A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Wherein our arguments for mens being Officers to a particular Church onelyonly and not to a univerſal, are vindicated from the exceptions which Mr. Pool bringeth againſt them.
Some arguments we uſed to prove, that Officers ſtand in relation (as Officers) to a particular Church onelyonly, and not to a univerſal Church.
Mr. Pool (pag. 35.) den yeth the major of our firſt Syllogiſme, but medleth not with the proofs of it, and ſo it remaineth firme ſtill.
To prove our minor, we uſe this argument.
Arg. 1. All that flock or Church over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made a man a Biſhop or Overſeer, he is commanded actually to feed and take heed to, and ſinneth if he doth not. But no Biſhop or Overſeer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the univerſal Church, &c. Ergo,
Ob. Mr. Pool (pag. 35.) denyeth the major and ſaith, a miniſter is not obliged actually to feed all his flock▪ and addeth, every Apostle was a Cathol… Paſtor, and ſo had the whole Church for his flock, Mat. 28. 19, 20. But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church, and all Nations, &c.
Anſw. 1. His denyal of the major is little better then a denyal of the very words of Scripture, for the Apoſtle ſaith Acts 20. 28. Take heed—to [all] the flock over the which the Holy Ghoſt hath made you Overſeers to feed the Church, &c.
Is it not plain, that actuall feeding is enjoyned, and that not onelyonly [ſome] but [all] a mans flock is thus to be ſed?
2. This doth not anſwer our argument, but leaveth us under a new ſeeming difficulty.
3. If his reaſon ſhould be wholly granted, we do not ſee how it juſtifyeth his denyal of our major, or taketh away the force of our argument; and had he not left out the concluſion of his Syllogiſm, he might eaſily have ſeen it himſelf: For the utmoſt he can conclude from thoſe premiſes, is but this, Ergo, every Catholike Paſtor, who hath the whole Church for his flock was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church, all Nations, &c.
And what is all this to the purpoſe? If every Catholike Paſtor, or every one who hath the whole Church, for his flock was not, will it follow hence that no officer is obliged actually to feed all his flock? May there not be ſome officers who have no ſuch large flock, and may ſtand under ſuch obligations? If every Apoſtle was not, yet may not every ordinary Officer be obliged actually to feed all his flock. What ſhadow ofa conſequence is here? This might be enough in anſwer to that which he ſuppoſeth to be an unanſwerable reaſon; but that his reaſon taketh not away the force of our Argument, we may evidence theſe waies,
1. Becauſe the impoſſibility of every Apoſtles looking to all the Churches, is the reaſon which himſelfe giveth (pag. 7, 8.) why they did it not. But our argument is drawne from a command to ordinary Officers fixed in a particular Church, all which it was poſſible for them actually to feed, and ſo the caſes run not paralel. And that a univerſal Church ſhould be their flock, the hundred, it may be the thouſand part whereof (by reaſon of their fixedneſſe in a particular Church) they can never feed, and yet be commanded to feed [all] their flock, who can Imagine it? Or doth not ſuch a comand rather determine their particular flock to be [all]over which they are made Overſeers?
2. Becauſe the Apoſtles had immediate directions from God, which gave them a diſpenſation for an actual feeding every Church.
3. Becauſe if every Apoſtle was not commanded actually to feed [all] that flock, or (all) thoſe Churches that they had liberty by their commiſſions to act as Officers towards; ſeeing every ordinary Officer is commanded to feed (all) the flock, he is an Overſeer to, Acts. 20. 28. hence his ſuppoſed unanſwerable reaſon faileth in the main thing it ſhould prove.
If Mat. 28. 19, 20. were ſpoken to this or that Apoſtle ſingly, then (that being a command of actuall teaching and baptizing) every Apoſtle was obliged actually to feed or teach all Nations, and then his minor is untrue.
But if it were ſpoken to all the Apoſtles together, v. 16. 19, 20. then if every Apoſtle was not obliged actually to feed all Churches, or all Nations, yet all the Apoſtles together did actually feed all the Churches in that age, and were obliged to do it, and all officers together in after ages are under the like obligation, yet no one ordinary Officer is obliged actually to teach all Nations, but every one is bound to feed [all] the flock over which he is made an overſeer.
Arg. 2. If Officers now were actually to feed and take care of all the univerſal Church, then their power were as extenſive & large as the Apoſtles, &c. Pr…. Sent. p. 11.
Obj. The difference between Apoſtolical and Paſtoral power lies not in the extent of their relation, but in the independancy, ſuperiority, and ſingularity of juriſdiction Mr. Pool. pag. 36.
Anſw. 1. If this were true, yet it proved what we produced it for. viz. That no ordinary Officer is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the uniſal Church; for himſelfe granteth (pag. 6.) that it was peculiar to the Apoſtles, to be actually Miniſters to the whole Church.
2. But that the difference between Apoſtolical and Paſtoral power lies not in the extent of their relation, ſeemeth to us very falſe; For,
1. Apoſtles had univerſality of juriſdiction: Ergo, Apoſtles had generality of relation. Ordinary officers have not univerſality of juriſdiction; Ergo, ordinary officers had not generality of relation. Nomans juriſdiction can be extended beyond his relation, and therefore none can deny the Apoſtles univerſality of relation, and that ordinary officers have ſo extenſive a juriſdiction, let him prove that will aſſert it.
2. As Apoſtles had general ▪relation, ſo they were under obligation to actual diſcharge of the duty of the relation in like extent, 2 Corin. 11. 28. and ſo were the Churches towards them.
