſme enough to capacitate for the Supper, for then they muſt deny it to none that are baptized. His Arguments thus failing his concluſions from them come to nothing.
We denyed that 1 Corin. 12. 28. or Eph. 4. did prove a Miniſters relation (as an Officer) to a Catholick viſible Church, if ſuch a Church were intended there; for it may properly be ſaid, there are ſet in the Commonwealth, Juſtices, Conſtables, &c. yet they are limited in their Office to a particular County or Pariſh, &c.
And it is not improper to ſay, God hath given to or ſet in the Church, viz. this and that Church, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, &c.
Object. 3. That implies, that its one political body, wherein they are ſet, &c. Mr. Poole. pag. 30.
Anſw. If there were a Catholike Church, and that (which is not granted) a political body to, (as a Commonwealth is) yet its being ſaid, God hath given to, or ſet in the Church, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, &c. would no more prove that they are Officers to that whole political Univerſal Church, ſo much as in actu primo; then its being ſaid there are ſet in the Commonwealth Juſtices, Conſtables, &c. would prove that they are Juſtices, or Conſtables to the whole Commonwealth.
Much leſs can it be a proof of any ſuch thing, where evidence is wanting for a political Univerſal Church.
Ob. 2. The caſe wholly differs, for Juſtices, Constables, &c. have limited commiſſions, &c. Mr. Pool. pag. 30.
Anſw. So are Miniſters limited in their office, and confined to their particular Churches (as we have proved) and therefore this maketh no difference in the caſes.
The caſe of the Empire we ſpake to before, the Princes do not Govern in common, but every one is diſtinct in Lawes and cuſtomes.
Object. 3. It is not barely the phraſe we reſt upon, but the ſence, &c. Apostles 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, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 30.
Anſw. This, 1 Cor. 12. 28. is the main Text urged for a Univerſal origanical Church; and yet, Reader, thou may eſt ſee when it cometh to, they are conſtrained to borrow help from other Texts to ſhore up their Argument.
We grant that the Apoſtles were ſet not onelyonly in, but over all Churches; but that this is the ſence and explication of the phraſe which the Apoſtle uſeth, or the intendment of this Text, ſo as the Apoſtle ſhould mean, [that God hath ſet over the Church Apoſtles] when he onelyonly ſaith [God hath ſet in the Church Apoſtles, &c.] this is not, nor ever can be proved.
And its very obſervable that thoſe phraſes might be uſed, 1 Cor. 12. 28. and Epheſ. 4. 11, 12. (the two places chiefly alleadged for a general viſible orginical Church) though thoſe Texts ſhould not be underſtood of the viſible Church at all; for Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Paſtors and Teachers are ſet in, and given for the edifying of the myſtical body of Chriſt, though they be not Officers to it, or ſet over it.
And a poor Argument is it, that hath no better ground to ſtand upon; this anſwereth what he ſaith (pag. 31.) that it is that body into whith we are Baptized both Jewes and Gentiles, and one whole body, &c. for all this may be predicated of the myſtical Church or body of Chriſt.
But if the viſible Church or body be intended the Church of Corinth (and a pari all other true churches) is the body of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12. 27. Now ye are the body of Chriſt, &c. and in the very next verſe its added, And he hath ſet ſome in the Church, firſt Apoſtles, &c. ſeeing this immediately followeth, it need not ſeem ſtrange that the meaning ſhould be this; The particular Church of Corinth is the body of Chriſt, and God hath ſet in this Church or body, firſt Apoſtles, &c. The Apoſtles were ſet in Corinth, though not limited or confined to that Church.
All the ſtrength of their Argument from 1 Cor. 12. 28. dependeth upon the Apoſtles ſpeaking in the ſingular number [the Church;] had it been ſaid God hath ſet in the [Churches] &c. there could have been no ſhadow of an Argument hence for their being officers to a Univerſal Church; and ſeeing in the ſame chapter, ver. 12. 14. 17. &c. he ſpeaketh in the ſingular number, the body, the body, and the whole body, and yet all natural bodies do not make one body, and ver. 18. God ſet the members in [the body] &c. yet there is no Catholick body; how can his ſpeaking in the ſingular number [the Church] ver. 28. and that in the application of the ſame ſimilitude, prove a Catholick Church made up of all Churches?
To evidence that the ſin of a people may nullifie the Office of a Miniſter (which they deny, Jus Div. Min. pag. 146) we ask, whether if they murther him, will not this nullifie his Office? and if ſo, why may not their ſin other wayes make voyd the Office alſo?