But ordinary Officers are not under an obligation for the actuall diſcharge of the duty of their relation to all Churches, as we have already proved from Act 20 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. neither are all Churches under ſuch obligations to duty towards them as their officers either …o ſubmit or afford maintenance, &c. to them, and therefore ordinary officers relation doth not extend to all Churches.
3. Apoſtles general relation obliged them to an Itinerant execution of their office, ſo as they could not fix in any Church; but ordinary Officers are not engaged to ſuch an execution, but by Divine appointment are fixed in ſome one church, and are bound there to reſide, which is inconſiſtent with ſuch a relation as the Apoſtles had.
4. The general relation of the Apoſtles was ſo ſpecial, as all Churches might plead a like intereſt in them, and call them (their officers,) with ordinary officers it is not ſo, our brethren themſelves being judges, Jus Div. Min. pag. 143. If ordinary officers be not equally related to all Churches, they are not at all related to them, for relations do not ſuſcipere magis & minus, unleſſe the ſubject or foundation be mutable.
Arg. 3. Miniſters are Paſtors onelyonly to them, whom they can exerciſe Church government towards, as well as teach.
Obj. Then the Apoſtles did not preach as Officers to heathens, for towards ſuch they could not exerciſe Churchgovernement. Mr. Pool p. 37.
Anſ. If Apoſtles did Preach as Officers over heathens, it did ariſe from the extraordinarineſs of their Office; for, no ordinary Officers civil or military can act as Officers toward any that they cannot govern; and having the Rule over, and being over others in the Lord, is made the ſpecificating, diſtinguiſhing Character of ordinary Officers, from ſuch as are none, or from ſuch as they are Officers to, 1 Theſ. 5. ver. 12. Heb. 13. ver. 7. 17. and they cannot be ſaid to be over thoſe that are without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. or that they cannot exerciſe Church Government towards, and therefore are not Officers to ſuch; for, what is it to be an Officer to any, but to be over them in the Lord?
Argu. 4. This brings in Epiſcopacy, to make one man an Officer over many Churches, Preacher Sent, pag. 248. 283 187.
Object. The Epiſcopal way leaves to inferiour Miniſters nothing but the name and Title of Officers, all power of Jurisdiction being ingroſſed into the Biſhops hands, &c. That government by Biſhops is a government by forreigners, as it were the power of ruling being neither in the hands of the people, nor of any choſen by them, &c. The formality of Epiſcopacy lies in this, in the Superiority of one Paſtor to another, and to many other, and of one church to all the reſt in a Dioceſs, not in the Superiority of a colledge of Pastors, or convention of churches over one Pastor or church, &c. Mr. Poole, pag. 37. 38.
A. 1. We know not that we have uſed that Argument, but onelyonly in the Pages even now quoted; and in neither of thoſe places do we aſſert a government by a Colledge of Paſtors to be Epiſcopacy; its the Superiority of [one] that we give that name unto; and therefore moſt that he ſaith here, as about the low countries not being a Monarchy, &c. is but to make the Reader believe that we ſpeak what we do not.
2. As government by Biſhops was (as he ſaith) a government by forreigners, ſo is that by Provincial and National Aſſemblies, who muſt needs act (as he telleth us Biſhops do) without knowing or being known to any one Church which they undertake to govern.
And as the choice of a Biſhop by a Dioceſs, cannot render that Government lawful; ſo the choice of a Colledge of Paſtors, by a particular Church to Rule over it, cannot warrant that; neither having footing in Scripture.
3. Epiſcopacy lies not only in the Superiority of one, to many Paſtors; but in the Superiority of one to, and uſurped Power over many Churches: ſad experience, as well as the writings of men, do ſufficiently bear witneſs to this. Dr. Field of the Church. l. 5. c. 28. ſpeaking for Biſhops, aſſerteth a Biſhop to have Preheminence over diverſe ſmaller particular congregations.
And ſuch as plead againſt Biſhops, ſpeak the ſame thing, as Smectymnu…s, pag. 54. 71. 78.
And alſo the Provincial Aſſembly in anſwer to Epiſcopal pleas ſaith (Jus Div. Min. part 2. pag. 82, 83. The believers of one City made but one church in the Apoſtles dayes, and add that the Aſian Angels were not Dioceſan Biſhops, but congregational Presbyters, ſeated each of them in one Church, not any of them in more then one. So that its undeniable, that for one man to be an Officer to more then one Church, for one to be ſet over many Churches, is Epiſcopacy, and this onelyonly do we call by that name, Preacher Sent. pag. 248. 283. and that this followeth upon their principles we have there proved, and therefore it is no frivolous or intemperate accuſation. We may turn what he ſaith upon himſelf, in this Argument.
Thoſe, the formality of whoſe Office lies in their Superiority to many Paſtors, who engroſſe all Power of Juriſdiction into their own hands, and leave to inferiour Miniſters nothing but the name and title of Officers, and make them officers without Office, and whoſe Government is ſuch, as the Power of Ruling is neither in the hands of the people, nor of any choſen by them, and who generally neither know, nor are known to thoſe whom they undertake to govern, they are no Officers of Chriſt.
Let any ſhew any Scripture proof that Chriſt owneth ſuch as Presbyters, or any Officers of his, who ſo far encroach upon the Kingly Office of Chriſt as to ſet up an Office, not equall with, but even in its formality, Superiour to, and over thoſe Officers that Chriſt hath inſtituted, yea which degradeth Chriſts Miniſters, and robbeth his people of that Power which he hath left them. But Biſhops and their Government ſaith Mr. Poole (pag. 37. 38) is ſuch.
Ergo, Biſhops are no Officers of Chriſt. Ergo, either Ordination is valid by ſuch as are no Officers, or elſe their Ordination is null who received it from Biſhops.