Object. Mr. Poole ſaith; we confound the nullifying of the Office, and the hindring the exerciſe of it. 2. He demands whether this hold of the Apoſtles or no,—whether if the Catholike Church was confined to one congregation, and that proved heretical and voted down the Apostles, would this make their Office null or no? he ſaith this followeth upon our principles, for the church (the correlate) ceaſing, they muſt needs ceaſe alſo, & ejuſdem eſt inſtituere & deſtituere, and we allow the inſtitution and conſtitution of the Apostles to the people, in the ſame page he telleth the world that we ſay the Apostles were conſtituted Officers by the church, alleadging, Acts 1 He addeth that this doctrine renders it in the power of mens luſts and humours to nullifie the promiſes of Chriſt, & the authority, end and uſe of Chriſts Ambaſſadours; for now there are none but ordinary Ministers, and he ſuppoſeth but twenty congregations in the world, and each of theſe may reſolve ſeverally to eject their Miniſters, &c. This is the ſum of what he expreſſeth in many words, Mr. Poole, pag. 32. 33.
Anſ. 1. We have not confounded, but clearly diſtinguiſhed between nullifying the Office, and hindring the exerciſe of it, as he that ſhall impartially read our Book may ſee.
2. The Apoſtles were extraordinary Officers, our queſtion is onelyonly about ordinary Officers. The Apoſtles were neither of man nor by man, but were made by an extraordinary call of Chriſt, and ſo it did belong onelyonly to Chriſt to null their Office, becauſe ejuſdem eſt inſtituere & deſtituere. But we cannot but complain that Mr. Poole hath here offered abundance of wrong to us, in reporting to the world, that we ſay, Apoſtles were conſtituted Officers by the church; alleadging Act. 1. and not contenting himſelf with ſayit once, he cometh over with it again, towards the end of pag. 32. of his Book.
Whereas we have expreſſed the contrary, and that in expreſſe Terms, in ſpeaking to, Acts 1. which he ſayeth we alledge for it. Let any one read our book (Preacher Sent. pag. 268.) where we uſe theſe words, This was but halfe an Election, and that is the reaſon why it did not conſtitute Mathias an Apoſtle, as appeareth, becauſe the chooſing of the one (which was by God) was the conſtituted act, Acts 1. 24. &c. by which any one may ſee that we deny the Apoſtle to be conſtituted by the Church, and aſſert it to be by God; and therefore he hath done us much injury in this report.
3. Suppoſe a Church murthereth its Officers; either he muſt ſay that they are officers after they are dead, which is abſurd; or elſe he muſt grant that the ſin of a people may nullifie the office of a miniſter, which the Provincial Aſſembly denyeth.
4. No ſuppoſition may be allowed which implyeth a contradiction to any divine promiſe; For God is faithful, and therefore will reſtrain from every act that would render any promiſe void. Some ſuppoſitions may be admitted of, but not ſuch as are againſt Promiſes, otherwiſe we may anſwer his with an other, himſelfe ſuppoſeth (p. 32.) that the Catholike Church may be confined to one congregation, if the Elders (poſſibly but two or three) ſhould excommunicate that whole Church, they ſhould by this juridicall act (how un juſt ſoever) nullifie the promiſe of the perpetuity of the Church, Mat. 16. 18. as much as by his ſuppoſition the people ſhould nullifie the Promiſes about officers. In ſuch a caſe two or three Elders cannot be proved to be the univerſal Church, and Officers to it alſo, and if there be not a Church & Officers ſet in it, either the promiſes about officers, or the Church muſt fail, if ſuppoſitions againſt promiſes be allowed; And in what a ſad condition then would the Church be in, for there would be none to appeal to; and thus we might turne his words (pag. 34 35.) upon himſelfe. Or we might ſuppoſe that perſecutors (being moſt of the world) might murther that one congregation (which he improperly calleth the Catholike Church) being but few: its true, the act would differ, one being an act of horrid violence, the other a juridical act, but both are equally poſſible, and ſo a ſuppoſition may be taken from one as well as from the other, and therefore he can get nothing from ſuch ſuppoſals.
The monſtrous opinion followeth upon his owne principle; Suppoſe but Twenty Miniſters in the World, who only have power (according to him) to ordain, and they through treachery and frowardneſs ſhould refuſe to put forth their power for a ſucceſſion, they dye and ſo the promiſe of Chriſt is nullified; neither doth his anſwer to the objection (pag. 33. 34.) take off this, for here the caſe is not wholly different, here is not an act of horrid violence, and therefore it is as great an inconvenience to aſſert, that Jeſus Chriſt hath given to Miniſters a juridical power (as they judge that of Ordination to be) by the abuſe of which they might, if they pleaſed, diſanul an Ordinance of Chriſt.